15 February 2008
News and Comments – 02/15/08
Posted by Roy Bischoff under: General; What's News .
A lot of you share articles and we appreciate your contributions. We want to provide a convenient place for those articles, also comments that you are not sure where else to put.
Mail this post
16 Comments so far...
Sharon Anderson Says:
15 February 2008 at 9:18 am.
About The Burial of President Gordon B. Hinckley
This article (especially interesting because it was not written by a Mormon). It is on the website for the Martin Marty Center– Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion and can be found in its entirety at http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2008/0207.shtml
How to Bury a Prophet
by Kathleen Flake
The Latter-day Saints buried their prophet on Saturday (2 Feb 2008). Thousands attended the service in person and millions more faithful watched in chapels around the globe, as well as on the internet. What they saw was an unusually personal ceremony for a very public man … Gordon Hinckley’s funeral was a family affair both in word and sacrament. It was an extraordinary display of what makes Mormonism tick.
Gordon Hinckley died at the age of ninety-seven, having been in the church’s leading councils since 1958 and serving as its fifteenth president since 1995. …A third of its present membership joined during his tenure as president. …CBS’s Mike Wallace admitted that Hinckley “fully deserves the almost universal admiration that he gets.” He was, as Newsweek’s Jon Meacham said, “a charming and engaging man, an unlikely prelate — and all the more impressive for that.” The same could be said of his funeral.
Hinckley’s funeral was an unlikely but impressive mix of the sacramental and the mundane, in large part because it observed Mormonism’s custom that families bury their dead. The family designs the memorial program, participates actively in it, and performs the ordinances that send their loved ones off to the next life. Yes, the chapel in this case was the LDS Conference center that held 21,000 mourners; the lay pastor who conducted the meeting was Thomas Monson, Hinckley’s presumptive successor as “prophet, seer, and revelator;” and the music was provided by the three-hundred-plus member Mormon Tabernacle Choir. But, in all other essentials, the service was performed by the family. A son gave the invocation. …The eulogy was given by a daughter …she declared “we are one family sharing an inheritance of faith.” Friends with high titles spoke next. Though the requisite list of Hinckley’s ecclesiastical accomplishments was given, it was subordinated to his success as a courageous and amusing friend and a successful husband and father. Another daughter gave the benediction…
…Cameras followed the mourners, focusing on his five children, twenty-five grandchildren and sixty-two great-grandchildren who formed the cortege to the cemetery. There,… the eldest son dedicated the grave without fanfare. …Then, church leaders were “dismissed,” as Monson put it. As the church teaches is the case in the afterlife, only the family remained.
Families are, as Latter-day Saints like to say, forever. What they don’t say is that the church is not forever. It is only the instrument for endowing families with the right and duty to mediate the gifts of the gospel to their members, thereby sealing the willing among them as families in the life to come. This was Hinckley’s message as a prophet. As he would have it and as the best Mormon funerals do, his message was embodied and enacted by his family who blessed him in death, no less than in life. This is how the Latter-day Saints, at least, bury a prophet.
Kathleen Flake is an associate professor of American Religious History at Vanderbilt University Divinity School and Graduate Department of Religion.
Cameron Says:
15 February 2008 at 9:20 am.
I guess all of this is coming as a surprise to some but I would have thought this is all expected. This is what happens in elections. The difference this time is that we have a more liberal candidate than we ever had for conservatives and so the old ways will shift us. By November most people will have knuckled under just as they party leaders knew all along they would. They have no respect for us. When they talk about us they say the hinterlands.
WASHINGTON — Republican officials say Former President George H.W. Bush will endorse John McCain in Texas on Monday.
The endorsement is seen as another sign of McCain’s tightening grip on the Republican presidential nomination. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the formal announcement is next week.
The Arizona senator has been working to solidify his support from the Republican base. The nod from the former president and patriarch of the Bush family will certainly help.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/15/former-president-bush-to-endorse-mccain/
E.E. Says:
15 February 2008 at 11:30 am.
Nice article, Sharon.
I thought about copying part of an article about the shooting but I don’t have the heart to do it. I do want to say how heart broken I am for the victims, the families, the community and the family of the shooter. My thoughts are that the chaos we feel spreading across the country is being felt even stronger by those who have emotional problems. I feel so bad for them.
Cameron Says:
15 February 2008 at 11:36 am.
I was struggling with the same problem. I think we should all take a moment out of our day and say a prayer for those poor people. It is devastating.
E.E. Says:
15 February 2008 at 12:26 pm.
Nice compliment for this website over on CoMMitted to Romney. I saw it at the blog near the bottom where Ann Marie endorses McCain. At the end of the comments SGS says very nice things and Joy responds. Cool.
Carrie Says:
15 February 2008 at 12:29 pm.
Rush says Mitt had no choice to follow McCain if he wants to have a future in the republican party. Rush understands. But it sure is making people mad.
