Robert F. Smith Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 20 hours 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? The other more important question (in light of strong condemnation by Mitt Romney, Evan McMullin, and other Mormons) might be whether a German version of MoTab should have felt obligated to sing at the inauguration of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor -- a post which he legally obtained on Jan 30, 1933, and which enabled him to become absolute dictator, and which did not reflect on any previous leaders of the Weimar Republic. Should we ever pose ethical and moral questions at a time like this? Or should we simply accept the Leni Riefenstahl version of reality, and celebrate the Triumph of the Will?
thesometimesaint Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 He almost makes me desire the return of Richard Nixon(Whom I voted for) and he belonged under the jail. He controls the House, Senate, Presidency, and is primed to gain control the Federal Courts. Do you really want the US military to intervene? That will be the end of our republic. We couldn't keep it, dear Mr. Franklin.
Thinking Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 21 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. You voted, so you have a dog in the fight, IMO. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: The other more important question (in light of strong condemnation by Mitt Romney, Evan McMullin, and other Mormons) might be whether a German version of MoTab should have felt obligated to sing at the inauguration of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor -- a post which he legally obtained on Jan 30, 1933, and which enabled him to become absolute dictator, and which did not reflect on any previous leaders of the Weimar Republic. Should we ever pose ethical and moral questions at a time like this? Or should we simply accept the Leni Riefenstahl version of reality, and celebrate the Triumph of the Will? Trump is not Hitler, and we are not pre-Nazi Germany. This country being divided over irrational histrionics right now is a more imminent danger than one man turning the nation into his own version of the Third Reich. Read Calm' s last post on this thread, the reply to The Sometime Saint. It made eminent sense. As I read the scriptures, we as the covenant people of God are to be a leavening influence in the world, a city set on a hill, as it were. The Tabernacle Choir appearing on a national stage and uniting the nation with a sense of patriotism after an unusually divisive political battle is one way I see us accomplishing that. Edited December 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 39 minutes ago, Thinking said: You voted, so you have a dog in the fight, IMO. What I meant is that I can call things as I see them without appearing to be a Trump loyalist, as I didn't vote for him.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: He almost makes me desire the return of Richard Nixon(Whom I voted for) and he belonged under the jail. He controls the House, Senate, Presidency, and is primed to gain control the Federal Courts. Do you really want the US military to intervene? That will be the end of our republic. We couldn't keep it, dear Mr. Franklin. Let's wait a few months and see if any of that materializes before you continue your hyperventilating. Edited December 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 3 hours ago, longview said: Do you remember the long lines of buses for transporting "protesters?" See: If anything, their irrationality and shrillness drove me closer to sympathizing with the Trump camp.
BlueDreams Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) I get the reasons MoTab chose to do so. Makes sense. I don't have a lot of emotion behind it either way. When I heard the news, i was at best minorly disappointed...followed by a shrug. But the hastag for a playlist was pretty funny . personally, if I were in the choir I would probably be among the 100 who wouldn't go. As it is, I won't be watching the inauguration at all. So it makes no difference to me. Church made it clear why it was doing so and that's enough for me. I Honestly don't think it's either all that negative or positive as I've seen it painted. Merry Christmas! with luv, BD Edited December 25, 2016 by BlueDreams 1
