And This Pope Rocks On

[bluebell]

The recent release with respect to race was not much of a risk, launching an attack on unrestrained capitalism as being contrary to the teachings of Christ -- now that would be a risk.

Is it really a risk though? I mean, where exactly does unrestrained (or unregulated, in other words) capitalism exist? I might be confused (it's been known to happen) but I don't believe that it exists anywhere on the planet.

If it doesn't, he's not risking much by attacking an imaginary target.

Like i said though, and sincerely meant, unregulated capitalism might actually exist somewhere that i'm not aware of.

[why me]

Same here TSS, but worry for his safety. And as much as I'd like Pres. Monson to do the same things as the pope, it's maybe too risky.

If President Monson would do the same things as this pope, the media would ignore it and the exmos would just call his actions a photo opportunity and call on the church to sell its assets to help the poor.

[Tacenda]

If President Monson would do the same things as this pope, the media would ignore it and the exmos would just call his actions a photo opportunity and call on the church to sell its assets to help the poor.

You're probably right.  It's too late for him to start doing what the Pope has done.  But maybe not.  Photo's, videos and advertisements are replete in the ongoing Mormon campaign.

 

ETA: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign

Edited December 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[why me]

IMHO, I believe the Pope is stressing the need for Catholics to be active and do something that helps others instead of stressing its dislike of issues like abortion, SSMs etc.  Those issues should not define Catholics, but our actions in how we help others should.

 

 

Like I said, charity and love are wonderful soundbites. And the lds church also stresses such ideas and also the idea of helping others. I think that the exmos seem to forget this when they moan or complain about the lds church. We just need to type into the lds.org website such words and we would get a host of articles. However, the idea of sin cannot be left out of the equation. The catholic church is also about getting people to be saints and about getting people to heaven. If i would help others, love others and yet live a sinful life...where would I end up if I am a catholic?

[why me]

You're probably right.  It's too late for him to start doing what the Pope has done.  But maybe not.  Photo's, videos and advertisements are replete in the ongoing Mormon campaign.

 

ETA: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign

The world's media does not follow Thomas S. Monson's every move. No photo ops because there would not be any photographers. And Thomas S. Monson's writings and talks are not covered by the world press either. Have you read what the general authorities have been saying about the poor and the needy? About love? About greed, selfishness etc? They have said quite alot. Just search it in lds.org. But no world press has responded.

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/05/greed-selfishness-and-overindulgence

 

Any difference in the above to what the pope is now saying?

Edited December 27, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

The world's media does not follow Thomas S. Monson's every move. No photo ops because there would not be any photographers. And Thomas S. Monson's writings and talks are not covered by the world press either. Have you read what the general authorities have been saying about the poor and the needy? About love? About greed, selfishness etc? They have said quite alot. Just search it in lds.org. But no world press has responded.

I hate bringing this up but if the church ever reads this, haha maybe it'll do some good.  The church could do even more for the poor.  It gives way more than most, but with what it brings in, we need to remember the Widow's Mite story here. 

[why me]

And love:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/10/the-power-of-gods-love?lang=eng&query=love

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/love-all?lang=eng&query=love

 

And there are many more.

[bluebell]

I hate bringing this up but if the church ever reads this, haha maybe it'll do some good.  The church could do even more for the poor.  It gives way more than most, but with what it brings in, we need to remember the Widow's Mite story here.

"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always."

 

Even Jesus did not want or expect all possible money to go to the poor.  He taught that there are other legitimate things that we need to spend money on as well.  The church has four missions, and only one directly involves taking care of the poor, while all four take money to accomplish.  

[why me]

I hate bringing this up but if the church ever reads this, haha maybe it'll do some good.  The church could do even more for the poor.  It gives way more than most, but with what it brings in, we need to remember the Widow's Mite story here. 

There are 1.2 billion catholics and 15 million mormons. And that makes all the difference. What would this world be like with 1.2 billion mormons? And this makes all the difference.

Edited December 27, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

Of course this is a severly flawed communication method we have in message boards but, I see this here in this thread.  What I find most surprising about it is I see it coming from someone I've read for a while now who has in the past expressed views I would say are in line with what Pope Francis is saying and this poster does just what I mentioned, particulary the attributing motivation part.