Jesse Says:
15 February 2008 at 1:35 pm.
Having a permanent presence will not be tolerated in a Muslim nation like it was in Germany or Japan. McCain is confirming suspicions of people who have claimed we went into Iraq because we wanted an important permanent base in the Middle East and in a rich oil country. Whether or not it is true, the perception will make people believe it and will stir up more trouble with Muslims.
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend “maybe 100″ years in Iraq — saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Sen. John McCain defends his stance on troops in Iraq Thursday on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”
This week, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both took McCain to task for the comments, saying that if he’s elected he would continue what they call President Bush’s failed policies in Iraq.
“It’s not a matter of how long we’re in Iraq, it’s if we succeed or not,” McCain said to CNN’s Larry King.
“And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal — that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we’ve achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America.
“I won’t let that happen.”
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/index.html
Ghost Says:
15 February 2008 at 2:16 pm.
Muslims believe their land is sacred and infidels can no part there. When they see we aren’t just there to liberate but to occupy, lots of young moderate Muslims will become extremists.
Ghost Says:
15 February 2008 at 2:16 pm.
Sharon thanks for that. Great to have the perspective we have.
Cameron Says:
15 February 2008 at 2:26 pm.
After what we have all been learning about Russia I am freaked by what McCain is saying and he isn’t even the president yet. Please don’t put his finger on the button. He knows so little about foreign affairs which is supposed to be his strong suit. Doesn’t he even know Russia has been doing a lot better economically the last few years? It is the U.S. that is struggling now.
OSHKOSH, Wisconsin (Reuters) – U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain accused President Vladimir Putin of preparing to lead a puppet government in Russia in a blistering critique on Friday.
The Arizona senator, long critical of Putin, had harsh words for the Russian leader as he prepares to give up the presidency to a hand-picked successor and then take on a powerful role as prime minister.
“I think that Mr. Putin is trying to restore the old Russian empire. Obviously he is perpetuating himself in power in Russia virtually indefinitely by this setup of having basically a protege, someone who is doing his bidding as president while he serves as the prime minister,” McCain said.
“We knew the puppet show was going on, we just didn’t know who the puppet was.”
McCain, who was asked about the state of affairs in Russia during a town-hall meeting, is seeking the Republican Party’s nomination to face the Democrats’ choice in November’s election to succeed President George W. Bush.
McCain, who often says that when he looked into Putin’s eyes he saw a K, G and B, added he was concerned about Russia but not worried about a resurgent Russian empire.
“I’m not concerned that we will see a reignition of the old Cold War. Russia doesn’t have the assets or the capability or anything else to pose the kind of challenge” that it did during the days of the Soviet Union, he said.
McCain said Russia was blocking U.S. efforts to contain Iran and help in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Pickles Says:
15 February 2008 at 2:57 pm.
I can just imagine what Iran thinks of this guy being president. sheesh
Hank Says:
15 February 2008 at 4:21 pm.
Just heard on the radio that New York is last in the nation for being friendly to business. It is the seat of liberalism politically. Just like the tories who were strongest in New York.
Joy Bischoff Says:
15 February 2008 at 4:33 pm.
You must have read my accusation about tories. I admit it was harsh but I still think it applies. I wanted to come make a comment about something. I just realized that Romney was the only major candidate who was fundamentally and strongly against illegal immigration. Fred was against it but not as fiercely. No wonder there was no establishment support for those men. The Security and Prosperities Act to make an economic union of North America, is too far along. They aren’t about to let anybody mess with that. I know Peter. You’ll think it is a conspiracy theory but this one hasn’t been well hidden. Google it and stick with trusted sources. I’m not going to do people’s work for them. If you are on the internet then you can google and read.
Ghost Says:
15 February 2008 at 6:59 pm.
This was getting talked about around here so I thought people might find it interesting:
White men hold superdelegate power balance
In an ironic twist to the historic Democratic nominating contest between an African-American and a woman, the balance of power may be held by a more familiar face: the white male.
According to a Politico analysis, close to half of the 700-plus Democratic superdelegates who could end up determining the party nominee are white men.
One Obama superdelegate, a House member, had sharp criticism for the superdelegate racial and gender makeup, a reaction that reflects the sensitivities surrounding the issue.
“It’s still the old guard, the white men. They always want to control the outcome,” the superdelegate said. “But this time, they won’t be able to do it.”
Cavetrollhead Says:
16 February 2008 at 12:45 am.
Yea Cameron, I agree with the way you are thinking. The party leaders are trying to get us to knuckle under. I can see some good arguments for it but I think we shouldn’t just knuckle under without coming to the same conclusions by our own reasoning. Trusting authoritative endorsements is weak. I don’t know if this is relevant or not, but they say to never just trust endorsements on stock purchases either. Jim Cramer (sp?) was recommending Home-builder stocks last year. Can you imagine if you took that one hook- line – and sinker?
Mac Says:
16 February 2008 at 12:14 pm.
or should we say hook line and stinker
Maybe Cameron is out having some fun this weekend. He is usually around here early posting articles. It is quiet around here today even for a Saturday.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
