LDS Church will send 2 Apostles to the Inauguration

[bluebell]

Here is the article.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson and Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will represent the LDS church at the inauguration, continuing a century-long tradition. 

“A presidential inauguration is a civic ceremony that transcends the person being inaugurated,” said Elder Christofferson in a prepared statement. 

“It is an act of state, not of politics. Its primary purpose is for the president-elect to take the constitutionally required oath of office, and for the people by witnessing it to bind him to that oath. It is a time to reaffirm collectively the enduring principles that have sustained this country for over 200 years, including the peaceful transfer of power, which remains a remarkable event even in this modern world.

Since 1905, the church has sent representatives to meet with presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties."

I didn't know that the church always sent representatives to the inauguration.  That's kind of interesting.  I admit though that my first thought was wondering how this is impacting Jan Chamberlain.  I'm not wondering if she's changed her mind but more thinking about how it would be difficult to have come out publicly stating that doing something was immoral and then find out that some of the apostles were planning to do something similar, clearly implying that it's not immoral.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

I would rather they didn't send anyone anywhere near political events. If they personally want to go let them go without imprimatur of the Church. 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Here is the article.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson and Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will represent the LDS church at the inauguration, continuing a century-long tradition. 

“A presidential inauguration is a civic ceremony that transcends the person being inaugurated,” said Elder Christofferson in a prepared statement. 

“It is an act of state, not of politics. Its primary purpose is for the president-elect to take the constitutionally required oath of office, and for the people by witnessing it to bind him to that oath. It is a time to reaffirm collectively the enduring principles that have sustained this country for over 200 years, including the peaceful transfer of power, which remains a remarkable event even in this modern world.

Since 1905, the church has sent representatives to meet with presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties."

I didn't know that the church always sent representatives to the inauguration.  That's kind of interesting.  I admit though that my first thought was wondering how this is impacting Jan Chamberlain.  I'm not wondering if she's changed her mind but more thinking about how it would be difficult to have come out publicly stating that doing something was immoral and then find out that some of the apostles were planning to do something similar, clearly implying that it's not immoral.

 

 

Interesting. I don't know that "Since 1905, the church has sent representatives to meet with presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties" necessarily means they send representatives to each inauguration. I think it's reflecting the reality that the church works with each administration, probably in a variety of ways. If they do go to every inauguration, that would be interesting too.

If they don't go to every inauguration then this could be seen as a doubling down on the MoTab decision. It would also likely be viewed as further support of the new POTUS, regardless of the canned press statement.

If they don't go to every inauguration then people like Jan Chamberlin will probably have a problem with this too. But if they go to every inauguration it would be pretty easy to dismiss this.

But think of it, unless this happens every time, it could very easily appear that the church is supporting this particular POTUS. Throw into the mix Marie Osmond wanting to perform at the inauguration and it sends the cumulative message the LDS church is very cool with POTUS.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

I would rather they didn't send anyone anywhere near political events. If they personally want to go let them go without imprimatur of the Church. 

I agree. And unless they want to start sending emissaries to every governmental change throughout the world, focusing on the US government sends a message to the international church that the US is still the #1 priority for the church. In an international church I think they need to be a bit more cognizant of how US government affiliations play throughout the rest of the world.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. I don't know that "Since 1905, the church has sent representatives to meet with presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties" necessarily means they send representatives to each inauguration. I think it's reflecting the reality that the church works with each administration, probably in a variety of ways. If they do go to every inauguration, that would be interesting too.

If they don't go to every inauguration then this could be seen as a doubling down on the MoTab decision. It would also likely be viewed as further support of the new POTUS, regardless of the canned press statement.

If they don't go to every inauguration then people like Jan Chamberlin will probably have a problem with this too. But if they go to every inauguration it would be pretty easy to dismiss this.

But think of it, unless this happens every time, it could very easily appear that the church is supporting this particular POTUS. Throw into the mix Marie Osmond wanting to perform at the inauguration and it sends the cumulative message the LDS church is very cool with POTUS.

The article said that the tradition of sending apostles to the inauguration has been in place for over a century so i do think they mean they mean they've been going since 1905.

 

[BlueDreams]

I don't know about her, but this effects me even less than The Motab thing did, and I was only a little disappointed with that. The reason is because it really is obviously bipartisan, a matter of state, and a tradition that is not linked with any specific president...or even which inauguration ceremony it is. I looked it up and Uchtdorf and Ballard attended the first inauguration of Obama. Followed by Perry and Quintin for the second. 