I don't see this board as church or typical LDS, I meant to mention that as I wrote this probably thinking of the same thing as you are discreetly and gently pointing out. I was trying to remember if I had heard conversations following this line 'in real life' and then I was focusing so hard on the one I forgot to draw that distinction...I believe this environment brings out a combative and defensive side that would be lacking hopefully otherwise...though now that I am thinking about it in a more general sense, one incident jumps out at me reminding me I have seen defensiveness not uncommonly, but it wasn't with other churches but within our own community. So perhaps I have just been lucky or perhaps most often we are more concern with finding error in those closest to us as often occurs in families or perhaps it is something I have no clue about....it wouldn't be the first time.

But I do agree that such behaviour does appear on the board.

[saemo]

There are 1.2 billion catholics and 15 million mormons. And that makes all the difference. What would this world be like with 1.2 billion mormons? And this is makes all the difference.

Unbearable? 

 

[why me]

I freely acknowledged that there are several other plausible explanations for Joseph Smith's institution of polygamy, including that it was inspired by The Lord. However, how do you reject "out of hand" the POSSIBILITY that a 30-something MAN might have been motivated by lust?

Take it from someone who was a 30-something man for about a decade, lust is ALWAYS a possibility.

I suppose that we should not consider the spiritual experiences of the women involved when they prayed over the principle of plural marriage. Quite a few received a strong spiritual experience after praying. And this convinced them to say yes. And then we have fanny. Her mom, father, and brother were active members of the church and were proud that there daughter and sister was sealed to Joseph. And fanny did not seem to consider her plural marriage to Joseph a lust thing. If she did, how could she allow her family to remain members throughout their lives and not spill the beans, if it were lust?

 

See the problem?

Edited December 27, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Unbearable? 

 

Maybe so. But people do forget about the size of the lds church in terms of members. it is a small church. And it seems that critics both big and small seem not to read what the GAs are saying and have said in the past. Not much different from Pope Francis. So, the claim that GAs should be like pope francis is way off the mark. The messages about love and charity are the same. But the cultures of the two churches are different. And in the lds church, the idea of sin is still in the conversation.

[saemo]

Maybe so. But people do forget about the size of the lds church in terms of members. it is a small church. And it seems that critics both big and small seem not to read what the GAs are saying and have said in the past. Not much different from Pope Francis. So, the claim that GAs should be like pope francis is way off the mark. The messages about love and charity are the same. But the cultures of the two churches are different. And in the lds church, the idea of sin is still in the conversation.

 

There are nuances in belief regarding charity and love, that I think negate saying the two messages are the same. 

 

As I already said, Pope Francis has a pastoral and evangelization approach. We live in a time where people look for ways to reduce faith. Rule-following is just one form of reducing faith, which makes faith, meaningless. I think that is where a lot of people get to in their faith. What's the point, following rules for the sake of following rules. Pope Francis goes back to the basics, the foundation of Christian faith, which is God's love. Obedience to God's commandments should not be "just because", but because of love for God, and the desire to be with the One who loves unconditionally.

 

The way the world is today, where anti-Catholics and anti-Christians have reduced Christianity to rules that are an inconvenience and offense to all of society.... Catholics need to hear Pope Francis' message of evangelization as much as non-Catholics.

[why me]

The two commandments—to love God and to love man—had been taught separately by Jewish teachers, but Jesus brought them together and made the second “like” the first; and by the example of His own life, He made love of God and love of mankind the heart of the gospel. “By this,” He said, “shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35.)

Besides loving God, we are commanded to do what to many is a more difficult commandment—to love all, even enemies, and to go beyond the barriers of race or class or family relationships. It is easier, of course, to be kind to those who are kind to us—the usual standard of friendly reciprocity.

Then are we not commanded to cultivate genuine fellowship and even a kinship with every human being on earth? Whom would you bar from your circle? We might deny ourselves a nearness to our Savior because of our prejudices of neighborhood or possessions or race—attitudes that Christ would surely condemn. Love has no boundary, no limitation of good will.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/love-all?lang=eng&query=love

 

For some reason the exmormon critics of the lds church seem to forget that lds leaders have been exclaiming the love for humankind and for god for years and years. But the world press has ignored it and so have the exmormon critics of the lds church. The above link is from 1982. This article in the Ensign is not much different to what the pope is now saying to the world and getting wonderful publicity.

