>>Beyond that, let’s focus on that word “disqualify” ..”
I purposely defined the meaning I was using in this context as “rule out voting for”. This was the focus, not whether someone qualified for the ballot.
In hindsight, I should have just written “rule out voting for” without “disqualify” for clarity sake. My apologies.
This confusion aside, it seems that your post is affirming that you would rule out voting for a member of the LDS on this basis alone (with some rare exceptions.) This is different than what I concluded in previous posts.
>>You see, the issue here then isn’t even primarily the Mormon candidate; it’s the potential Mormon “prophet” who can overreach..
“Potentially” pretty much any candidate can overreach in this regard and use whatever historical or scriptural justification they require. . E.g., Calvin’s Geneva, Christendom in the middle ages.
In my view, I’m looking for your objective criteria that fits LDS, and, in my view again, the criteria is subjective.
That’s, of course, your and everyone (including myself) else’s prerogative. But a position based on subjective truth cannot be used validly in an objective debate looking toward the truth above the individual level.
thanks for your courteous discussion.
In the last five years, I've come up with probably a dozen different criteria (I call them principles) upon which I've based my conclusions.
Your comment here is only a reaction to one of those...
As far as pinpointing "justification" rooted in a POTUS' faith that would apply here, consider these three statements:
(a) Something could occur ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, to ANYONE. We could call this the 'Wildcard 'potential'...And it would be the closest to your comment: “Potentially” pretty much any candidate can overreach in this regard and use whatever historical or scriptural justification they require.
(b) On the opposite end might be specific revelation -- a "thus says the Lord" that is NOT ambiguous in any way.
(c) Now...in between the two above is the "middle ground" of...
...evidence...
...which consists of not only precedents but a PATTERN--a track record.
It's a "scouting report" based upon previously revealed patterns of inclination. It asks: Do they have the capacity and the oft-mentioned desire -- that, if, coupled with the power -- they would seek to implement an overreach politically?
I've made the case with this chart: The Nauvoo Expositor Affair [Death of Mormon Joseph Smith], see post#10 ... Quotes from FOUR of the Mormon leaders are from the 60s to the 80s...vs. "ancient history"
For you to claim that a given Christian leader could use ANY Scriptural justification to overreach politically is sadly lacking specifics. Sorry...but a generic statement made up without specific cause or basis is lacking. (Which scriptures? Who's applied them in the past half-century in a way that causes concern? What candidates have embraced such interpretations?)
Even your claim that a given Christian leader could use Calvinistic or Middle Age precedents to reoccur fails to show any consistent patterns of Christian thought intruding upon Christian political candidates in the 21st century.
You see the difference here is the "environment" being swam in.
All I have to do is to say, "Sorry, but Christian candidates don't swim in the environment of Calvin's Geneva or Middle-Age Catholicism."
In comparison, it doesn't even matter what the environment is or has been for Romney or other Lds candidates (say, like Huntsman). Why? Because the puppeteer is the key...
The Lds "prophet" can say, "Jump" -- and the President would say, "How high?" (Again...this isn't wild speculation or conjecture out of nothing; see the chart -- see the statements made there by powerful Lds "prophets")
Toss in everything from alzheimers to senility that could strike an Lds "prophet" in his 80s or 90s, which could at least temporarily impact what he commands a POTUS to do, and duck!
Oh, and BTW, there IS ONE specific I listed for Romney in that chart...see the final line...the vow's he taken!!! It's all-encompassing. That's an objective vow upon which the voter can measure.