Mitt Romney and his Temple Garment

Maybe TMI :stuck_out_tongue:

His Temple Garment undershirt is clearly visible under his shirt. The neckline is pretty unique and that’s not a regular T-shirt.

I really don’t want the image of his cotton cod piece in my mind. :smack: way to TMI

Is it significant? Well, maybe or maybe not. The voters can decide. It’s my understanding your average Mormon doesn’t wear Temple Garments. Its reserved for the more devote ones. Meaning Mrs. Romney is wearing her set too. A great natural birth control method if I ever saw one. :wink:

I wasn’t planning on voting for Romney regardless of what drawers he wears. But I do find it interesting that someone this devote is running. The last super religious President was Jimmy Carter and that didn’t work out too well. Although he did admit to lust in his heart in a Playboy interview. :stuck_out_tongue:

“Devout.” And we already knew Romney was more devout than the average Mormon. Religious underwear is funny, but this feels a lot like people pointing and laughing at the guy because he’s from a religion that’s less than mainstream.

Yeah, and what about those funny hats many Jews wear? Ha, ha, ha!!!

I normally have no issues with a candidate’s religion unless its too fervent. Any politician has to be open to compromise to govern. If your beliefs make you too rigid then that can limit the persons effectiveness and ability to govern.

I only posted this article because it indicates the degree of religious passion this candidate has. Its been mentioned here on the dope that your average Mormon doesn’t wear Temple Garments.

Romney has said he won’t govern by his religious beliefs. Is that true or not? Its something to consider when selecting a candidate.

Tiny hats are funny. But magic underwear is *objectively *funnier. It covers the poopy hole.

I think Senator Sentorum is probably just as devout as Romney.

Yeah, but he’s a Catholic, a cult of fine lineage stretching back to antiquity. And no weird clothing necessary, except for an occasional graven image on a chain.

Again, it’s been known for ages that Romney was very active in the Mormon church. He held some leadership positions over the years, for example. What does the underwear tell you that that doesn’t?

I’m not seeing how he’s more devout than, say, G. W. Bush, who purported to be a born-again Christian and promoted a lot of the same socially conservative agenda. It just looks weirder because Romney comes from a younger and less mainstream denomination.

If only he had been governor of a state somewhere so we could judge by past experience.

As he seems to have disavowed much of that experience as governor, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to judge him based on that.

There are plenty of valid reasons for rejecting Romney as a candidate, his religion is most definitely not one of them. Whether his religion requires or encourages him to wear special underwear or even a pointy bra really isn’t any of our business. If we want to do more than pay lip service to the first amendment, how about we stop speculating and worrying about our candidates’ religous beliefs?

Wait, more devout than the average Mormon? I don’t think so… at least, not more devout than the average active, churchgoing Mormon. He seems about par for the course there, in my experience.

Does the average Mormon become a ward bishop and a stake president? I thought those were leadership positions, which would mean that by defintion, the they’re things the average Mormon doesn’t do.

It would not surprise me to learn that Santorum wears a cilice beneath his clothes.

Catholicism has a tight monopoly on its weird clothing - all for the priests, none for the flock.
Which is too bad, really. I could get behind a candidate waving a heavy crozier around. Though mostly because I wouldn’t like to stand in front of a guy waving a heavy crozier around.

Back when I was an active member of the church (late '70’s) average mormon MEN are exactly who became bishops and stake presidents, etc. Part of the “lure” of the missionary talks was that the church was run not by hired clergy but by members of each individual ward/stake.

I understand they’re lay positions. I’m asking- are those leadership positions, or does just about everybody become a stake president at some point?

Aside:

Possible apocryphal story about Harry Truman. He had the balls to go speak to a Klan rally.

“You know, you guys have Jews in your organization. I know this because my partner in the haberdashery is a Jew. He says that only a Jew would be smart enough to take a ninety-five cent sheet, pay a seamstress ten cents to sew it up, and sell it to you guys for five ninety-five.”

(paraphrased from memory)

/aside

No, because he’s a Mormon. That’s different, y’know.

Not only are Romney’s temple garments completely irrelevant, but any effort to try to make them relevant is only going to inevitably backfire. Let’s keep our criticisms focused where it matters, on his politics.