Edited December 27, 2013 by why me

[Bernard Gui]

The contrite act of washing someone's feet should be done in private without fanfare and photos.

[saemo]

The two commandments—to love God and to love man—had been taught separately by Jewish teachers, but Jesus brought them together and made the second “like” the first; and by the example of His own life, He made love of God and love of mankind the heart of the gospel. “By this,” He said, “shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35.)

Besides loving God, we are commanded to do what to many is a more difficult commandment—to love all, even enemies, and to go beyond the barriers of race or class or family relationships. It is easier, of course, to be kind to those who are kind to us—the usual standard of friendly reciprocity.

Then are we not commanded to cultivate genuine fellowship and even a kinship with every human being on earth? Whom would you bar from your circle? We might deny ourselves a nearness to our Savior because of our prejudices of neighborhood or possessions or race—attitudes that Christ would surely condemn. Love has no boundary, no limitation of good will.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/love-all?lang=eng&query=love

 

For some reason the exmormon critics of the lds church seem to forget that lds leaders have been exclaiming the love for humankind and for god for years and years. But the world press has ignored it. The above link is from 1982. This article in the Ensign is not much different to what the pope is now saying to the world and getting wonderful publicity.

 

Abstract ideas, and how to make them "real", and how to associate them to the rule-following that does indeed, set boundaries and limitations? How to extract Christianity and Christians from an ideology of Christianity?

 

Pope Francis has a gift, a charisma, for teaching Christianity as it is, not as an ideology, but the Person, Jesus Christ. Perhaps there are LDS who find LDS leaders with a similar gift? I can't say that I have. Quoting talks doesn't do it for me.

[saemo]

The contrite act of washing someone's feet should be done in private without fanfare and photos.

 

Mandatum is not an act of contrition. :-) Anciently, it was an act of hospitality. In imitation of Christ, it is an act of service and love. It is performed in Catholic churches (east and west) on Holy Thursday, the Thursday before Easter Sunday in recognition of the Last Supper of Jesus Christ. Where, he washed the feet of the disciples. Being part of the liturgy, it is a public work (Greek, leitourgia).

[why me]

Abstract ideas, and how to make them "real", and how to associate them to the rule-following that does indeed, set boundaries and limitations? How to extract Christianity and Christians from an ideology of Christianity?

 

Pope Francis has a gift, a charisma, for teaching Christianity as it is, not as an ideology, but the Person, Jesus Christ. Perhaps there are LDS who find LDS leaders with a similar gift? I can't say that I have. Quoting talks doesn't do it for me.

And yet, is not the press quoting what the pope is writing? I think so. Most lds know that abstract ideas are made real through action. It is really that simple. Love and charity are ideologies that need to be brought forth into real life. But we also cannot forget the impact of sin in the world. The role of a church is to bring about the eternal life of humankind, as a place to live with god. And no better way to do this is by quoting john when jesus said: if you love me, obey my commandments.

Edited December 27, 2013 by why me

[Ahab]

Mandatum is not an act of contrition. :-) Anciently, it was an act of hospitality. In imitation of Christ, it is an act of service and love. It is performed in Catholic churches (east and west) on Holy Thursday, the Thursday before Easter Sunday in recognition of the Last Supper of Jesus Christ. Where, he washed the feet of the disciples. Being part of the liturgy, it is a public work (Greek, leitourgia).

You'll forgive us if we don't accept your version of the truth, I hope.

 

The washing of feet is involved in the ordinance we refer to as the "washing and annointing" which is necessary for exaltation and administered in the temples dedicated to God. 

[Stone holm]

Unbearable? 

 

It would not be the same Mormon Church that many of us joined, I am afraid there is a size limit to the peculiarities of our tightly organized brand. Exceed it and it becomes either different or ugly. I suspect that we are becoming different.

[mormonnewb]

If President Monson would do the same things as this pope, the media would ignore it and the exmos would just call his actions a photo opportunity and call on the church to sell its assets to help the poor.

Neither the media nor exmos stop the Church from issuing press releases about disaster relief efforts or producing hundreds of videos for YouTube. And I don't have an objection about any of this. I just wish that we showed the world that our leaders were not above "getting their hands dirty" by dealing directly with the "least of these" (ie, members like me).

