Romney not to get into specifics about LDS beliefs but will

Post by **_Who Knows** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:02 pm

I'm wondering if he'll go to the temple at all. And if so, wouldn't the secret service need to go in with him? I guess, then, that the the secret service would have to be TR holding LDS? And if so, how do you get around employment discrimination laws (you can't ask an employee what religion they are)?

Post by **_the road to hana** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:13 pm

SatanWasSetUp wrote:There has to be some calling he could perform while president.

Missionary in Chief.

I imagine he has a "get out of jail free card" on this one, since he and his wife Ann very likely have had their Second Anointing. If he were elected, and served one or two terms, he'd no doubt be called to be a General Authority following (which is even a possibility if he isn't elected).

Post by **_mocnarf** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:21 pm

Zoidberg wrote:That speech was AWESOME!!! There was a phrase in it I just had to put in my sig line.

ROFL
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney

Yah, right....
Tell that to Muslim wanabi fundametalist types, the Jim Jones type of Christian, the Catholics of the inquistion......

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:18 pm

Anyone really think Mitt's talk is going to reverse this trend???

The most dramatic result to come out of the poll, which is based on telephone interviews with 1,408 registered Iowa voters on Dec. 5 and 6, is Huckabee's emergence from the shadows of the GOP race into the front runner's spot in just two months. The ordained Southern Baptist minister now leads Romney by a two-to-one margin, 39 percent to 17 percent, among likely GOP caucus-goers. In the last NEWSWEEK survey, conducted Sept. 26-27, Huckabee polled a mere 6 percent to Romney's 25 percent, which then led the field.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215

Post by **_karl61** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:56 pm

I think that a lot of people, at the last moment in the booth, will choose Mitt.

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:21 pm

truth dancer wrote:
They don't have handicap facilities to allow for handicap people in the temple? I was pretty sure they did.

Those with some disabilities will never be allowed to view a sealing... for example those who are unable to have their endowment, or those for whom the ordinance/convenants are not necessary.

In other words, those with mental disabilities.

I apologize if this has already been posted on this long thread. Here was the official policy in the 1998 CHI:

Members Who Have Disabilities:

Endowment. Members who have physical disabilities may receive their own endowment.

Melchizedek Priesthood holders and sisters who have mental disabilities may receive their own endowment if the bishop determines that they have sufficient mental capacity to understand it and to make and keep the associated covenants. If the member lives with his or her parents, the bishop counsels with them.

Sealing to Parents. Persons with mental disabilities who are eight or older and are sufficiently accountable must be baptized before being sealed to their parents. Those who are not accountable do not need to be baptized before being sealed. Bishops refer questions about specific cases to the stake president, who may refer the questions to the First Presidency.

Members older than 21 who do not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the endowment may be sealed to parents without being endowed.

Work for the Dead. Members who have disabilities may do temple work for the dead if they (1) have sufficient mental capacity to understand the ordinance and (2) can care for themselves without help or are accompanied by relatives or friends who can provide the help needed.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:45 am

I think that a lot of people, at the last moment in the booth, will choose Mitt.

Do you live in the Bible Belt?

Post by **_karl61** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:57 am

beastie wrote:
I think that a lot of people, at the last moment in the booth, will choose Mitt.

Do you live in the Bible Belt?

I will call it the - oh, what the hell vote. I mean when was the last time they had Presidential candidate that
looked like a game show host. You always hear people say that they don't like either one but I think Mitt. being a former
Governor from a liberal state will get the vote. Plus, in the last thirty plus years we put mostly governors in the Oval office.
I think JFK was the last sitting senator. I live in Southern Calif where it's going to be like 40 degrees tonight.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:13 am

Ok, maybe in CA people will vote for him at the last minute, but that's not going to be happening in the Bible belt. And I think that many republicans realize that, and would be wary of nominating him even if they personally don't have a problem with his Mormonism. Like Democrats, they not only want the candidate they'd personally prefer, but one they think has a chance of winning.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:35 am

beastie wrote:Ok, maybe in CA people will vote for him at the last minute, but that's not going to be happening in the Bible belt. And I think that many republicans realize that, and would be wary of nominating him even if they personally don't have a problem with his Mormonism. Like Democrats, they not only want the candidate they'd personally prefer, but one they think has a chance of winning.

How do you account for the myriad of endorsement Romney has received from evangelical leaders?

Course you may be right. I think fundie EVs can be some of the most narrow minded bigots around. Oh no! I used the bigot word again. But it is what it is. The other thread by chonguey on this topic is pretty much on point.