Pope Benedict: Christians Need To Engage The World.

[why me]

We don't shun the world. We are to be in the world, but not of it.

I don't know of any other way to change the world but one person at a time. We daily send out 40,000+ missionaries to do just that, to bring the Gospel message to anybody that will listen. Members world wide are encouraged be good friends, to ask their neighbors to at least hear the Gospel message.

God bless the Pope in his righteous efforts. I wouldn't discourage it for a moment. Our Prophets continually send out messages to the world to put worldly things aside. To feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, to lift up and steady feeble arms. If everyone helped just one other person the world would be transformed.

I think that we are dealing with two levels. One is the first level of the missionary effort where we attempt to change the world one soul at a time. However, what is missing in the message is how to engage the world as a community of believers. The missionaries are young and somewhat innocent. They have very little experience outside their own home life with parents or their one year at school. What is needed on the second level is membership engagement with the world. Not one soul at a time but a collective message about what is needed to bring about a more righteous world. It would be wonderful if the lds had organizations that were engaging the poor at the local level and openly being critical of injustice and exploitation in the area of economics. And that was my point in the pope's message. It was openly critical of the injustices that can be found in capitalism.

As we both know the United States lds tend to be rather capitalistic as if capitalism is Heavenly Father's system of governance. And they tend to see work from a WASPish point of view found within the protestant work ethic. Whereas, within catholicism, there is a different work ethic since the catholics tended to do the manual labor or working class work which is why they were mainly democratic.

And this is reflected in the differences with the pope and with the lds leaders when they discuss such issues. .

[thesometimesaint]

I was never a Missionary(Vietnam got in the way). So if I was ever young and innocent it wasn't as a member of the Church. We as Saints are encouraged to become involved in our communities, states, and nations. Nothing beats a great example. We proclaim our message to all the world, but it can be effective only at one at a time.

From DI, to the Bishops Storehouse, to the fourth mission of the Church. It is all geared to helping the community survive, and then prosper one person at a time.

We as Saints are encouraged to work within whatever economic system we belong to. The Saints in Scandinavia aren't that much different than the Saints in the US. There is nothing inherently immoral about Capitalism, or at least it is no more immoral in principle than any other economic system. Someday, hopefully sooner than later, we'll live the Law of Consecration.

There is nothing wrong with hard physical labor, but the more esoteric mental labors appeal to me more. I tend to be liberal in my politics, but I've prospered under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[pogi]

I think that we are dealing with two levels. One is the first level of the missionary effort where we attempt to change the world one soul at a time. However, what is missing in the message is how to engage the world as a community of believers. The missionaries are young and somewhat innocent. They have very little experience outside their own home life with parents or their one year at school. What is needed on the second level is membership engagement with the world. Not one soul at a time but a collective message about what is needed to bring about a more righteous world. It would be wonderful if the lds had organizations that were engaging the poor at the local level and openly being critical of injustice and exploitation in the area of economics. And that was my point in the pope's message. It was openly critical of the injustices that can be found in capitalism.

As we both know the United States lds tend to be rather capitalistic as if capitalism is Heavenly Father's system of governance. And they tend to see work from a WASPish point of view found within the protestant work ethic. Whereas, within catholicism, there is a different work ethic since the catholics tended to do the manual labor or working class work which is why they were mainly democratic.

And this is reflected in the differences with the pope and with the lds leaders when they discuss such issues. .

Being critical of capitalism will get you no where without an acceptable alternative. What would you suggest?

What makes capitalism good or bad is the people, not the system. The church's mission is to change people, not economic systems. The church is preparing individuals and families (not governments) for a higher economic law of consecration, not by force or coercion, but out of free will. Forced charity is not consecration, one must freely give.

Edited December 27, 2012 by pogi

[Tacenda]

I think that we are dealing with two levels. One is the first level of the missionary effort where we attempt to change the world one soul at a time. However, what is missing in the message is how to engage the world as a community of believers. The missionaries are young and somewhat innocent. They have very little experience outside their own home life with parents or their one year at school. What is needed on the second level is membership engagement with the world. Not one soul at a time but a collective message about what is needed to bring about a more righteous world. It would be wonderful if the lds had organizations that were engaging the poor at the local level and openly being critical of injustice and exploitation in the area of economics. And that was my point in the pope's message. It was openly critical of the injustices that can be found in capitalism.

