It would be a mistake to nominate someone who can barely win 12% of the vote in a conservative state like Utah,
Didn’t the Mormons try to set up a Theocracy in the middle of the United States and replace the Constitution of the United States with a Council of Fifty as a central ruling body which would mostly consist of, of course, LDS Mormon leadership and also allow a few “prominent citizens” even if they aren’t Mormon but have a lot of money on “The Council”?
In this system the leaders of the LDS Church would have important dominant secular roles within the political machinations as they channel what they said would be God’s will, which of course only these Mormon leaders have the ability to do. After God’s will is channeled to the “Kings” (the “leaders” of this system identifying as Kings viz Thy Kingdom Come and no need to wait), and the law passed down from directly above to the leaders, the others are allowed to haggle over whether they will follow the law or not but of course if you decide not to you have free will to move to California. If there is no consensus on such matters in the Council, then whoever is the Leader of the Mormon State system that is based on the old Cunstitution of the United States, sort of, but which replaces it, then the Leader would “seek the will of the Lord” and break the deadlock through divine revelation, done deal. This would be a “Theocratic Republic” or “Theocratic Democracy” thus a “Theodemocracy” and is what Glenn Beck believes in, and the father of Ted Cruz is not too far from these ideas except he believes Ted Cruz is anointed as one of these “Kings” to take the booty of the non-members in a “Great Transfer of Wealth” and give the booty to the “priests” like himself.
So this 1800’s thing in Mormonism and Cruzism today sort of jive, I wonder if there are a lot of Beckers in Utah ready to want to setup the new Theocratic Republic who are voting for Cruz?
The only thing that is a bit unnerving about this thought is, this entire Theocracy is entirely incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, in fact it wants to replace it with a new one, and it sounds pretty “statist” to me even if rich and prominent non-sect members are allowed, in a minority capacity of course, to be on The Council of 50, but it might be generous to be expanded to the Council of 100 and perhaps include some foreigners on it considering Mormon leaders can come from other countries.
However, it turned out in Illinois the people started to “rebel” against Joseph Smith’s “theocratic kingdom” which was thought to be seeking to setup a “country within a country”, and it got really bad and folks getting thrown out of the State as a threat to the current Constitution.
Today it seems, however, some may still support getting rid of the current Constitution. But I am wondering, how is all of this “conservative”? Everything is being replaced and not conserved.