http://thin.npr.org/s.php?sId=129883333&rid=2

Although this story aired the night before Roman Catholic pontiff Benedict XVI came to Britain, it got me to thinking how, compared to his predecessor, John Paul II, really patrician this pope is. He often seems clueless as to how people will react to what he says, and he is not very popular among the Catholic faithful. John Paul II, his predecessor and nearly as conservative (especially in his later years) was still beloved by many Catholics on his deathbed. He had what I suppose could be called the "common touch"--an afinity with common Catholic parishoners that Benedict undoubtedly lacks.

John Paul II was an outsider, he didn't appear to take himself seriously, and he liked being around people: three traits Benedict lacks in spades.

I then began wondering if the Mormons ever have had a prophet who had the "common touch". After reviewing postings on this board and elsewhere, I have to conclude with a definite "no". Thomas Monson, the current prophet, probably comes closest to having the "common touch,", but comparatively speaking, he is far from a Mormon John Paul II.

Actually, there is no way for an outsider to become a Mormon prophet. You have to join the general authorities during middle age, and you have to, as Boyd Packer once put it (I can't remember where I heard or read this) be willing to stand with the apostles against the people.

Mormonism is, by definition, a patrician religion. It teaches that its members are better than anyone else ("the only true Church, forever families"), and it stresses that its unpaid, mostly untrained male priesthood have powers of decipherment above other humans. And, unlike the Catholic church, the Mormon succession order is determined by length of time served as a Mormon apostle. I suppose that an authoritarian and patrician church should have a patrician prophet, but in a democratic society where people are expected to make their own decisions, I ultimately cannot see how such an institution could survive in the long term, which should be good news for all on this board.

he is continually releasing statements to the press that indicate that he is appallingly clueless about the real world.

I see the same struggle within TSCC. They dimly recognize that their status in society is plunging like a rock, members are quietly slipping out the door, tithing and offerings are drying up, but they can't figure out WHY.

So TSCC is trying to run some "Mormon are hip, cool people" ads and Joe Ratzinger is trying to do a world PR tour...but their marketing efforts will fall flat... and they won't know why.

Bill Maher's new season of "Real Time" kicked off last Friday night and he mentioned a security threat in connection with Pope Benedict's visit to the UK.

Apparently, UK security assigned him an additional bobby to which Pope Benny reportedly said, "Bobby, Timmy, I don't care. Just as long as he's young and fresh."

<< rim shot >>

The visit went well.

The march of people against him had about 2,000 people in London. Richard Dawkins made a spirited speech, marred somewhat when people questioned his wisdom of sharing his platform with someone who is an advocate for adults having sex with children as young as nine, so long as the child concerned wants it to happen. (Peter Tatchell) This rather spoilt the point of having an anti-paedophile priest campaign, one would have thought...

just wanted to say that I am a member of the "catholic faithful" and I absolutely adore Pope Benedict. I also thought that the visit went really well. just my two cents

We watched much of the coverage, it went really well.

We weren't able to get tickets and, sadly, I wasn't able to get a press pass. My wife wanted to meet him.

He said a few things I found interesting…

Here’s a link to the article I’m referencing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/17/pope-in-typical-british-f_n_721702.html

From the article: Benedict insisted, however, that religion has played a vital role in public discourse, as a "corrective" to "social evils" such as slavery and the "totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century."

I think a review of history will show this isn’t exactly true. Religion has always held to the traditions in place. They are not progressive until forced. Does he not recall that Christianity itself was a totalitarian ideology at certain times (with sword enforcement)? Does he not recall that Christianity enforced slavery long before it decided it was a social evil? Does he not understand equality for women and gays is a (so called) social evil to which his institution works to prevent a correction?

From the article: Benedict urged his fellow Christian leaders to be uncompromising in their evangelization, "free of intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age."

So much for the Catholics who try to claim that Catholicism doesn’t have evangelical motives. Straight from the horse's mouth: Be uncompromising in evangelization. At least he comes out and admits he is not favoring intellectualism. BKP would be proud.

From the article: Addressing parliamentarians and other dignitaries at the Palace of Westminster, Benedict denounced the "increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity" that is afflicting Britain and other liberal Western societies.

He really can’t figure out why his religion is being marginalized and deserves to be. He is either clueless or out to protect his niche/power or both.

As for blindguy’s comments, I really don’t see much difference between the Catholic Church or the Mormon church except for time, opportunity and size. Male priesthood, authority figures and self perpetuation is what they are all about. Mormons have had lovable prophets (like David O'Mckay) and creepy prophets, same as popes on a much smaller scale. The Pope is saying to stand against people who are keeping them down. Same story. Mormons like Catholics are free to make their own decisions- they both have leaders happy to tell them what to think.

Neither deserve respect simply because they feel attacked, IMO. The more this Pope complains,the more people like me are happy to comment about it. For a real eye opener, read the first few pages of comments at the bottom of the article. And some here think ~I'm~ harsh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2010 06:41PM by dagny.

While I agree with you, Danny, about the nature of religion and its roles in the moral crises of our time, I don't think that modern-day Catholicism comes anywhere near modern-day Mormonism in terms of membership control, no matter what the current pope may wish. True, their attitudes on a number of moral issues are quite similar, but Mormonism is so much more authoritarian than Catholicism. Here are just some things that Mormons have to face (and I think that as a former Mormon yourself, you already know all about them) that have no counterparts in modern-day Roman Catholicism:

regulation underwear
home teaching
visiting teaching
Strengthening The Members committee
reliance upon gossip by the bishop and other clergy
tithing
temples
temple recommends
temple marriages
forever families
Qelob
many gods
shunning (mostly)

I could go on with this list, but I think you get the point. Though the Catholic story is just as fictional as the Mormon one, the current Roman Catholic church has nowhere near the kind of control over its members as the LDS church does.