Duncan Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 6 hours ago, BlueDreams said: I get the reasons MoTab chose to do so. Makes sense. I don't have a lot of emotion behind it either way. When I heard the news, i was at best minorly disappointed...followed by a shrug. But the hastag for a playlist was pretty funny . personally, if I were in the choir I would probably be among the 100 who wouldn't go. As it is, I won't be watching the inauguration at all. So it makes no difference to me. Church made it clear why it was doing so and that's enough for me. I Honestly don't think it's either all that negative or positive as I've seen it painted. Merry Christmas! with luv, BD Maybe they'll sing "O Come all ye racists" or "O Holy Cash" or my personal favourite, "Joy to the World-unless you're Muslim" As i say I think it's a dumb move on the MTC's part but this will be a blip on the and in the radar screen of Trump's controversies. I thought that Utah had declared war on Pornography, "Public health crisis" and now the Choir is singing at a guy who's wife did such and such and he appeared on the cover of a dirty magazine. We're supposed to fight sin not join it. I get though they are in a tough spot and if they say no it could create worse problems from a maniac like Trump but hopefully this will blow over and be forgotten
Avatar4321 Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 We saints are supposed to be ambassadors of good will. It doesn't seem right to turn down an invitation. Especially when the church isn't not polical when it comes to politicians. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: We saints are supposed to be ambassadors of good will. It doesn't seem right to turn down an invitation. Especially when the church isn't not polical when it comes to politicians. When we have to go back 50 years or more to find the MTC singing for Democratic inaugural. Something tell me there is politics involved. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: When we have to go back 50 years or more to find the MTC singing for Democratic inaugural. Something tell me there is politics involved. So the MTC should have shown up uninvited? Or are you blaming the post-LBJ Democrats for not inviting the MTC to their inaugurals? 2
cacheman Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 16 hours ago, longview said: Do you remember the long lines of buses for transporting "protesters?" See: I know this video and story (along with a similar video from Austin) were published widely on conservative 'news' sites. However, they were shown to be nothing out of the ordinary. I am genuinely interested in seeing your evidence for paid protesters. https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/about-all-those-trump-protest-buses-zero-hedge-is-an-idiot/ http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-bused-into-austin/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html?_r=0 -cacheman 1
longview Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 33 minutes ago, cacheman said: I know this video and story (along with a similar video from Austin) were published widely on conservative 'news' sites. However, they were shown to be nothing out of the ordinary. I am genuinely interested in seeing your evidence for paid protesters. https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/about-all-those-trump-protest-buses-zero-hedge-is-an-idiot/ http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-bused-into-austin/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html?_r=0 -cacheman I have personally seen protest events in Denver. Once I had a part time job as a security guard at Union Station. I saw a group of activists with signs standing in front of the EPA office building. It was obviously being orchestrated, staged during off hours (between 11 pm and 2 am). They had the willing presence of reporters taking pictures and videos. It felt very artificial. I have no doubt they were paid. Frequently the Denver "undergound" weekly newspaper Westword have classified ads for "volunteers" to be paid $15/hr to push petitions, go door to door (community organizing), and participate in various "events." It is well known that "Occupy Wallstreet" stage media events in many places around the USA. Most of them are paid and transported. They were actually participants in the "Ferguson Riots" (that resulted from the Michael Brown attempt to injure police officer Darren Wilson). They were bused there. ACORN (now renamed) and many "community organizer" groups are heavily funded. Even your link for willyloman had this to say: "Clearly there are some Soros-backed professional protesters involved in these destabilization efforts. But clearly as well, there are some people who drank WAY TOO MUCH of the anti-Trump Koolaid over the past few months and it’s entirely understandable that if they think he’s Satan or Hitler or Jabba the Hut, they might just turn out and protest his election as a kind of a way of venting or cooling off." These kinds of agitation are occurring a lot more than Scopes is willing to admit to (it being a "progressive" web site).
