I recall clearly that when Kennedy was running for president, many expressed concerns that the Pope would soon be calling the shots for JFK.
Religion is a factor, like it or not.
I recall clearly that when Kennedy was running for president, many expressed concerns that the Pope would soon be calling the shots for JFK.
- - - - - -
There is a huge difference between JFK and the Pope and Mitt and the LDS prophet (Thomas S. Monson atm).
The first of which, the Pope presides universally but from Europe not the Western United States. He is European and would practically be more likely to insert himself in EU politics rather than US - but that is unlikely.
The LDS prophet has insterted himself in US politics in the past - even Bob Bennet addmitted that he was ‘forcefully encouraged’ and in one case even ordered to pass legislation/earmark that would directly benefit the Mormon church. Also, being a US religion (primarily) the LDS prophet (and the Mormon church is a very political animal despite their protestation to the contrary) is more interested in US politics.
There is also a differene in how the view their heirarchy. Mormon Hierarchy and demands for obedience are absolute in Mormonism. You get out of line (like historian Grant Palmer) you are punished.
Finally, Mitt as POTUS would be used for Propaganda purposes for the LDS church to lessen the tide of those leaving (like Glenn Beck). Also, I guarantee Mitt will be held up as a fulfillment of a prophecy Smith made about his own run for POTUS in 1844 just for this purpose.
So, while tempting, the comparison between JFK and Mitt just doesn’t hold water. Mormonism and Catholicism are vastly different.