I’m a little confused…and I’m not the only one. There are some Mormons out there who are scratching their heads because of something Mitt Romney said:  Read below from an interview he did with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: “In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years…”

Romney: “ [T]hat doesn’t happen to be a doctrine of my church. Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth. It’s the same as the other Christian tradition.”

You can actually watch the clip here. 

Now hold on a minute. Christians and Mormons will even agree that their faiths teach different perspectives on this. It’s pretty well documented that Mormons believe that Jesus is coming back to Jerusalem AND Missouri. Read it for yourself here and here. 

Why did Romney leave the Missouri part out? He was asked point blank about this and didn’t offer up the Missouri part. Why? I’m not the only one asking that question. Some Mormons are dumfounded too. Read below from a recent news article: (see the bold part)

Romney has been questioned about the Mormon definition of God, polygamy, the location of Jesus' arrival when he returns to earth, and even a mysterious saying attributed to Smith called the "White Horse Prophecy," which some interpret as a prediction that when the U.S. Constitution is hanging "by a thread," a Mormon will rescue the nation.

Romney's tendency to gloss over Mormonism's history and distinctive tenets has upset some fellow Mormons. Some said they cringed when Romney said on "60 Minutes," "I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

Tom Grover, 26, a Mormon who is the host of a weekday talk show on politics on radio station KVNU here, said that while he thinks Romney has handled the scrutiny admirably, some of his callers were incensed about Romney's repudiation of his own ancestors' polygamy. The church outlawed the practice a century ago, but members are taught to understand that polygamy had a theological and historical context in the church, which Romney's remark ignored.

"That really left a bad taste in people's mouths," Grover said. "That's a tough thing for people to hear when their ancestors sacrificed a lot to live that life. They probably wouldn't bring polygamy back, but they honor the place of it in church history."

Audrey Godfrey, a historian who has written books with her husband, Kenneth, said of Romney, "If I were one of his relatives, I would be upset with him."

Another case arose when George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked Romney about a Mormon teaching that Jesus will come to the United States when he returns to reign on earth. Romney responded that the Messiah will return to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, "the same as the other Christian tradition."

Grover said some of his radio listeners were astounded.

"They were just in disbelief, saying, 'That's not true; Jesus is coming back to Missouri,"' Grover said. "It's the LDS Church's 10th article of faith that Zion will be built upon the American continent."

Read the whole article here.

In the last GOP debate in New Hampshire Romney said: 

“There are some pundits out there that are hoping that I’ll distance myself from my church so that that’ll help me politically, and that’s not going to happen.”

Here’s my point. When asked point blank about Jesus coming back to earth, why would he downplay the United States angle? Why not just state it like the LDS Church teaches? In this case, it looks like he’s backing away from Church doctrine. Maybe he felt it was an unfair question. But when he answered it, he stated only a half truth. Romney’s critics say he states a lot of half truths. This one only gives his critics more ammunition. Comments?