From what I got from Jan Chamberlin's statement was that she couldn't support such based on her personal moral stances but she also respected the differing reasons that both the church and her previous fellow choir members had. She seemed big in respectfully making a different choice in differing moral grounds and respecting those with differing reasons. So I'd guess it would be similar.

Edit: I see that you mentioned it was apostles.

With luv, 

BD

Edited January 13, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I would rather they didn't send anyone anywhere near political events. If they personally want to go let them go without imprimatur of the Church. 

I don't agree that the church should pretend like the government doesn't exist.  

[bluebell]

Just now, BlueDreams said:

I don't know about her, but this effects me even less than Moran thing did, and I was only a little disappointed with that. The reason is because it really is obviously bipartisan, a matter of state, and a tradition that is not linked with any specific president...or even which inauguration ceremony it is. I looked it up and Uchtdorf and Ballard attended the first inauguration of Obama. Followed by Perry and Quintin for the second. Which means for at least the last 3 inaugurations it's also Apostles that go, not just any church representatives.

From what I got from Jan Chamberlin's statement was that she couldn't support such based on her personal moral stances but she also respected the differing reasons that both the church and her previous fellow choir members had. She seemed big in respectfully making a different choice in differing moral grounds and respecting those with differing reasons. So I'd guess it would be similar.

 

With luv, 

BD

That could very well be.

I just assume that being an active member who even appears to be in opposition to the 12 apostles is probably not a comfortable position to be in in this church.  She already had church and choir members pretty upset with her.  I can imagine that this news might make that worse.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The article said that the tradition of sending apostles to the inauguration has been in place for over a century so i do think they mean they mean they've been going since 1905.

 

So you're saying that I should have actually read the article. Hmmm  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're saying that I should have actually read the article. Hmmm  

  

No worries.  I do that more than i should myself!

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

I don't agree that the church should pretend like the government doesn't exist.  

it does in other countries, that's the thing. When gay marriage came to Canada the Church said nothing, did nothing and then when it came to the US it was like an avalanche so the discussion in our local area was um, where were you ten years ago? how come all of sudden God cares about this but he didn't when it came here?

[BlueDreams]

Here's a list of all that have ever attended: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-leaders-presidential-inaugurations

 

with luv, 

BD

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I would rather they didn't send anyone anywhere near political events. If they personally want to go let them go without imprimatur of the Church.

As long as the Federal government continues to make laws that affect institutions of religion I support those institutions having a voice in government.
The LDS Church has a long history of sending emissaries to meet with Presidents and other national leaders, going all the way back to Joseph Smith (with mixed results).

They represent a multimillion member part of the population.  I see no problem with having that represented.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. And unless they want to start sending emissaries to every governmental change throughout the world, focusing on the US government sends a message to the international church that the US is still the #1 priority for the church. In an international church I think they need to be a bit more cognizant of how US government affiliations play throughout the rest of the world.

I have to consider numbers here. They obviously didn't come when there was a government change in my city. Quickly looking at Wikipedia there are approximately 55 countries with lower populations. Perhaps regular attendance has something to do with numbers.

Then what about them being allowed to be there? I don't know what they actually do or attend when they go (didn't read the article yet). Do they have a presence of some kind or are they just in the crowd? That may make it different for some countries.  I imagine they are more likely to be invited to something official in the states as we are still seen as a US religion than for a coronation in Monaco. 

Now if they only go to the US or only to certain politucal parties then I see a problem

[BlueDreams]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could very well be.

I just assume that being an active member who even appears to be in opposition to the 12 apostles is probably not a comfortable position to be in in this church.  She already had church and choir members pretty upset with her.  I can imagine that this news might make that worse.

 

Probably. But I also got from her statements that there were a lot that supported her in and out of the choir/church. I also think that if you're going to take a stance that is going contradictory to the flow, you'll generally expect some pushback. If you don't you're kinda naive. To me at least, this isn't a Statement about her choice. In fact, my other question I don't know the answer to is if they've had to make such a statement period about attending ever before. Which again, isn't much about chamberlain but the overarching problem of a very heated inauguration and Trump.

 

with luv,

BD

[halconero]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. I don't know that "Since 1905, the church has sent representatives to meet with presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties" necessarily means they send representatives to each inauguration. I think it's reflecting the reality that the church works with each administration, probably in a variety of ways. If they do go to every inauguration, that would be interesting too.

If they don't go to every inauguration then this could be seen as a doubling down on the MoTab decision. It would also likely be viewed as further support of the new POTUS, regardless of the canned press statement.

If they don't go to every inauguration then people like Jan Chamberlin will probably have a problem with this too. But if they go to every inauguration it would be pretty easy to dismiss this.

