Online petitions call for Motabs, Rockettes not to appear at inaugural

[Yirgacheffe]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A corollary is if they don't go to this one they shouldn't have gone to any in the past. 

I don't remember this ever being an issue in the past, even among those who were peeved that their guy lost. Have we raised a generation of cry babies? 

Well we've never elected a man who said he grabbed women by the crotch and kissed them without their consent, with a wife who posed naked and provocatively for magazine layouts before have we, where are all the pornographic pictures of past first ladies?  Sorry but it looks a little hypocritical to have Utah, the home of the LDS church hand wringing about pornography being a public health crisis yet this is the man and the first lady Utah chooses.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Well we've never elected a man who said he grabbed women by the crotch and kissed them without their consent, with a wife who posed naked and provocatively for magazine layouts before have we, where are all the pornographic pictures of past first ladies?  Sorry but it looks a little hypocritical to have Utah, the home of the LDS church hand wringing about pornography being a public health crisis yet this is the man and the first lady Utah chooses.

I somewhat agree. Scary because several idiots out there are thinking it's okay for their racism to be out and acting on it. I've read a few articles where people are acting aggressive towards those of color. It's almost as if since the leader of our nation has given them the ok (through some antics while campaigning and discrimination in the apartment industry) for example.

At first I was thinking this is no big deal. The MoTab singing at his inaugural. But OTOH, maybe it is. But if the MoTab had refused it might be a bigger story.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was inevitable, I suppose, but I learn today from my Google Alert news feed that there are two online petitions.

They are a bit different. The one urges the Church to stop the practice of having the choir appear at inaugurals, especially Trump's. Apparently they also disapprove of the choir's appearance for inaugural events of five previous U.S. presidents including LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes.

The one pertaining to the Rockettes demands that the Madison Square Garden management not force any of the Rockettes to perform for the inauguration. It's a moot point, as none of the Rockettes had been required to do it in the first place. It's all voluntary, and there are more willing Rockette volunteers than there are slots to accommodate them.

It would be the same with the choir, assuming arguendo that there are any members who would not want to participate in this opportunity. Only a portion of the choir's full membership complement can be accommodated on this trip.

A side note: The person who launched the petition about the choir is a former president of Affirmation, so it appears there is some political baggage here.

I also know that there is a certain segment of the populace that will sign just about anything that is put under their noses.

I watched YouTube video a few days ago in which a couple of comedians were circulating a petition to ban the celebration of Christmas on a college campus. They were using all the mandatory buzz words, including creating a "safe space" for those who don't like Christmas. "Oh sure, I'll sign that." It was hilarious.

In another one they were asking people if the surprise endorsement of Hillary Clinton by actor John Wayne had influenced their thinking. A surprising number were quite impressed and were apparently oblivious to the fact that John Wayne died in 1979.

 

I don’t see why anyone of good will would not take the choir at its word. It is not about condoning the behavior of the president or his politics, but about supporting the American people, their inspired constitution, and the spirit of liberty. The director said, “It is a demonstration of our support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power.”

But for those who insist on making it personal, I wouldn’t discourage the missionaries from teaching Kim Jong-un on a national broadcast either. Even Jesus ate and drank with publicans and sinners.

Especially for those whose politics are overly ingrained with a sense of self: See https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/aiming-at-the-center?lang=eng

“The more we learn about God and feel His love for us, the more we realize that the infinite sacrifice of Jesus Christ is a divine gift of God. And God’s love inspires us to use the path of true repentance, which will lead to the miracle of forgiveness. This process enables us to have greater love and compassion for those around us. We will learn to see beyond labels. We will resist the temptation to accuse or judge others by their sins, shortcomings, flaws, political leanings, religious convictions, nationalities, or skin color.”

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t see why anyone of good will would not take the choir at its word. It is not about condoning the behavior of the president or his politics, but about supporting the American people, their inspired constitution, and the spirit of liberty. The director said, “It is a demonstration of our support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power.”

 

But for those who insist on making it personal, I wouldn’t discourage the missionaries from teaching Kim Jong-un on a national broadcast either. Even Jesus ate and drank with publicans and sinners.

 

Especially for those whose politics are overly ingrained with a sense of self: See https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/aiming-at-the-center?lang=eng

 

“The more we learn about God and feel His love for us, the more we realize that the infinite sacrifice of Jesus Christ is a divine gift of God. And God’s love inspires us to use the path of true repentance, which will lead to the miracle of forgiveness. This process enables us to have greater love and compassion for those around us. We will learn to see beyond labels. We will resist the temptation to accuse or judge others by their sins, shortcomings, flaws, political leanings, religious convictions, nationalities, or skin color.”

