If Joseph Smith had Become President of the USA

[_Ray A]

We all know when a politcian is lying. Joseph would not have been one whit behind. Politics and religion go hand in hand, and feed off deception.

Also, if he had become president, Clinton would not have been the first president to say, "I did not have sex with that woman".

[_Uncle Dale]

We all know when a politcian is lying. Joseph would not have been one whit behind. Politics and religion go hand in hand, and feed off deception.

Also, if he had become president, Clinton would not have been the first president to say, "I did not have sex with that woman".

I would be a little concerned about the leader of a supposed Republic, also
functioning as the head of a great religious organization.

This is not like having Queen Elizabeth reigning over the remnants of the Empire,
while also serving as the titular head of the Church of England -- it would be more
like having the current leader of Scientology running Australia; or an active RCC
archbishop functioning simultaneously as Prime Minister in Canada.

What on earth would US citizens have done, had President Smith issued a
"revelation" saying that marriage to 14 year-old girls was now God's will, or that
Independence, Missouri must be made the new national capital?

UD

[_Inconceivable]

If he wasn't a prophet, he would have been successful as a politician or as a preacher.

Critics define Joseph has a charleton with charisma. Two good qualities to be successful as a preacher or a politician.

Smith was both a "successful" preacher and a politician - and yes, "a charleton with charisma", you nitwit.

"..Good qualities"? What planet are you from?

Once again, another example of calling evil good and good evil.

[_Inconceivable]

My contention is that the people of the USA could NOT have trusted Joseph Smith
to tell the truth..

Neither could they have
trusted him to put the best interests and security of the nation above all other
concerns: social, religious and political.

Depends upon your point of view, doesn't it?

Andrew Jackson.. authorized the bribery.. killed a man.. stole his landlord's wife.

Van Buren.. was Jackson's henchman.. sided with the Spanish government to return the slaves of the Armistad.

Jackson today is lionized..

Somehow I think Joseph Smith would have been a great president but could never have been elected given what was known about his plural marriages. He lacked the education of an his predecessors except for perhaps Jackson.

Let me get this straight. You are comparing the character of Smith to dirtbags of previous administrations in order to qualify him for the office they held.

Please, what makes a "great" president?

As a Mormon, I don't believe I was taught the same values as you and Whyme.

[_Uncle Dale]

...what makes a "great" president?
...

LDS might say, "Having been chosen by God," to preside over the only
country whose Constitution was written by Divine inspiration."

On a more practical level, I don't suppose that the U.S. Constitution
(or the oath taken to defend it), allows for a presidential candidate
to also reign as "King of the World" or "King of Israel" by election of
a clandestine group of Mormons known as the "Council of Fifty."

Joe had been amassing money for several years... he was crowned
'King of Israel' in 1844, by the Council of fifty, denominated the
'Ancient of days.' The fifty were all sworn to [secrecy]. I had the fact
from one who assisted at the coronation -- divulged since Joe's death.
This was the prophet's grand design...
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE ... htm#102444

UD

[_Mercury]

Joseph's run for the presidency was not a serious run.

I agree but I do not think Joseph would.

[_cinepro]

For some reason, this subject came up in Gospel Doctrine today, whereupon the teacher informed us that Joseph's run in 1844 was just to get his ideas introduced to the nation, whereupon he could win in 1848 and Joseph had a "revolutionary" approach to get rid of slavery (selling public land and buying the slave's freedom).

[_Uncle Dale]

For some reason, this subject came up in Gospel Doctrine today, whereupon the teacher informed us that Joseph's run in 1844 was just to get his ideas introduced to the nation, whereupon he could win in 1848 and Joseph had a "revolutionary" approach to get rid of slavery (selling public land and buying the slave's freedom).

I actually tend to believe this line of explanation.

But it does little to satisfy my question of why American citizens should have
trusted Smith, had he ever become the President.

I cannot yet prove it, but my best guess is that a careful inspection of all the
1844 Smith campaign literature, speeches, political documents and preaching
by Church elders would show that Smith was presenting himself as God's
choice for election -- and that sort of presentation of his candidacy does
nothing to make him trustworthy.

Smith anticipated the problems associated with his being simultaneously the
prophetic head of a large religious head and US President, and was beginning
to relegate his prophet's mantle to his brother Hyrum. Had the church/state
issue come up during his 1844 campaign, I think he was ready to declare himself
nothing more than a common elder in the LDS Church -- or, perhaps a Mitt Romney
sort of high priest without an active calling.

Smith probably also intended to use the 1844 campaign season to solidify his
connections with various influential political figures. If he could have secured the
electoral votes of Illinois, that would have provided him with serious political
clout throughout the midwest. He was still under indictment for felonies in both
Ohio and Missouri, and so could have secured a place on their ballots only by
having the sundry criminal charges dropped. Political clout would have helped.

There is also the matter of the secret Council of Fifty, and what use Smith intended
to make of its "ambassadors" behind the scenes between 1844 and 1848.

If 1848 looked particularly promising, Smith may have been thinking far enough
ahead, so as to have abandoned his plural wives by then -- thus avoiding any
complications brought on by the old charges of John C. Bennett, etc., that he
was a secret bigamist and adulterer.

Could the American people have trusted him to be honest and forthright? Could
have the American people trusted him to put their security and national interests
before those of the LDS Church and the secret Political Kingdom of God?

In a word -- no.

UD

[_Ray A]

What on earth would US citizens have done, had President Smith issued a
"revelation" saying that marriage to 14 year-old girls was now God's will, or that
Independence, Missouri must be made the new national capital?

Perhaps the "checks and balances" in government would have prevented this. I'm not entirely sure how the US system runs, but in Oz a PM would have to have a majority in the House before he could introduce anything. The Opposition and minor parties holding the balance of power, for example in the Senate, could block such moves.

I suppose the moot point is - would he have been able to become a sort of Fidel Castro? "Benevolent dictators" always seem, well, seemingly benign.
You do raise a provoking thought, but I think the American democracy established by the Founding Fathers would have been betrayed, and I think that highly unlikely to have happened.

[_Uncle Dale]

... I think that highly unlikely to have happened.

Probably you're right -- but I've never heard a Mormon denounce
the possibility of the head of their church serving simultaneously
as the President of the USA, (or as the topmost leader of some other
country). All Mormons I've ever heard talk about the matter, have
professed that the LDS Prophet would have made a good President,
(while also running the Church, promulgating new revelations, etc.)

How many of them would say the same thing about Smith's eldest son?

UD