Catholic’s revere the Pope as a “good man of God” the same way folks of other faiths see good men and women that it is obvious God is working through, like a Mother Theresa. They seem the Pope as a man who has the mantle of God upon him, although he might not always be infallible in the interpretation of things. Generally speaking, even if the Pope’s counsel is rejected by a practicing Catholic, it is usually still respected. Its similar to if your dad gave you some advice that you decided wouldn’t work for you and your life. You may not accept the counsel and apply it to your life, but you still your dad for giving the counsel and you give it merited consideration.

I see the LDS memberships’ response to the Prophet as similar and different. Good Mormons are expected to follow the Prophet’s words with exactness and preciseness. If the Prophet says don’t drink coffee or tea, a good Mormon may also abstain from coke and pepsi. If the Prophet says “only one pair of earrings” for women, a good Mormon may take them out entirely. The words of the counsel are not seen so much as counsel as word-for-word from God dews of doctrinal perfection. There is no easy room for “respectfully rejecting” the Prophet’s counsel.

I have seen the Prophet getting as much attention as the Pope does in Rome; people weeping at temple dedications and the like. Early church history indicates that Joseph Smith’s contemporaries thought the wood from JS’s cane or coffin or his handkerchief had healing powers that could aid in priesthood blessings. I don’t see how those relics are much different from the relics that Catholics keep of their patron Saints. The difference I see between the Prophet and the Pope is that the Catholic Church’s geographical distribution is very wide; a Catholic in America will likely go his or her entire life without seeing the Pope in person. Additionally, when the Pope does make appearances, he is usually obviously protected, because of numerous historical attempts on his life. In contrast, although the Mormon Prophet likely has bodyguards, they aren’t as obvious to the lay public. He drives in a seemingly normal car (rather than a bulletproof “Pope-mobile”). And the Prophet’s appearances are frequent and without undue separation between him and his church membership.

So, the Pope’s worldwide appearances are fewer and the relative number of Catholics who interact with him is smaller than that of the Prophet.

   0 likes

   0 likes

I think this is similar to what the other commenters have said – people don’t necessarily do what the Pope says, despite revering him. With the prophet, most Mormons in good standing will readily do whatever he says. I’m guessing there is a lot of gray here, too – there are likely Catholics (a smaller percentage than among Mormons) who would do whatever the Pope says and there are likely Mormons (a smaller percentage than among Catholics) who won’t necessarily do what the prophet says. However, I think the distinction is a good one.

As for how they would act around them – I don’t know that there is much of a difference. Both Mormons and Catholics revere their leader and imbue him with charisma, regardless of his actual charisma. As a result, Mormons and Catholics fawn over their respective leaders as though they have special powers. Does that seem like a fair comparison?

   0 likes

(I’m a practicing orthodox Mormon.)

   0 likes

   0 likes

   0 likes

Catholicism, however, officially allows for a vibrant civil society. As a Catholic, you can start your own group any time. You can even start an order. If you prove yourself over time, chances are that the Vatican will recognize your organization.

Catholicism allows for a lot more orthodox liberty than Mormonism ever has.

Having said that, it’s important to keep in mind that Catholicism is an authoritarian creed. The fact that even Catholicism allows for more liberty than Mormonism should give us pause.

   0 likes

   0 likes

It almost seems like she was shocked by institutionalized charisma when viewing it as an outsider, and didn’t make the connection to her own cherished institutions. Then, when you made the connection, you put her on the defensive — forcing her to find some way to back up her position.

It’s good that the conversation was cut short — pursuing it would probably have motivated her to further solidify her defensive position on this issue, whereas just opening the question a bit might get her to think about it. What’s that quote? “When you understand why you reject all other gods, you’ll understand why I reject yours…”

   0 likes

   0 likes