His underwear is a lot more interesting than his politics. Which ain’t saying much, but there it is.
As far as I know, he doesn’t reverse his underwear as often as he does his politics however. That would be gross.
I think they’re relevant, but that’s because I’m an exmormon and I know what covenants he made in the temple, which those garments represent. I find those covenants to be extremely disturbing for the leader of this country. However, I’ve been shot down to itty bitty pieces so many times over this, apparently I’m the wingnut who won’t just get off it.
Aside from the doctrinal issues (Masonic-origin rituals, special undergarments representing covenants with god), the garments have come to represent a tool of control to me. I never wore them myself, as I left the church before going-to-temple age/circumstance in life. But I’ve spoken to an awful lot of people who felt like shackles had been lifted from them when they finally left the church and then, finally took the garments off.
So for me: temple covenants + physical reminder of control = The mormon church is running for president, not a single guy named Mitt Romney. I am, apparently, the only person in this country that scares the shit out of.
So, forgiving my ignorance, but do you buy those garments? Like, at Wal-Mart? How many does one typically have?
ZCMI, I should think.
I agree. However I think it’s fair to point out that for a large number of voters–particularly evangelicals–Romney’s religion is problematic:
I know commentators have presented a lot of reasons why Romney has failed to seal the deal with his base, but IMO they’ve tip-toed around a big one: Their base doesn’t particularly like Mormons. If that’s the case, they will lap this up on their own–no need for the Democrats to even talk about it.
Indeed, I’m sure a Jew would trouble them far less. Perhaps even a Muslim would. At least they don’t try to call themselves Christians while believing WTFdidyousay?!
A question about Romney and Temple Garments came up in GQ a few months ago.
Right or wrong, its on voter minds.
What about the special Jewish underwear, the one with the tassles (IIRC)?
If that is not too strong a word . . .
I don’t know which commentators you listen to, but I hear it brought up all the time. No one is tip toeing around it.
Mormons call themselves Christians because they are Christians. I’m more than a little certain they don’t base their stance on your personal opinion of that issue.
Neither at Wal-Mart nor at ZCMI. Members the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who happen to have a current and valid temple recommend may purchase the garments from the church distribution system.
Forgot to change “your” to “the Evangelical’s”. Then missed the edit window. That’s what I get for posting from work where I shouldn’t have any interruptions because I have no classes to teach today, but the interruptions are there nevertheless.
Wait a minute. Nobody is talking about burning him at the stake. We’re talking about not voting for him to be leader of the free world. If he devoutly believes in what I consider nonsense, then I think that’s an excellent thing to know, and I sure as hell will hold it against him when I cast my vote.
I was saying that from the POV of those mentioned in CJJ’s* post #26, who find the idea of a Mormon POTUS as such objectionable, which I don’t particularly. (Druther have a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a SubGenius. Someday.)
For the rest, in the End only Christ can say what’s Christian, but you must admit that Mormon Scripture, doctrine, theology, cosmology, Christology, and mythology are on several points very deeply and fundamentally heretical to all Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians. Even to Nestorians, I daresay. It’s like they’re all at this table over here, and LDS is at that table over there. (While the Witnesses and Adventists and Christian Scientists are just kinda, you know, hovering around awkwardly and feeling tempted to drink . . .) And you must admit that that matters, politically, in America, it is what gives Mormons acceptance problems that are essentially different from those of Jews and Muslims. Protestants and Catholics mostly count each other “Christian” nowadays; but, to practically all non-Mormon American self-ID’d Christians, Mormonism is, like, Bizarro-Christianity; which is more disturbing than Buddhism, or something. That’s what this thread is about.
A little bit of a hijack: Do devout Mormons wear these garments when playing sports that normally require briefer gear? How about when swimming? Any professional Mormon sports players who either play with the garments on show under the usual uniform or have them modified?
Eta I reckon the only reason the *Daily Mail *ran this story was to have an excuse to feature the temple garments, which are pretty much not known about in Britain.
Nope.
Sorry; only funny when worn as a modesty patch.
To me Romney’s religious faith is wholly irrelevant to his qualifications for high office. But (there’s always a but) there are 2 aspects that raise my eyebrows.
- Romney had a high and influential position in the Church of the Latter Day Saints. So it’s fair to review his performance as a man of the cloth, just as it is fair to review his work with the LA Olympics, or Huckabee’s religious vocation before he became Arkansas governor.
As it happens, I give the man a pass with regards to his leadership of Bostonian Mormons, on balance. I’ll note though that he did have more than one run-in with certain female church members.
- I have absolutely no clue what motivates the guy, given his varying policy positions and predilection to make ludicrous if crowd-pleasing claims. Why does he want to be President? I doubt whether sectarian reasons play a role, but I’m still at a bit of a loss. I’ve heard certain commentators trot out the usual Oedipal speculation, but I find it unconvincing. Now this is one aspect of the man I find reassuring: Business school and law school — he got a double degree at Harvard in 1975 — would hone Mr. Romney’s analytic bent, as would his years at Bain and his experience turning around the troubled 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Whether he was “expanding the boundaries of private equity or enacting a novel universal health care plan” in Massachusetts, the authors of this book say, “he followed a trusty formula: pursue data aggressively, analyze rigorously, test constantly, and observe always.”
“Having grown up around engines, Romney adopted a kind of car hobbyist’s mind-set,” they write. “Almost anything, he believed, could be taken apart, studied, and re-engineered.”
After the collapse of his 2008 presidential bid, Mr. Romney talked through the failure with his advisers, crunching the numbers and evaluating what went wrong. He concluded, say Mr. Helman and Mr. Kranish, that “he had failed to get across what he was really all about,” that “he had lacked definition.” That’s from a book review of The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman. The problem is that his pandering to the right wing has left absolutely no room for and given no hint of technocratic aspirations. So that can’t be his motivation, can it? ‘The Real Romney,’ by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman - Review - The New York Times
Hatchet job:
Oedipal argument: Many questions remain: Why is Romney in politics? When it comes to issues such as abortion, on which he has taken opposite positions at different times, does he have principles or beliefs? What does he think he is defending? Kranish and Helman do not exactly ask or answer these questions. But the mass of evidence and insight they’ve gathered reveals a man who has devoted himself not to elaborating a new politics but to doggedly making the philosophy of his father — a slightly anachronistic, executive-suite Republicanism in which politics is not defined by the interplay of interest groups or social movements but by the decisions of leaders — come to life. http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/book-review-the-real-romney-by-michael-kranish-and-scott-helman/2012/01/30/gIQAxG2p4Q_print.html
That last hypothesis is highly dubious: Romney the elder was a liberal Republican: if he went into politics today he would be a Democrat. And Mitt has carved out no viable way of offsetting the current congressional GOP’s tumultuous conservatism, be it phasing out Medicare and Social Security or upturning the country’s credit rating by threatening default on our debt. He had good reason: Huntsman was creamed for even hinting about allusions to references to dog whistles about such matters. Leaders don’t hand down decisions in today’s Republican Party. Half of their congressional leaders are crazy and the other half is terrified of being primaried by crazies.
So why does this guy want to be President anyway?