Replies

Certainly enough to know that they were viewed primarily as a political rather than a religious threat, in no small part due to Joseph Smith's inability to resist the temptations of theocracy.

On June 4 of this year, the Salt Lake Tribune ran the following article (excerpt follows)...note the bold face:

Headline: "Romney candidacy has resurrected last days prophecy of Mormon saving the Constitution" WASHINGTON - It's Mormon lore, a story passed along by some old-timers about the importance of their faith and their country. In the latter days, the story goes, the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it does not accept the legend - commonly referred to as the "White Horse Prophecy" - as doctrine. The issue, however, has been raised on those occasions when Mormons have sought the Oval Office: George Romney was asked about it during his bid in 1968, Sen. Orrin Hatch discussed it when he ran in 2000, and now Mitt Romney. "It is being raised," says Phil Barlow, a professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University. "I've heard it a bit lately." Romney says he doesn't believe in the supposed prophecy, nor did his father when he ran. "I haven't heard my name associated with it or anything of that nature," Mitt Romney told The Salt Lake Tribune during an interview earlier this year. "That's not official church doctrine. There are a lot of things that are speculation and discussion by church members and even church leaders that aren't official church doctrine. I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief." The disputed prophecy was recorded in a diary entry of a Mormon who had heard the tale from two men who were with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Ill. when he supposedly declared the prophecy. "You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed," the diary entry quotes Smith as saying. "It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber." Not only will the Mormons save the Constitution, under the prediction, but the prophecy goes further, insinuating that Mormons will control the government. "Power will be given to the White Horse to rebuke the nations afar off, and you obey it, for the laws go forth from Zion," the prophecy says.

Now I want to clarify that I mentioned my opposition before I was even aware of this "prophesy"--so it's hardly my basis of concern. Still, if you want to address all of this from just a pure "theocratic" angle, folks will at least want to be aware of the "White Horse prophesy."

One of my concerns all along is simply this: "Does this candidate have the discernment skills to make some of the most important foreign policy decisions in the world in what has to be considered as the most important role in the world?" (POTUS)

If a candidate can't accurately size up a world religion (and LDS are 100% off-base and wrong in sizing up historic Christianity since they label us 100% apostates from the faith), then are they trustworthy in sizing up a world religion like Islam?

This question isn't unique to LDS. Muslims refer to Christians as "infidels." So the same goes for Muslim candidates.

So, if we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!

I just fail to see the theocrat in Mitt Romney.

One of my key points in my earlier posts is I attempted to draw an "If-Then" conclusion: If LDS theology effects social positions, then patterns of evolving theology and evolving social positions yields leaders who are all too comfortable with shifting both theology AND social positions.

And this is where your definition of "theocracy" is too narrow. You don't include the psychology of certain aspects of theological history. If a religious leader views God & historical faith leaders as ones who constantly do 100% about-faces on social positions...where theology & social positions not only "evolve" but involve total u-turns, then my premise is that when you have a leader like Mitt who has already displayed a penchant for multiple total u-turns THEN that = a socially (as in social issues) unpredictable leader.

Wouldn't you agree that Mitt is totally unpredictable on social issues based upon his personal track record and based upon the historic leaders and the "god" he elevates as his role models?