Posted this comment in the New York Times:hope it gets some people thinking.It is in relation to a story about Charlie Black - an "informal adviser" to Mitt Romney.

"Mitt Romney may deny it as much as he likes but another "informal adviser" will be President Thomas S. Monson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There is just no way that Mitt, a committed, temple attending Mormon, will ever go against the dictates and commands of what Mormons like to think of as "God's living prophet and mouth piece on earth."

Mitt Romney has made certain vows and covenants in the Mormon temple which require him to give his all - his time, talent (including his very life, if required) and everything which he has been blessed with or may be blessed with for the building up of the "kingdom of God on earth" that is, the Mormon Church.

While many cite the constitution as requiring no religious test for political office, I think Mitt Romney presents the United States with something which the founding fathers did not envisage. Here is a man, who according to his own words - his vows and covenants- places his religious beliefs above all else, any earthly allegiance, family loyalty or love of country.

So it's not really as straight forward as some seem to think. Any one voting for Mitt Romney is, in fact, getting much more than they voted for. Should circumstances change and require Mitt to make a choice, to whom will he give his allegiance?"

The question you ask is the one I wish were asked during the BBC interview with Jeffery R. Holland. While the Mormon Church doesn't seem to have a system of checks and balances, hopefully those that operate in the U.S. Government would prevent something terribly bad. While Mormons would be thrilled to have a Mormon President, I think the Church would tread lightly. If Utah governors are an example, the Church would not necessarily get its way. I don't know. It's an interesting question, more so than the throat-slitting business, but much less sexy.