As we both know the United States lds tend to be rather capitalistic as if capitalism is Heavenly Father's system of governance. And they tend to see work from a WASPish point of view found within the protestant work ethic. Whereas, within catholicism, there is a different work ethic since the catholics tended to do the manual labor or working class work which is why they were mainly democratic.

And this is reflected in the differences with the pope and with the lds leaders when they discuss such issues. .

I knew I liked you! ;-)

[Tacenda]

Being critical of capitalism will get you no where without an acceptable alternative. What would you suggest?

What makes capitalism good or bad is the people, not the system. The church's mission is to change people, not economic systems. The church is preparing individuals and families (not governments) for a higher economic law of consecration, not by force or coercion, but out of free will. Forced charity is not consecration, one must freely give.

How about a few homeless shelter's besides the bishop's store houses? Edited December 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[pogi]

How about a few homeless shelter's besides the bishop's store houses?

Maybe I am misreading him, but it sounds like"why me" is suggesting that the church stand up against capitalism in favor of a more charitable economic system. I am asking what he would suggest as an alternative.

I think homeless shelters would be good too, but it does little to stand up against the system as why me is suggesting.

[why me]

Maybe I am misreading him, but it sounds like"why me" is suggesting that the church stand up against capitalism in favor of a more charitable economic system. I am asking what he would suggest as an alternative.

I think homeless shelters would be good too, but it does little to stand up against the system as why me is suggesting.

There are many capitalisms. We could be advocating a capitalism with a human face and one that is less predatory. In the past, we had many capitalisms. Now it seems that we have one form that dominates the world system: a neo-classical model. I think what the pope is advocating is a reflection on how we do capitalism.

[thesometimesaint]

We've always had the predators in Capitalism. They weren't called Robber Barons without good reason. But I'll agree that when bound within rules of fair play Capitalism has lots to offer.

Edited December 27, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

I think what the pope is advocating is a reflection on how we do capitalism.

Yes, the focus should be on how we do capitalism, not how capitalism does us. Fair play works so much better when it is taught within the home and incorporated into our hearts, rather than forced down our throats. I fully support the churches approach to world change through the family system. Greedy and corrupt individuals will always be greedy and corrupt no matter the system, they just become more creative when faced with new regulations. They will simply evolve and mutate, like a bacteria exposed to too much antibiotics, into a super-bug like Al Capone and the secret combinations of the day.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, the focus should be on how we do capitalism, not how capitalism does us. Fair play works so much better when it is taught within the home and incorporated into our hearts, rather than forced down our throats. I fully support the churches approach to world change through the family system. Greedy and corrupt individuals will always be greedy and corrupt no matter the system, they just become more creative when faced with new regulations. They will simply evolve and mutate, like a bacteria exposed to too much antibiotics, into a super-bug like Al Capone and the secret combinations of the day.

It is always best to have our ideas of fair play written into our hearts. For those that don't the law needs to step in.

[why me]

I knew I liked you! ;-)

I like you too. Good to have you on the forum. :=)

[why me]

Yes, the focus should be on how we do capitalism, not how capitalism does us. Fair play works so much better when it is taught within the home and incorporated into our hearts, rather than forced down our throats.

Actually, it is much better to see little changes within the system itself. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Uniion, capitalism is morphing into its natural habitat of exploitation, inequality and greed. We are going back in time to when capitalism had a much less human face. I am not just talking about the United States but also other parts of the world, especially in Europe where capitalism had a much more human face than it does now. There is a difference between Keynes and Friedman. And a neo-classical form of capitalism is ruling the roost.

[pogi]

It is always best to have our ideas of fair play written into our hearts. For those that don't the law needs to step in.

Is that the church's place to become involved politically with economic structures and systems (when each system has it's flaws)? Or, should they teach correct principles to families and individuals which inspire change from a grass-roots level?

Edited December 27, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

It is always best to have our ideas of fair play written into our hearts. For those that don't the law needs to step in.

I agree that laws have their place. However, law has no place in telling me how (and how much) I should donate to the less fortunate.

[why me]

Is that the church's place to become involved politically with economic structures and systems (when each system has it's flaws)? Or, should they teach correct principles to families and individuals which inspire change from a grass-roots level?