It seems to me that the pope is only telling of the good things that religion is doing. How is that any different than you telling only the bad things? Like everything else, religion is a mixed bag. They have a record of good and bad.I appreciate people who can see both sides of an issue.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that the pope is only telling of
> the good things that religion is doing. How is
> that any different than you telling only the bad
> things? Like everything else, religion is a mixed
> bag. They have a record of good and bad.I
> appreciate people who can see both sides of an
> issue.

How is it different? You mean I'm the same in status of the Pope only the opposite side?

Here's some differences. I'm not a religious leader who perpetuates myths and accepts donations to keep the power of my position viable. I'm not the one posing as a religious authority with a supposed higher knowledge to what some God wants. I'm not the one telling everyone how and who to boink. I'm not the one lecturing about morals to people who are vulnerable or brainwashed so much that they trust me or take what I say seriously. I'm not the one living among opulence while preaching humility and care for the poor. I'm not the one telling people to breed irresponsibly, demonizing gays and not allowing women in my power circle. I'm just an average individual.

As for good things about the Church, I can think of some. I just think the price people pay for the good they get from their religion is too big for the price they pay to accept nonsense and empower people who tell them what to do. I think in this day and age the negatives outweigh the benefits. Religion is extremely divisive (while claiming the opposite).

Just so everyone know, I can think of lots of good things about religion. Here are some good things I'll mention now.

Some people like ritual. Ritual connects them to meaning and can calm and comfort. I personally see ritual as a waste of time but obviously most people value it very much. I see this as a positive thing religion offers. Rituals make rites of passage meaningful.

Another good thing is charity people do in the name of religion. Not that religion is needed to do this. Considering religion sells itself as having a monopoly on charity you would expect them to be doing a lot more than they actually are. Still, anything they do is appreciated. This too is a positive thing- especially if they do it without the intent of sharing religion.

More good from religion: a feeling of support and community. It's like having a ready made support group who agrees with you.

Even more good from religion: Comfort, answers, and protection from existential angst. There is a benefit for some to not have to deal with the concept of mortality. There is comfort in thinking someone has everything all planned out and everyone lives happily ever after. I do think this is a positive thing. Look around at people. A lot don't have much going for them. Religion is their source of hope, comfort and justice. I say let them have this so they can live easier lives.

Last good thing I'll say about religion for now: Religion helps manage change slowly in a culture. It provides the glue that helps everyone know what is expected. No matter where in the world humans thrived, they created religion. It helped us survive or it would not have thrived.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Like I said, the biggest difference is that the Catholics have had 1000 years to mellow out and the Mormons are only 200 years old. I contend that the Mormons are repeating the same kinds of issues that the Catholics had to deal with when they were a young church. There were divisions and incredibly controlling and ridiculous beliefs then. Some remain now. The Mormons had violent believers but pale in comparison to Catholics.

All it takes is time. In my lifetime, Catholics were told when to eat meat and given a goofy definition of "meat" (fish on Fridays). I remember when women had to cover their heads in church- usually the square lace scarves. Nothing on your list comes close to the nonsense of miracles and Saint relics- they are no worse than teachings like Kolob. Even today it is taught that Christ is present in the Eucharist although the wording lately is wishy-washy. The words are cloaked so they don't sound so crazy- just like Mormon doctrine is slowly changing.

If you go over to the new advent Catholic encyclopedia for example, all you have to do is look through the index of Church Documents to see Mormons are amateurs compared to Catholics. I can find anything on the list you gave in spades in the Catholic traditions.

Catholic rituals and dress are even more sophisticated than the LDS temple. The ultimate Catholic version of shunning is the invention of hell.

I really think the issue of control is subjective. You just don't hear about all the jack Mormons who believe but obviously are not controlled by the Mormon church at all. Likewise you see Catholics so dedicated that they give their life to their church dressed up as penguins (nuns) being easily as dogmatic (and symbolically married to Jesus!) as any Mormon I know. Watch the Catholic channel on TV to see a whole level of crazy Mormons can only envy.

I'm guessing if the Mormon church were to survive a 1000 years they would be lucky to maintain the control the Catholic church had after 1000 years. The Mormon Church is a footnote in Christianity compared to the Catholics.

Actually, you and I are not really that far apart. If you read my message again, you will note that I am making the comparison between modern-day Mormonism and modern-day Catholicism. I fully concur that some of the stuff the Roman church has done over the 1.9 millenia of its existance makes the Mormons look like amateurs (the Inquisition? Father Charles Coughlin)? In addition, I can still hear weird religious Catholic doctrine on the radio now (a Catholic group based out of Sacramento, California, took over an AM station here in Phoenix last year--the same group that owns KIHU-AM in Tooele, Utah). Yet my point still stands. For all of its weirdness and mumbo jumbo, the modern Roman Catholic Church still does not exercise the control over its members that the modern Mormon church does.

This sounds a bit weird, but in all fairness to the pope, he's really old, and his views weren't so controversial when he was younger. If he was 20 years-old, I'd understand the hatred towards him.

In a way, it's a shame that mormon leaders aren't as open as the Pope is.