It's literally not a theocracy /in practice/. You don't get to redefine words to mean whatever you feel like. A theocracy is not a state that has some laws that correspond to one religion's moral code. It has never meant that, nor will it ever mean that.
Here are some major practical differences between a theocracy and a constitutional republic.
1. If citizens change their mind, within one election cycle they can replace every leader with atheists, or ones with different religions, and change the laws entirely. This is not possible in any theocracy, either in theory or in practice.
2. A constitution, both state and federal, limits what the state government can do, even when the leaders are all of one religion. Such limits do not exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice, because, when you rule in the name of God, limits to your rule are sinful!
3. Utah has checks and balances via different branches of government. It has judicial procedures, for instance, where minorities can seek redresses. Our state and federal governments were explicitly designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. No such systems exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice. For one, the majority doesn't rule in theocracies! When the majority rules, that makes it a democracy. I'm sure you've heard of that system of government?
4. Often, leaders disagree in Utah even when belonging to the same faith. The church itself has zero authority to adjudicate these disagreements. In a theocracy, the church's say would be final say, and all leaders would ultimately defer to church authority. Actually, they would be the ultimate church authority. In a theocracy, the ruling officials would be one and the same as the top church leadership.
> You can't get more theocratic while being inside the US.
You can't get past 0% theocratic in the US because theocracy is illegal in the U.S. You redefining the word to mean something else doesn't change this fact.