The show must -- and did -- go on

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Walden said:

The approach was not my point (though it's debatable whether or not the protest approach or the approach in which LDS members show up on my doorstep uninvited and unannounced is preferable).

My point was that each participant (whether it be protesters or Home Teachers) fully believes that they are doing God's will, independent of the sentiments of the people on the other side of the street (with protesters) or the other side of the door (with Home Teachers) and both are sure that their actions will lead to a more desirable place in their God's kingdom after their deaths.

Well, then they should really use the Light of Christ so they actually end up on the right side. I won't hold my breath.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well they got up to 6,270 supporters.  But it sounds like their stated goal was to support children and families, not mean-spirited, vindictive, nor nastiness, quite like the OP claimed.

oh well.  Some have called the Church mean-spirited and some call those who oppose mean-spirited.  neither claim for themselves to be mean-spirited, huh?

When you push a political view by trying to destroy an unrelated cultural or entertainment event, I call that vindictive and mean-spirited. I would never do that, regardless of how ardently I felt about a particular cause.

I stand by my comments about the nastiness and vindictiveness of the online petition drive.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Walden said:

The approach was not my point (though it's debatable whether or not the protest approach or the approach in which LDS members show up on my doorstep uninvited and unannounced is preferable).

My point was that each participant (whether it be protesters or Home Teachers) fully believes that they are doing God's will, independent of the sentiments of the people on the other side of the street (with protesters) or the other side of the door (with Home Teachers) and both are sure that their actions will lead to a more desirable place in their God's kingdom after their deaths.

The ISIS terrorists fully believe they are doing God's will. Doesn't make their behavior the functional equivalent of what Mormon home teachers do.

Some behavior is just inherently odious, hateful and contemptible regardless of how ardently you support a cause. Which, I suspect, is part of the reason why the online petition drive didn't gain much traction.

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The ISIS terrorists fully believe they are doing God's will.

I am not convinced that they do.

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced that they do.

Whether they do or not, they profess to. Thus, my point stands that some behavior is inherently odious regardless of the motive or reasoning behind it.

Or, as Ben Shapiro said recently in a speech at the University of Missouri, "There’s never been a bad person on planet Earth who has not felt justified in doing his or her bad thing."

Edited December 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Nuts! From the title of your post I thought that MoTab was going to perform Pink Floyd's The Wall. 

Now that would be awesome.

[hope_for_things]

Its one thing to try and get the concert cancelled, in other words to restrict the church from having a right to hold a concert at all.  It's a different matter to try and have particular artists refrain from participating on moral grounds.  Sounds similar to the civil rights era when certain college athletic programs refused to play BYU because of the church's racist priesthood policy.  

The church often encourages members to not participate in things that the church finds morally irresponsible.  Patronizing stores that don't do business on Sundays, or avoiding movies and media from organizations that produce products that the church finds inappropriate.  This seems like very similar behavior to a boycott.  I'm not sure there is a clear line of distinction between what these people were doing and what the church encourages members to do.  

[Calm]

CFR for actual boycotts for companies in general as opposed to avoiding immoral behaviour in and of itself. (not challenging, what information)

Edited December 18, 2015 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR for actual boycotts for companies in general as opposed to avoiding immoral behaviour in and of itself. (not challenging, what information)

Hmm...  trying to think if there have been specific businesses called out by name or more just general guidelines.  Not often does the church like to name names, even the Donald Trump rebuttle statement a couple weeks ago, didn't specifically call him out by name. Didn't one of the church leaders talk about the Movie Strip Tease, the one with Demi Moore that one of the leaders said something about.  Besides businesses that close on Sunday and other general statements about the pornography industry, alcohol industry, gambling, or other types of media to avoid, I can't think of any good examples with specific names.  I'm not sure that matters though, I think the general principle is similar in nature to a boycott, perhaps without specific businesses targeted, but there may be some examples of that I just can't think of any at the moment.  

[Calm]

I think there is a difference between avoiding an immoral behaviour and thus the promoter of it and avoiding the promoter in all cases.

I remember the Church definitely teaching the one, but I don't remember it doing the second.  In the case of the movie, Strip Tease, did they suggest people never see a movie done by that company again or with Moore in it or did they just speak about avoiding the movie?  Do they speak of avoiding stores that are open on Sunday even on nonSunday days or do they speak of supporting stores that do stay open on Sunday or just avoiding stores on Sunday?

I don't think teaching one to avoid immorality where it is occurring is the same thing as teaching one to boycott anyone who profits from that immorality but also deals in mainly moral things (of course if something primarily dealt in porn, one would be likely avoiding all their business but there are companies that make beer and tobacco and while we are taught not to purchase those items from these companies, if they produce other products I don't remember teachings us to avoid them just on principle), so I think I would like to see specifics before assuming the Church is teaching the equivalent of telling people to protest a Christmas show put on by the Church because of a church policy about chastity.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Nuts! From the title of your post I thought that MoTab was going to perform Pink Floyd's The Wall. 

Now that would be awesome.

Sorry, your joke fell flat with me.

"The show must go on" is an expression that long predates Pink Floyd or Queen any other rock group.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is a difference between avoiding an immoral behaviour and thus the promoter of it and avoiding the promoter in all cases.

I remember the Church definitely teaching the one, but I don't remember it doing the second.  In the case of the movie, Strip Tease, did they suggest people never see a movie done by that company again or with Moore in it or did they just speak about avoiding the movie?  Do they speak of avoiding stores that are open on Sunday even on nonSunday days or do they speak of supporting stores that do stay open on Sunday or just avoiding stores on Sunday?

