Don't forget that virtually every mormon (oh sorry: Mormon) male over the age of 14 has been ordained as a "Bishop," and all pious males are expected to wear special sacred underwear, often compared to an orthodox jewish man's yamuka, but of course worn in a different location on the body.

Ask me, any Bishop in his faith who tells you that his religious beliefs will not guide his public life is either lying (not exactly ethical behavior), or considers his Bishophood to be a throwaway title.

True, -I- consider a Mormon Bishophood a meaningless title, but that's not how the faithful are supposed to look at it. The title is supposed to serve as a present reminder that they live their lives for their version of God, and that their every action should "glorify" that God

(and don't get me started on why every God I've come across needs "glorifying," as if they had a self-image problem)

So remember, when you vote for Romney, you are voting for an ordained Bishop who wears special holy (hopefully not holey) undergarments and says that will not affect his performance in office.

Mormon males in good standing and after being taught and approved in church doctrine are ordained as Deacons at age 14, then they proceed to being ordained Teachers and finally Priests in the Aaronic Priesthood...the lower priesthood described in the Old Testament.
At age 18, if found worthy, they are ordained Elders.

They are not ordained "Bishops"...The Bishop is the head of the local Ward(Area fellowship).
The Elder is a priesthood of the Melchidezek Order. The higher priesthood of the Old Testament.

At least get your facts correct, please.:-)

This speech should be about Romney and his concepts regarding the relationship between government and religion and not a discussion of the Mormon religious views. With that in mind, references to Mormon "quirks" are not relevant or necessary. On the other hand, reviewers should carefully examine the speech to see if there is any indication of a distancing from the "hand-in-glove" relationship that has been in place for the last seven years.

Dan, he said that his religous LEADERS wouldn't influence his decisions. He did not say that his beliefs, core values and personal convictions wouldn't influence his decisions.

One of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the Constitution is a document inspired by God. As such, the Bill of Rights already provides against policy being dictated or guided by organized religion. In his belief in the inspired nature of the Constitution (this came across clearly in his speech), Romney already has "religous permission," even a religous mandate, to act independent of direct church council in governmental affairs. This doesn't free him (nor any other president) from using their own convictions and values as a compass in their decisions.

Ironically, some "Evangelicals" seem to be more willing to allow by default a candidate to be elected that would directly attack their core values and destroy the protection of such in society than to see someone elected whom believes in their same core values, but views the nature of Christ differently than they do.

These same groups of "Christian Conservatives" claim to use the Bible as their guide (I don't doubt they do). However, there is Biblical precedence for "non-believers" (if that is what you wish to call Romney) guiding God's "chosen people" for God's will. Consider Cyrus, whom helped return the Israelites back to Jerusalem after they were led away captive. He was spoken of BY NAME by Isaiah hundreds of years before he was born and later helped deliver God's chosen people, yet he was a "non-believer."

Just food for thought.