 

Not to derail, but you left one out, those that choose to marry in a SSM.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Not to derail, but you left one out, those that choose to marry in a SSM.

Yes. We even reach out to unrepentant sinners and invite them to repent, put off the natural man and obey God's laws, even as we treat them with compassion, respect and civility. 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I somewhat agree. Scary because several idiots out there are thinking it's okay for their racism to be out and acting on it. I've read a few articles where people are acting aggressive towards those of color. It's almost as if since the leader of our nation has given them the ok (through some antics while campaigning and discrimination in the apartment industry) for example.

At first I was thinking this is no big deal. The MoTab singing at his inaugural. But OTOH, maybe it is. But if the MoTab had refused it might be a bigger story.

Trump, for all his shortcomings, has not okayed racism. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Well we've never elected a man who said he grabbed women by the crotch and kissed them without their consent, with a wife who posed naked and provocatively for magazine layouts before have we, where are all the pornographic pictures of past first ladies?  Sorry but it looks a little hypocritical to have Utah, the home of the LDS church hand wringing about pornography being a public health crisis yet this is the man and the first lady Utah chooses.

We have elected men who have been unfaithful to their wives while in office, including LBJ, whose inaugural was the first the MoTabs ever sang at. You can bet that if Bill Clinton had invited the choir to perform at the White House, they would readily have accepted, even after the Lewinsky scandal. 

It's because we honor the institution and the country and the office, not necessarily the man. 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Not to derail, but you left one out, those that choose to marry in a SSM.

Elder Uchtdorf left it out (along with those who derail threads! ), not me! But I do think he included it in spirit, as do I.

[longview]

How come there are no mention of "paid thugs" financed by certain activist organizations to assault supporters of Trump?

[thesometimesaint]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Trump, for all his shortcomings, has not okayed racism. 

Where was Obama born and is he the legitimate President?

 

12 minutes ago, longview said:

How come there are no mention of "paid thugs" financed by certain activist organizations to assault supporters of Trump?

Because it is a lie.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Where was Obama born and is he the legitimate President?

 

Because it is a lie.

It was a wacky conspiracy theory but it was not okaying racism. 

And paid or not, there were thugs assaulting Trump supporters. There are YouTube videos. 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was a wacky conspiracy theory but it was not okaying racism. 

And paid or not, there were thugs assaulting Trump supporters. There are YouTube videos. 

It was what Trump ran on, and almost 2/3 of Trump voters still believe it.

SEE http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-supporters-think-obama-is-a-muslim-born-in-another-country.html

I make no excuse for anyone resorting to violence for any, non self defense, reason. However being paid to attack others is geometrically worse.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I voted for McMullin, so I don't have much of a dog in the fight, but it is unseemly when sore losers won't even make a pretense of decency and civility. At least Mrs. Clinton and Obama behaved with class after the election. 

And the petition signers demanding that the choir not do any inaugural at all? Give me a break! Where were they when the choir performed for the two Bushes and Reagan? Oh yeah, probably not even born yet. Well they're adults now. It's time for commensurate growth in maturity.  

 I am with Scott on this one.  The Choir is an arm of goodwill that the Church has maintained for many years. They perform in a variety of venues.  To pass up the inaugural event for Donald Trump would be down right silly.   And I am a vehement Trump opposer.  But this is good for the Choir, the Church and really the Country.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It was what Trump ran on, and almost 2/3 of Trump voters still believe it.

SEE http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-supporters-think-obama-is-a-muslim-born-in-another-country.html

I make no excuse for anyone resorting to violence for any, non self defense, reason. However being paid to attack others is geometrically worse.

I don't recall it (birtherism) being an issue in the campaign, let alone it being what Trump "ran on." And I've not heard that two-thirds of his supporters believe in it. The poll you cite is well over a year old and was published before the primaries. In any event, it is a stretch to say it okays racism.

And morally speaking, I don't see a great deal of difference between being a paid thug or doing it on your own part.

It is reprehensible in any case -- despite rationalization, like the ghastly woman I saw on YouTube who characterized looting as "forced reparations."

Edited December 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 I am with Scott on this one.  The Choir is an arm of goodwill that the Church has maintained for many years. They perform in a variety of venues.  To pass up the inaugural event for Donald Trump would be down right silly.   And I am a vehement Trump opposer.  But this if good for the Choir, the Church and really the Country.

This may be your best post yet!

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This may be your best post yet!

Thank you Scott.  Merry Christmas to you. I know we cross swords at times.  For may part in that I am sorry.  I hope in interacting in the future I can be more polite and less strident.  I love participating in this board and while I do not know most if any here personally there is much we have in common that ties us together. So there is still an affinity among us.