But think of it, unless this happens every time, it could very easily appear that the church is supporting this particular POTUS. Throw into the mix Marie Osmond wanting to perform at the inauguration and it sends the cumulative message the LDS church is very cool with POTUS.

Here's a list of apostles at inaugurations:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-leaders-presidential-inaugurations

 It looks like the ones missed are FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. I'm not sure why, but they did have apostles at Wilson, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

Edited January 13, 2017 by halconero

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Here's a list of all that have ever attended: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-leaders-presidential-inaugurations

 

with luv, 

BD

I noticed it says "known dates and representatives."  Makes me wonder if there are some years they don't have records for or something?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it does in other countries, that's the thing. When gay marriage came to Canada the Church said nothing, did nothing and then when it came to the US it was like an avalanche so the discussion in our local area was um, where were you ten years ago? how come all of sudden God cares about this but he didn't when it came here?

I understand those feelings and think they are valid.

But the church functions in the US, and US law greatly impacts it.  More so than the laws of any other country.  I think it would be dumb for the church to pretend that the US government doesn't exist.

I do agree they need to be more proactive about other countries though.

[cdowis]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 I admit though that my first thought was wondering how this is impacting Jan Chamberlain.  I'm not wondering if she's changed her mind but more thinking about how it would be difficult to have come out publicly stating that doing something was immoral and then find out that some of the apostles were planning to do something similar, clearly implying that it's not immoral.

 

I think it is time for us to leave her alone, and stop beating her up.  I believe that she has taken off her comment off her Facebook page.

It's time for us to move on and allow her to do the same.  I sincerely hope that she will be allowed to come back to the Choir if she chooses to do so.

Edited January 13, 2017 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

I have to consider numbers here. They obviously didn't come when there was a government change in my city. Quickly looking at Wikipedia there are approximately 55 countries with lower populations. Perhaps regular attendance has something to do with numbers.

Then what about them being allowed to be there? I don't know what they actually do or attend when they go (didn't read the article yet). Do they have a presence of some kind or are they just in the crowd? That may make it different for some countries.  I imagine they are more likely to be invited to something official in the states as we are still seen as a US religion than for a coronation in Monaco. 

Now if they only go to the US or only to certain politucal parties then I see a problem

Could be. Makes you wonder about Mexico though. Mexico is 2nd only to the US in LDS population. Does anyone know if the church attends political events like this in Mexico?

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Probably. But I also got from her statements that there were a lot that supported her in and out of the choir/church. I also think that if you're going to take a stance that is going contradictory to the flow, you'll generally expect some pushback. If you don't you're kinda naive. To me at least, this isn't a Statement about her choice. In fact, my other question I don't know the answer to is if they've had to make such a statement period about attending ever before. Which again, isn't much about chamberlain but the overarching problem of a very heated inauguration and Trump.

 

with luv,

BD

I agree.  I guess we'll have to see if anyone in the press tries to make a connection between Chamberlain and this story (i'm doubting it, but who knows).  That would probably be the only way to know if an association between her decision and the apostles' attendance exists in the larger world.

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Could be. Makes you wonder about Mexico though. Mexico is 2nd only to the US in LDS population. Does anyone know if the church attends political events like this in Mexico?

 

or the Pope's inauguration, unless i'm mistaken the Church just sent a letter

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

I think it is time for us to leave this person alone, and stop beating her up.  I think she needs our sympathy.

It's time for us to move on.

Her decision remains relevant right now so I disagree.  I do agree that we don't need to judge her, but there is no reason not to discuss a decision that she herself made public.

When you go public with your morals then you invite discussion.  We can certainly remain charitable though.

[BlueDreams]

Looked it up in the LDS newsroom. They didn't make much if any of a statement before Obama's inauguration: see here.

This is what was stated after by Uchtdorf: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-leaders-attend-president-obama-s-inauguration

I'll be interested to see the distinctions of after-commentary by the apostles if any are given. Again I don't see this in direct correlation with Chamberlin but as a needed statement for all in general to maintain a narrative of neutrality on non-partisanship or some form of endorsement of the president-elect.

This election, in short, is far more hairier than most previously. And it's showing massively in the inauguration

 

with luv,

BD 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand those feelings and think they are valid.

But the church functions in the US, and US law greatly impacts it.  More so than the laws of any other country.  I think it would be dumb for the church to pretend that the US government doesn't exist.

I do agree they need to be more proactive about other countries though.

I would assume that many of inaugurations are invitation only affairs.  In countries where the church has a very small influence the church may not receive an invitation.