LDS Church will send 2 Apostles to the Inauguration

[halconero]

Inaugurations are interesting. I wrote a paper years back on American civic religion as encapsulated by Washington DC as a sort of a national pilgrimage site and the religious over/undertones associated with the city. I discussed the inauguration as an example, as the word itself comes from the Latin "augur." This was a priest who in the ancient Roman Republic took the omens prior to the swearing in of a Roman official.

In a certain sense, I find that same principle/practice expressed in Elder Christofferson's words:

"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."

Elder Christofferson more than many others is familiar with the seriousness of oaths and breaching them. He clerked for John Sirica, the judge who presided over the intitial Watergate scandal and who pushed the investigation to higher levels, and from all accounts Sirica confided considerably in Christofferson. On a serious note, Elder Christofferson's remark on that the witnesses present will "bind [Donald Trump] to that oath," takes on a whole new level with his presence. There is not only a public binding there, but an apostolic witness present. Trump will be held accountable before God one day for how he enacted his office in a country with special significance to Latter-day Saints, and Elders Renlund and Christofferson may be called upon to act as witnesses at that time.

Edited January 13, 2017 by halconero

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

The church sent apostles to the Vatican for a conference, where they met with the pope.  I don't know why they would attend a Catholic religious ceremony.  Maybe they have before though, i really don't know.  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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. 

That could be.

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

The church sent apostles to the Vatican for a conference, where they met with the pope.  I don't know why they would attend a Catholic religious ceremony.  Maybe they have before though, i really don't know.  

that was after he became the Pope. But that's the thing to others why would the Church send the Choir and 2 Apostles to this and not other world events like the Pope and other world leaders? The Church can say whatever they want but in non member's minds, what they see is what is to be believed and I dunno, would missionary work be affected? it's bananas!

[Nevo]

51 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 there's a difference between attending the inauguration as an observer and actively participating in it as a performer. I don't think it serves the Choir's or the Church's interests—particularly outside the United States—to be seen as celebrating the election of Donald Trump. But I have no issue with the Church sending representatives to simply attend the inauguration. That's completely appropriate in my view.

[CV75]

59 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.

Are they singing or precision dancing?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that was after he became the Pope. But that's the thing to others why would the Church send the Choir and 2 Apostles to this and not other world events like the Pope and other world leaders? The Church can say whatever they want but in non member's minds, what they see is what is to be believed and I dunno, would missionary work be affected? it's bananas!

Like i said before, US law makes more of an impact on the church than the laws of any other country (certainly more of an impact that the religious leaders of other denominations, not sure why the church would go out of it's way to visit the pope-he's not a political leader, he's the head of a church) so it makes sense to me that the politics of the US would be a priority.  

The U.S. government has a huge amount of power over the LDS church.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are they singing or precision dancing?

Neither.  They are going to support the political process and the exchange of power, and be witnesses.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I think there's a difference between attending the inauguration as an observer and actively participating in it as a performer. I don't think it serves the Choir's or the Church's interests—particularly outside the United States—to be seen as celebrating the election of Donald Trump. But I have no issue with the Church sending representatives to simply attend the inauguration. That's completely appropriate in my view.

I agree they aren't exactly the same.  Both statements on why they are attending seem similar though.  Both the choir and the apostles claim to be going to support the exchange of power and the US constitution, for example.

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

Like i said before, US law makes more of an impact on the church than the laws of any other country (certainly more of an impact that the religious leaders of other denominations, not sure why the church would go out of it's way to visit the pope-he's not a political leader, he's the head of a church) so it makes sense to me that the politics of the US would be a priority.  

The U.S. government has a huge amount of power over the LDS church.  

They need more influence in the world,I think it would do good for public perception if we want more converts. If they have time for this they have time for the Pope's inauguration, even if they sat at the McDonald's across the Street from the Vatican, it' be fine

Edited January 13, 2017 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

We're all agents to ourselves in a real sense.  She should have no such concern, if you ask me.  She made her decision for her reasons.  It has nothing to do with another person making a decision for him/herself. 

[thesometimesaint]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

We can't pretend other governments don't exist either. Are we a Church or a political fan club for one country?

[halconero]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

They need more influence in the world,I think it would do good for public perception if we want more converts. If they have time for this they have time for the Pope's inauguration, even if they sat at the McDonald's across the Street from the Vatican, it' be fine

I'm not sure if the papal coronation (Papal inauguration is an older ceremony which hasn't been practiced for about 1000 years) is the best example. It's by invitation only, includes the celebration of mass, and thus the only religious attendees are Cathodox Churches including the Eastern Orthodox rites, as well as the Episcopalians and Anglicans who remain very Catholic in ceremony, priesthood, and liturgy. You can't just invite yourself to one.

[Atheist Mormon]

"LDS Church will send 2 Apostles to the Inauguration"

I'm going to make a presumptive/imaginary bet with myself that whichever Apostle going to this gig is dreading the whole thing already. As their predecessors they will feel so irrelevant like 99% of people there......

I would hate to be there, regardless of who is being inaugurated.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think all members should remember the 12th Article of Faith.

[ERayR]

1 hour 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.

 

There are always unintended consequences so it is wise to think twice act once.

[ERayR]

38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We can't pretend other governments don't exist either. Are we a Church or a political fan club for one country?

If we only knew the contact the Church has with other governments leaders. 

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Are they singing or precision dancing?

Military march past the reviewing stand. 

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I think there's a difference between attending the inauguration as an observer and actively participating in it as a performer. I don't think it serves the Choir's or the Church's interests—particularly outside the United States—to be seen as celebrating the election of Donald Trump. But I have no issue with the Church sending representatives to simply attend the inauguration. That's completely appropriate in my view.

They are not celebrating the election of anyone.  They are celebrating the peaceful transition of power.  Would you have felt the same if Clinton had been elected.  Boy there is a few moral dilemmas in that scenario.

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, ERayR said:

If we only knew the contact the Church has with other governments leaders. 

Not sure if that is a help or a hindrance to spreading the Gospel. Do we normally send Apostles acting on behalf of the Church to inauguration ceremonies to every country on earth?

17 minutes ago, ERayR said:

They are not celebrating the election of anyone.  They are celebrating the peaceful transition of power.  Would you have felt the same if Clinton had been elected.  Boy there is a few moral dilemmas in that scenario.

Yes.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

 

 

I have to say again how glad I am that the Brethren refuse to be cowed by unwise but noisy segments of the populace.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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

Who is Qunitin?

Regarding Jan Chamberlin, I don't begrudge the choice she made, but I do object to her making a public spectacle of it, thereby potentially bringing the Church into disrepute and (according to a post last week from Bluebell) posing a security risk to choir members, making them targets of potential heckling, assaults, etc.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Like i said before, US law makes more of an impact on the church than the laws of any other country (certainly more of an impact that the religious leaders of other denominations, not sure why the church would go out of it's way to visit the pope-he's not a political leader, he's the head of a church)

Vatican It is an ecclesiastical^[3] or sacerdotal-monarchical^[8] state (a type of theocracy) ruled by the Bishop of Rome – the Pope.  wiki

Edited January 13, 2017 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not sure if that is a help or a hindrance to spreading the Gospel. Do we normally send Apostles acting on behalf of the Church to inauguration ceremonies to every country on earth?

 

The apostles don't live in "every country on earth." But representatives of the Church in the countries where they live do take part in government events and associate with government leaders as occasions permit.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Before the inevitable comparisons surface, as they have on each and every Trump-related thread on this board since the election, let me pre-empt them by posting this meme: