Andrew Sullivan has raised the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormon underwear. Sullivan, usually a very astute and articulate voice, goes a bit too far on this one.
Rabbi Grossman is right on this one. Who really cares what undergarments Romney wears or doesn’t wear?
I know this is a total overstatement, but what goes on inside someone’s heart, head, or pants is not my concern. I am not sure why it matters what Romney wears unless we have reason to suspect it will influence his voting record and public policy.
Personally, I would be more worried about a president wearing a kippah or burkha or cross out in public than someone wearing a tallit kattan with tzizizt (a Jewish undergarment that has fringes) tucked inside his pants or Mormon underwear. Does his underwear tell us that he is a zealot or a Mormon extremist? Maybe, but let’s first focus on his record.



posted December 7, 2006 at 7:10 pm
The Mormon “underwear” has to do with “magical” protection. However it is not right to mention it in this case. Even knowledgeable Christian missionaries to the Mormons advise not mentioning this topic- because it does not profit anyone. Thank you for your time.
posted December 7, 2006 at 8:35 pm
I still remember when President Clinton went on MTV and was asked whether he wore briefs or boxers. For pete’s sake can we get beyond underwear?
posted December 15, 2006 at 11:27 pm
oh my, when is that ‘magical protection’ canard going to die? Mormon theology and practice says _nothing_ about temple garments being ‘magical’ or offering any ‘magical protection’. They are, simply and only reminders of covenants of chastity, charity and devotion Mormons make in the temple. _Some_ Mormons ascribe ‘magical’ qualities to them (and what religious people hasn’t (saint’s icons…etc, etc, etc), but it’s not official or even a majority of Mormons who believe that.