President Obama's swearing-in (not meant to be political)

[Guest]

So, I heard the audio of the swearing in the other day, and the chief justice flubbed where "faithfully" should be put in. President Obama paused a second, unsure what to say....as I listened, I had this undeniable urge to look toward the bishop for his approval nod. Did anyone else get unnerved that it was said incorrectly? I suppose it's a matter of habit to be a bit nervous at the exact wording of important rites like that, as I have worried so much in the past at the exact wording during the performance of ordinances. Perhaps I'm just a bit compulsive about doing things correctly. I remember I later found out that the missionary that baptized me was sent home early for not fully repenting with proper priesthood authority before leaving on his mission. I asked the bishop if I could have the ordinance again, as I was quite concerned it wasn't valid. He assured me that God understands little technicalities like this and doesn't hold us accountable. Well, here I find that today, the swearing in was done again. Apparently, legal experts say that the constitution specifies that a new president becomes the new president at noon on the 20th--with or without a swearing in, so it was only a matter of tradition it was done again. But then I ask why are so many people concerned about the validity of his five executive orders given between the two ceremonies? Why are people complaining that the second ceremony wasn't video taped as record? And I think, if it's okay to screw up because God understands (like the story of the newly arrived missionary in Norway who read the words out of a handbook and unknowingly ordained a sick old lady a deacon), why do we baptize multiple times if the words are said incorrectly or the person isn't fully submerged? Perhaps I should find myself a bit like Martin Luther who spent most of his life overly-concerned with "am I good enough/does God approve" feelings--what I call spiritual OCD.

Just some thoughts because I found the whole thing a bit comical ;)

[edited for typos]

[_Ray A]

The Raw Story.

[_ludwigm]

I remember a case when the manner of administering the wine (Moroni 5:2) was:
- "to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it"
The president/manager of the sacrament meeting shook his head.

- "this wine"
Headshaking again.

- "this wine"
Headshaking again.

... fourth time the same ...
There was some whispering in the ears of the poor priesthood holder, then

- "this water"
One should not read too many Book of Mormon ...

[_karl61]

In the hundred or so times I blessed the sacrament as a Priest I never messed up. I just read Moroni and said water instead of wine. Now as a deacon my friends older brother messed up and he said "oh f__k" into the microphone.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Hobart, yes that, and similar incidents, can't help but make a thinking person think. Which can't help but beg the question: "Is there any validity and purpose--beyond serving ritualistic tradition--served by any, "repeat after me," articulations?"

In my seriously considered opinion, (IMSCO) no. Such is simply theatrics supposedly adding drama and significance to impress the impressionable. So, in that it's harmless. That is, unless one takes it serriously, as speaking for God.

When "God" dictates an edict/formulae/vow/etc... to violate THAT, one opens themselves to REAL serious consequences, such as: Mistaking gasoline as water and throwing in a lighted match Paraphrasing Jim Croche: "Ya don't mess around with Really-god/Nature!"
(Leroy Brown :-)

I think that might be why the President smiled. He knows such theatrics is just playing to the crowd... Means nothing but that...
Roger
*
*

[_ludwigm]

Where to found the "wine" ->"water" change in any official material?

by the way What materials are official?
(I don't talk about doctrine/doctrinal things. Only about official ones. This is a lower level.)

[_bcspace]

There are much more serious things that make Obama unqualified to be president such as being an extreme left-wing democrat (or even just a democrat). Only a few days in office and we see that he is much like Hugo Chavez.

[_JAK]

Hi Hobart, yes that, and similar incidents, can't help but make a thinking person think. Which can't help but beg the question: "Is there any validity and purpose--beyond serving ritualistic tradition--served by any, "repeat after me," articulations?" *

It is theatre, Roger. Since Obama did not vote for Chief Justice Roberts, it was both easy and natural for him to smile when Roberts made the error. Without question, Obama understands the importance of theatre. Did he really want to attend 10 inaugural balls after a day that began at 4 A.M.? I doubt it. But he could hardly show that at the last two balls and say: I would really rather be in bed asleep.

You know the declarative: Anything that can be misunderstood will be. Without question perception is converted to reality in the minds of many. With all the talk by the conservative right that: Obama may not really be President, Chief Justice Roberts went to the White House, and he and Obama did a re-take on the swearing-in (along with a few reporters and cameras in case someone attempted to challenge the fact).

Many people like ritual. It’s without doubt linked to patriotic emotions. We have flag ceremonies, marching ceremonies, who is first in procession to who is last, etc. People in the US like to see the President looking presidential. Obama did that. He knew Roberts was incorrect in word order. His instant decision was whether to say what the chief justice said or to pause and give him a chance to correct it. You may have noticed at the very end, Roberts said: “…so help you God.” It should have been so help me god. Obama recognized that error too and said: “…so help me God.” That latter is what Roberts was supposed to have said. Obama was supposed to repeat exactly what Roberts said.

[_harmony]

There are much more serious things that make Obama unqualified to be president such as being an extreme left-wing democrat (or even just a democrat). Only a few days in office and we see that he is much like Hugo Chavez.

Obama is a testament to the validity of our political process. Anything which can be done, can be undone by the next guy to sit in the chair. The good part? He has to undo the present mess, and he only has 4 years to do it. And if he fails to clean up the mess, it'll be his fault. If he does get the mess cleaned up, it'll be because of a bipartisan effort and both sides will attempt to steal the limelight. And 4 years after that, assuming he gets re-elected? The next president will undo whatever he doesn't like and backfill the holes with his own ideas.

Meanwhile, CEO's continue to redecorate their offices for $1million plus on the taxpayer's dime.

[_bcspace]

There are much more serious things that make Obama unqualified to be president such as being an extreme left-wing democrat (or even just a democrat). Only a few days in office and we see that he is much like Hugo Chavez.

Obama is a testament to the validity of our political process.

Yes. The mainstream media has been declared king maker.

He has to undo the present mess,

There is no mess left by Bush. He actually did some cleaning, though not enough imho.

and he only has 4 years to do it. And if he fails to clean up the mess, it'll be his fault.

I don't think that way, but many of the rest of the public do. But you just showed why Bush did not leave a mess.

Generally, a President has little or nothing to do with the economy unless he reduces or raises taxes. Bush saved us from the last economic downturn Obama's stated policies will simply exacerbate the situation. If he's smart, he'll have to come to the right if he wants something to happen now. Long term, he's a socialist disaster.

If he does get the mess cleaned up, it'll be because of a bipartisan effort and both sides will attempt to steal the limelight.

Which can only mean he did not clean up the mess. Remember the balanced budget of the 1990's? That was Clinton being dragged to it kicking and screaming.

Meanwhile, CEO's continue to redecorate their offices for $1million plus on the taxpayer's dime.

I notice that the main opposition to this was from the conservative side. This is partly why the Republicans lost. They abandoned their conservative principles as well as nominating a closet liberal.