I know this is what they do. For instance, I can't count the number of stories I've heard about Pres Monson visiting a widow or old friend. Why not show that side of him as well?

Because it would be a photo op? Well, what would you call it when you see an apostle holding a shovel at a temple groundbreaking ceremony? He's not actually going to dig out the foundation, is he?

They're both photo ops, but the more personal touch is far more compelling, as evidenced by the fact that the Pope was Time's Person of the Year (and the fact that we're talking about him on a Mormon board).

[Stone holm]

Neither the media nor exmos stop the Church from issuing press releases about disaster relief efforts or producing hundreds of videos for YouTube. And I don't have an objection about any of this. I just wish that we showed the world that our leaders were not above "getting their hands dirty" by dealing directly with the "least of these" (ie, members like me).

I know this is what they do. For instance, I can't count the number of stories I've heard about Pres Monson visiting a widow or old friend. Why not show that side of him as well?

Because it would be a photo op? Well, what would you call it when you see an apostle holding a shovel at a temple groundbreaking ceremony? He's not actually going to dig out the foundation, is he?

They're both photo ops, but the more personal touch is far more compelling, as evidenced by the fact that the Pope was Time's Person of the Year (and the fact that we're talking about him on a Mormon board).

Would be like doing your alms before men

[Calm]

Because it would be a photo op? Well, what would you call it when you see an apostle holding a shovel at a temple groundbreaking ceremony? He's not actually going to dig out the foundation, is he?

They're both photo ops, but the more personal touch is far more compelling, as evidenced by the fact that the Pope was Time's Person of the Year (and the fact that we're talking about him on a Mormon board).

Because it uses the privacy of that member which is significantly different than using a public event.

Perhaps it is just a generational difference, but not everyone wants their lives to be made into a reality show even if it makes them look good and if it is in a time of trouble, it makes the desire for privacy even stronger. It is hard enough for many to even accept help without everyone learning about it. In our wards we keep most of the service given to families very private, even when it is announced in RS and PH there is an expected respect for the family's boundaries, sometimes made explicit, other times not. I suspect as the population of the Church ages and our leaders and majority of members become those who don't remember what life was like before the internet and vid cams and now phones that can double as documenting every aspect of our lives, if this is the reason we will end up seeing more personal type photo ops (it would be interesting to have the stats on those who participate in the I am a Mormon videos by age)...or there may be a public reaction to too much intrusion and privacy becomes even more treasured.

I admit this is my personal prejudice and perhaps it has nothing to do with it, I am just thinking about how my family and most of my older friends would react if someone showed up with a camera at their home along with those who came to helped them in need. They don't want their weakness to become entertainment for others. I see the Church leaders as both respecting and likely sharing that attitude.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Because it uses the privacy of that member which is significantly different than using a public event.

Perhaps it is just a generational difference, but not everyone wants their lives to be made into a reality show even if it makes them look good and if it is in a time of trouble, it makes the desire for privacy even stronger. It is hard enough for many to even accept help without everyone learning about it. In our wards we keep most of the service given to families very private, even when it is announced in RS and PH there is an expected respect for the family's boundaries, sometimes made explicit, other times not. I suspect as the population of the Church ages and our leaders and majority of members become those who don't remember what life was like before the internet and vid cams and now phones that can double as documenting every aspect of our lives, if this is the reason we will end up seeing more personal type photo ops (it would be interesting to have the stats on those who participate in the I am a Mormon videos by age)...or there may be a public reaction to too much intrusion and privacy becomes even more treasured.

I admit this is my personal prejudice and perhaps it has nothing to do with it, I am just thinking about how my family and most of my older friends would react if someone showed up with a camera at their home along with those who came to helped them in need. They don't want their weakness to become entertainment for others. I see the Church leaders as both respecting and likely sharing that attitude.

It's interesting that we don't seem to have this kind of concern for privacy of the recipients of our help, after say, a hurricane. A quick Google Images search will reveal DOZENS of pictures of saints helping in those situations. So why is it only an invasion of privacy if the recipient of the help is not a saint or the helper is a church leader?

Let's be honest. We are more than comfortable with demonstrating our largesse. I'm simply suggesting that we see leaders doing just that -- leading by example.