For some time there has been a minor feud between two LDS apologists: Daniel C. Peterson and Kevin Graham. Peterson for various understandable reasons has greater support among the apologist denizens of the FAIR universe. He is better known, more published, a professor at BYU, and an excellent writer. Kevin, for his part, is a solid thinker and a decent writer. Both men believe in the truth of Mormonism and have undertaken to defend it against its critics.
Numerous threads at FARMS provide evidence of the rancor that has arisen between them. Oddly, the subject about which most of this ill will exists is Islam, not Mormonism. Peterson, a professional Islamicist, is understandably sympathetic toward and protective of the culure of his expertise. Kevin Graham, although not an expert, is a quick study and has made a number of excellent points which are critical of Islam.
Mormons fall on different sides of political issues that touch on Islam, as the Peterson/Graham debate illustrates. Still, I think there are reasons why some informed LDS people sympathize with elements of fundamentalist Islam. I think one of these reasons can be encapsulated in the word theocracy.
A few nations like Iran have succeeded in establishing Islamic regimes that reflect the strict values established in the Koran. While most Americans distrust these governments and abhor the terrorist acts supported by them, there is a certain blindness to the role religion has played in this matrix of theocracy and violence. Why the blindness on the role of religion? I believe that one reason is because on a certain level some Christians and Mormons abhor the violence while envying the limited success of theocracy in shaping the lives of the peoples of these countries according to the precepts of highly conservative religious minorities.
The Mormon marriage with American government was once viewed as partial and ideally temporary. God revealed to Joseph Smith the Lord's tolerance of the Church 'befriending' constitutional government in the United States, but at the same time Joseph Smith had himself anointed king of the kingdom of God on earth--this as he was beginning to mount his campaign for the U.S. presidency. Joseph may not have seen the contradiction between establishing theocracy and participating in American democracy, but few Americans today could stomach a presidential candidate who engineered his own kingship in a shadow world government scheme.
Oddly, Mormonism, it would seem, is a belief system that has continued to produce would-be American monarchs. James Strang, leader of a Mormon schismatic group in the early post-Smith years, fashioned himself as the theocratic monarch of Beaver Island, Michigan. In more recent years, a Mormon convert from Greek Orthodox Christianity--Alex Joseph--began to practice polygyny and proclaimed himself a monarch in Southern Utah. These men did not remain members of the LDS Church, but they were inspired by the example of Joseph Smith.
Is it possible that some Mormons envy elements of Islamic theocracy? I would say yes, but I doubt that any prominent LDS person would openly espouse such views. Some Mormons believe that they will rescue the Constitution of the United States from grave danger, although, as in the case of many prophecies, they are short on specifics. Yet, one should not confuse their view of saving the US Constitution with upholding American government in its current form. Sure, some Mormons who put stock in this prophecy believe exactly that, but some also see the US Constitution as but a precursor to the millennial government by the sovereign Christ.
How do some of these Mormons envision their rescue the of Constitution and ushering in of God's kingdom? Simply put, their objective is to peacefully transform our country's laws and institutions to conform to their vision of the kingdom of God. In defensive terms, this means protecting our country from legalizing sin, and in an assertive fashion this means legislating against sin. It also means fighting the atheists and secularists who seem to them to want to take God out of government. Indeed, it means refashioning society through legal means to conform to a Christian-Mormon ideal.
Wouldn't you think that these folks have some plan in mind for forming their own government?
There are a few differences between a Mormon theocrat and an Islamic theocrat. The most important is that the Mormon theocrat will likely work within established institutions of government to achieve his ends. Violent Mormon revolution is unlikely. The second is that Mormons are such a small minority everywhere except in the population-challenged states of the West like Utah and Idaho that they pose a relatively small threat even in the unlikely event that they should get restive. Finally, Mormonism no longer advocates conflict and agitation the way it used to. Even in the days when Mormons battled with the 'Gentile' mobs, Mormon violence never reached the status of a general imperative.
Some Mormons do cooperate with likeminded right-wing Christians to achieve a more fundamentalist Christian nation. The LDS Chiurch itself has poured millions of dollars into fighting against the cause of women's rights and gay rights. Earlier than this, prominent Latter-day Saints (like former LDS Church president Ezra Taft Benson) were among the most fearful of the phantoms of communism in this country. They basically have an apocalytic world view in which they anticipate the end of the United States and their own role in saving the world. These beliefs make them very motivated to push their own political agenda now.
Update: Since Daniel Peterson brought up this post on FAIR, I decided to revisit it to clarify the language and remove certain unfelicitous imprecisions. Dan believes that I have accused him of being an "aspiring Mormon theocrat who finds inspiration in the Islamic Republic of Iran and in the former Taliban." I have no idea whether Dan is an "aspiring Mormon theocrat" or that he does find such inspiration in these groups. Neither did I accuse him of such.