I don't think teaching one to avoid immorality where it is occurring is the same thing as teaching one to boycott anyone who profits from that immorality but also deals in mainly moral things (of course if something primarily dealt in porn, one would be likely avoiding all their business but there are companies that make beer and tobacco and while we are taught not to purchase those items from these companies, if they produce other products I don't remember teachings us to avoid them just on principle), so I think I would like to see specifics before assuming the Church is teaching the equivalent of telling people to protext a Christmas show put on by the Church because of a church policy about chastity.

I also believe the comparison drawn by hope_for_things obviously fails.

One example is the rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar" that was popular in the early 1970s. I clearly remember (I was in high school then) that the Church encouraged people not to patronize it because it blatantly called into question the divinity of Christ.

Since then, the Church has had no problem with other musicals written and composed by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber. In fact, if memory serves, "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat" was actually presented at "Promised Valley Playhouse," a Church-owned theater in downtown Salt Lake City that is no longer in existence.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Guest]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well they got up to 6,270 supporters.  But it sounds like their stated goal was to support children and families, not mean-spirited, vindictive, nor nastiness, quite like the OP claimed.

oh well.  Some have called the Church mean-spirited and some call those who oppose mean-spirited.  neither claim for themselves to be mean-spirited, huh?

The difference is simple, they seek to disrupt our meetings...we do not return in kind. This is how you know who the good guys are. 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No functional equivalency. The Church of Jesus Christ does not take that kind of approach.

 

Unless you count funerals in Mormon chapels . . .

 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

 Especially those who would attempt to shout down and elderly Prophet. 

Another good argument for younger prophets.

 

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here's a link to the original petition calling for the boycott.

Cancel your performance w/ Mormon Tabernacle Choir over discriminatory homophobic policies

For the record, and in a bit more serious vein, I do not like the idea of trying to boycott a musical presentation because of a problem with religious policy.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The ISIS terrorists fully believe they are doing God's will. Doesn't make their behavior the functional equivalent of what Mormon home teachers do.

Some behavior is just inherently odious, hateful and contemptible regardless of how ardently you support a cause. Which, I suspect, is part of the reason why the online petition drive didn't gain much traction.

You are right that terrorists are not the functional equivalent of home teachers, Scott.

But neither are terrorists the functional equivalent of calling for a boycott.

Calling for a boycott may not be something I would support, but it is not "inherently odious, hateful and contemptible."

Some people would use those words to describe the new Church policy.

Which is why they called for the boycott in the first place.

 

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry, your joke fell flat with me.

"The show must go on" is an expression that long predates Pink Floyd or Queen any other rock group.

Okay, then I've got a joke that maybe you'll like, which seems appropriate here.

What is the difference between a terrorist and a soprano?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can negotiate with the terrorist.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its one thing to try and get the concert cancelled, in other words to restrict the church from having a right to hold a concert at all.  It's a different matter to try and have particular artists refrain from participating on moral grounds.  Sounds similar to the civil rights era when certain college athletic programs refused to play BYU because of the church's racist priesthood policy.  

The church often encourages members to not participate in things that the church finds morally irresponsible.  Patronizing stores that don't do business on Sundays, or avoiding movies and media from organizations that produce products that the church finds inappropriate.  This seems like very similar behavior to a boycott.  I'm not sure there is a clear line of distinction between what these people were doing and what the church encourages members to do.  

I think you make some very good points here, Hope!

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Another good argument for younger prophets.

 

How would a "younger Apostle" be called, and how young. It would not matter if he were 35, still shouting the Prophet down in any meeting is unacceptable. 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

How would a "younger Apostle" be called, and how young. It would not matter if he were 35, still shouting the Prophet down in any meeting is unacceptable. 

Okay.  I thought you were just upset because he was "elderly."

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I also believe the comparison drawn by hope_for_things obviously fails.

One example is the rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar" that was popular in the early 1970s. I clearly remember (I was in high school then) that the Church encouraged people not to patronize it because it blatantly called into question the divinity of Christ.

Since then, the Church has had no problem with other musicals written and composed by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber. In fact, if memory serves, "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat" was actually presented at "Promised Valley Playhouse," a Church-owned theater in downtown Salt Lake City that is no longer in existence.

The Church advised its members to not see "The Last Temptation of Christ" back in the 80's.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Okay.  I thought you were just upset because he was "elderly."

Just an added issue of bad social behavior. But no, not my only issue, I just feel more harm is being done when one to an elderly man. But maybe a younger Prophet could be like Saint Nick (the real one) and challenge heretics to fist fight to settle the matter.  

Edited December 19, 2015 by Pa Pa

[Calm]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The Church advised its members to not see "The Last Temptation of Christ" back in the 80's.

OTOH, there were performances of certain Godspell songs in at least my sacrament meetings...very conservative ward too.  My family even performed one for my brother's farewell.  My grandma was the one to take us to the performances, though she was a bit uncomfortable with the clown costumes; she was a good sport about taking us to stuff she wasn't comfortable at, the circus (her allergies), Disneyland (the crowds), rollercoaster theme park (her equilibrium...and her little hairpiece which semidetached itself).

I believe it was shortly there after sacrament meeting music was much more limited, but I may be confusing events.  (Given the quality of some of the performances, shutting them down was not all bad)

Edited December 19, 2015 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 12/18/2015 at 1:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether they do or not, they profess to. Thus, my point stands that some behavior is inherently odious regardless of the motive or reasoning behind it.

Yes, but I am not convinced that it is usually possible to sin in ignorance to the degree violent terrorists do.

I do think most of them are ignorant morons with delusions of grandeur and that, in any other sphere of life, their bumbling antics should inspire more ridicule then fear, but I think on some level they know that what they are doing is wrong.

You didn't start it but further comparisons to criminal behavior won't end well.