 

 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't recall it (birtherism) being an issue in the campaign, let alone it being what Trump "ran on." And I've not heard that two-thirds of his supporters believe in it. I think you are guessing. 

And morally speaking, I don't see a great deal of difference between being a paid thug or doing it on your own part.

And it is reprehensible in any case -- despite rationalization, like the ghastly woman I saw on YouTube who characterized looting as "forced reparations."

La Sigh.

From 2011 SEE

I have no connection to the PPP. Please look at the PPP survey I linked to.

That you don't see the difference is very frightening.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think that those who lost the election are embarrassing themselves by trying to sabotage Trump's presidency before he even takes office.

Yeah, I prefer to just let Trump embarrass himself and sabotage his own presidency. He does not need any help.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

La Sigh.

From 2011 SEE

I have no connection to the PPP. Please look at the PPP survey I linked to.

That you don't see the difference is very frightening.

I looked at it and commented in an amendment to that post. 

TSS, the campaign is over. Your party lost. Maybe if you had given us a viable choice instead of trying to foist another Clinton administration on us, you wouldn't be saddled with Trump right now. 

But it's time to look ahead, not back. We need to unite the country as best we can. Use the next four years to find a better candidate for president, and we'll consider him/her. 

I'll respond to no more posts intended to turn this thread into a brawl over partisan politics. You've been warned by the moderators; I intend to abide by the spirit of their directive. 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Thank you Scott.  Merry Christmas to you. I know we cross swords at times.  For may part in that I am sorry.  I hope in interacting in the future I can be more polite and less strident.  I love participating in this board and while I do not know most if any here personally there is much we have in common that ties us together. So there is still an affinity among us.

 

 

 

 

In the spirit of reconciliation and bright good will at Christmas, I no longer have you "on ignore."

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

 I am with Scott on this one.  The Choir is an arm of goodwill that the Church has maintained for many years. They perform in a variety of venues.  To pass up the inaugural event for Donald Trump would be down right silly.   And I am a vehement Trump opposer.  But this is good for the Choir, the Church and really the Country.

I am with Scott as well.  We should applaud when the church is more inclusive rather then when it builds walls to keep others out.  I find the choir going to the inaugural noble because they represent the church which should be teaching a message of welcome and love no matter what their sins are.  We need more of this and less divisiveness.  

[longview]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I make no excuse for anyone resorting to violence for any, non self defense, reason. However being paid to attack others is geometrically worse.

 

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And morally speaking, I don't see a great deal of difference between being a paid thug or doing it on your own part.

Do you remember the long lines of buses for transporting "protesters?"   See:   

 

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I looked at it and commented in an amendment to that post. 

TSS, the campaign is over. Your party lost. Maybe if you had given us a viable choice instead of trying to foist another Clinton administration on us, you wouldn't be saddled with Trump right now. 

But it's time to look ahead, not back. We need to unite the country as best we can. Use the next four years to find a better candidate for president, and we'll consider him/her. 

I'll respond to no more posts intended to turn this thread into a brawl over partisan politics. You've been warned by the moderators; I intend to abide by the spirit of their directive. 

I'm not a Democrat as I told you before. I'm not a member of any political party. My politics lean Green, but there are plenty of things I disagreed with Jill Stein on. 

I will NEVER UNITE with him. But I will be pleasantly surprised if we survive as a democratically elected republic the next two years let alone the next four. I was no fan of Hillary, and am still not a fan of her.

I have nothing against Republicans. I've voted for some of them in the past, and hope I will live long enough to do so again someday.

[Avatar4321]

19 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Well we've never elected a man who said he grabbed women by the crotch and kissed them without their consent, with a wife who posed naked and provocatively for magazine layouts before have we, where are all the pornographic pictures of past first ladies?  Sorry but it looks a little hypocritical to have Utah, the home of the LDS church hand wringing about pornography being a public health crisis yet this is the man and the first lady Utah chooses.

Maybe not. But we've elected several accused of rape.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

But I will be pleasantly surprised if we survive as a democratically elected republic the next two years let alone the next four....

I find this so over dramatic; as if there has never been an incompetent, amoral, narcissistic or whatever president and yet the republic is still here.  Trump is going to bring down over 200 years of the republic just by moving into the White House and scowling at the legislature, Supreme Court, and military so that they crumble and do his illegal biding.

What is he going to do?  Declare martial law?  And who exactly would obey him on this and resist impeaching him immediately?  

I have been reading the same claims about Obama for the past 6 years at least, he was going to be the end of the republic.  I see Obama is much more intelligent than Trump; if he couldn't manage turning the country into his version of paradise, I don't see how Trump is going to manage.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Calm