Joseph Smith did run for president for a reason. I think that we can discuss his presidential platform in how this may create a more humane socioeconomic system but keeping in mind that this was in 1844:

• Keep America the freest, wisest, and most noble nation in the world.
  
• Free the slaves: Sell public lands and reduce the pay to members of Congress, and then use the proceeds to pay slave owners a reasonable price for their slaves, and grant the slaves freedom by 1850.
  
• Use prison only for murderers, and instead pardon convicts and require them to work on public roads, public works, or any place where they can learn wisdom and useful virtue. Love conquers all.
  
• Eliminate the elitism of Washington, and remove “wicked and designing men” from power.
  
• Oppose the raw use of power, political parties, self-aggrandizing factions, and discord.
  
• Favor smaller government, and reduce the membership of Congress by at least two-thirds, and curtail the officers of government in pay, number, and power. Pay Congressmen slightly more than what the average laborer earns.
  
• Reduce the number of lawyers, encourage them to repent and spend time preaching the Gospel without purse or script.
  
• Sell public lands to settlers, and remove restrictions that favor fur trappers.
  
• Allow the exercise of presidential and gubernatorial power to suppress lawless mob activity.
  
• Promote trade and commerce.
  
• Establish a national bank to establish a national currency, with bank officers and directors elected yearly by the people; never issue more bills than the capital stock in the bank’s vaults, and allow people to obtain currency without paying brokerage fees to leave people’s money in their own pockets.
  
• Cultivate full, open, and frank disclosure of information with friendship and candid decorum.
  
• Have fewer taxes.
  
• Use tariffs to protect growing American businesses.
  
• Pay off the national debt by selling public lands.
  
• Allow immigration from any country, with friendship toward people of whatever color or tongue.
  
• Annex Oregon, Texas, Canada, and Mexico as states, but only if they petition and with the red man’s consent.
  
• Build civic virtues, such as honor, friendship, rendering good for evil, seeing respect as wise and worthy, promoting unity, justice, the common defense, domestic tranquility, the blessings of liberty and general welfare for all, with an eye single to the glory of the people.
  

http://www.byupoliticalreview.com/?p=102858

[pogi]

Joseph Smith did run for president for a reason.

Yes, but it was not the reason you are suggesting:

“I would not have suffered my name to have been used by my friends on anywise as President of the United States, or candidate for that office, if I and my friends could have had the privilege of enjoying our religious and civil rights as American citizens, even those rights which the Constitution guarantees unto all her citizens alike. But this as a people we have been denied from the beginning. Persecution has rolled upon our heads from time to time, from portions of the United States, like peals of thunder, because of our religion; and no portion of the Government as yet has stepped forward for our relief. And in view of these things, I feel it to be my right and privilege to obtain what influence and power I can, lawfully, in the United States, for the protection of injured innocence.”

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:210–11.

[why me]

Yes, but it was not the reason you are suggesting:

“I would not have suffered my name to have been used by my friends on anywise as President of the United States, or candidate for that office, if I and my friends could have had the privilege of enjoying our religious and civil rights as American citizens, even those rights which the Constitution guarantees unto all her citizens alike. But this as a people we have been denied from the beginning. Persecution has rolled upon our heads from time to time, from portions of the United States, like peals of thunder, because of our religion; and no portion of the Government as yet has stepped forward for our relief. And in view of these things, I feel it to be my right and privilege to obtain what influence and power I can, lawfully, in the United States, for the protection of injured innocence.”

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:210–11.

What does this mean to you?

Build civic virtues, such as honor, friendship, rendering good for evil, seeing respect as wise and worthy, promoting unity, justice, the common defense, domestic tranquility, the blessings of liberty and general welfare for all, with an eye single to the glory of the people.

http://www.byupoliticalreview.com/?p=102858

This was part of his campaign platform. We can have pages of discussion about some of the goals listed in this part of the platform. For example, what does general welfare for all mean? Promoting unity? promoting justice? domestic tranquility? We can have a marvelous discussion as a forum community about such ideas.

Edited December 28, 2012 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

Is that the church's place to become involved politically with economic structures and systems (when each system has it's flaws)? Or, should they teach correct principles to families and individuals which inspire change from a grass-roots level?

The Church itself? No. At least not until The Millennium. Until then we teach them correct principles, and let the state take care of those that won't follow the rules.

This has become political.