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: When we have to go back 50 years or more to find the MTC singing for Democratic inaugural. Something tell me there is politics involved. Oh, I have no doubt there was politics involved. But to say or even hint that the Church or the choir bears the blame is transparently unjust. If you think the choir and the Church would not have just as readily accepted an invitation to perform at Democratic presidential inaugurals since LBJ's as it did the Republican ones, you are harboring a fantasy just as ridiculous as the birther nonsense. Edited December 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, BlueDreams said: I get the reasons MoTab chose to do so. Makes sense. I don't have a lot of emotion behind it either way. When I heard the news, i was at best minorly disappointed...followed by a shrug. But the hastag for a playlist was pretty funny . personally, if I were in the choir I would probably be among the 100 who wouldn't go. As it is, I won't be watching the inauguration at all. So it makes no difference to me. Church made it clear why it was doing so and that's enough for me. I Honestly don't think it's either all that negative or positive as I've seen it painted. Merry Christmas! with luv, BD You have no way of knowing the reasons 100 choir members are not going, and therefore, you are not justified in assuming it is because they disapprove of the choir performing at the inauguration. It takes a great deal of individual logistical sacrifice by choir members to fulfill out-of-town engagements. They are unpaid volunteers who must secure time off from work and other responsibilities to fulfill such duties. Even so, since not every member can be accommodated, there is typically a waiting list for participation in out-of-town engagements (I know there was for the Europe tour of this past summer), so the choir management can afford to allow for extenuating circumstances. Even so, I'm fairly certain political disagreement is not one of the circumstances for which allowance is made, and prospective choir members know that when they accept the privilege (and it is a privilege) of being in the choir. Edited December 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Duncan said: Maybe they'll sing "O Come all ye racists" or "O Holy Cash" or my personal favourite, "Joy to the World-unless you're Muslim" As i say I think it's a dumb move on the MTC's part but this will be a blip on the and in the radar screen of Trump's controversies. I thought that Utah had declared war on Pornography, "Public health crisis" and now the Choir is singing at a guy who's wife did such and such and he appeared on the cover of a dirty magazine. We're supposed to fight sin not join it. I get though they are in a tough spot and if they say no it could create worse problems from a maniac like Trump but hopefully this will blow over and be forgotten I assure you this will not be forgotten. History will now record that the choir performed at the inaugurals of six U.S. presidents, not just five, and, as in the past, it will be a feather in their cap. What might be relegated to the status of a footnote in history are the petty objections to the choir accepting the invitation to perform. Edited December 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Trump is not Hitler, .................................................. I certainly hope that you are correct, Scott. But then Hitler was not yet the full-fledged monster in January of 1933. It took him few years to get up to speed. 16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I read the scriptures, we as the covenant people of God are to be a leavening influence in the world, a city set on a hill, as it were. The Tabernacle Choir appearing on a national stage and uniting the nation with a sense of patriotism after an unusually divisive political battle is one way I see us accomplishing that. I don't mind "unusually divisive political battles" so much as I am concerned about sharp ethical and moral questions about pathological lying and scapegoating on a grand scale by a narcissistic charlatan whose reckless behavior may bring us all into a major state of chaos -- the precise nature of which we cannot as yet comprehend, but which is guaranteed to be multifaceted in its manifestation, and to have negative ramifications far into the future. We should be very afraid. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I certainly hope that you are correct, Scott. But then Hitler was not yet the full-fledged monster in January of 1933. It took him few years to get up to speed. I don't mind "unusually divisive political battles" so much as I am concerned about sharp ethical and moral questions about pathological lying and scapegoating on a grand scale by a narcissistic charlatan whose reckless behavior may bring us all into a major state of chaos -- the precise nature of which we cannot as yet comprehend, but which is guaranteed to be multifaceted in its manifestation, and to have negative ramifications far into the future. We should be very afraid. If you're so certain such a thing is imminent, Bob, perhaps you owe it to us to give us a timetable so we can plan our escape. How soon before the United States becomes a totalitarian and hegemenous nation waging global aggressive warfare and carrying out massive genocide on its own citizenry? Six months? A year? Near the end of the four-year term?
CV75 Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The other more important question (in light of strong condemnation by Mitt Romney, Evan McMullin, and other Mormons) might be whether a German version of MoTab should have felt obligated to sing at the inauguration of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor -- a post which he legally obtained on Jan 30, 1933, and which enabled him to become absolute dictator, and which did not reflect on any previous leaders of the Weimar Republic. Should we ever pose ethical and moral questions at a time like this? Or should we simply accept the Leni Riefenstahl version of reality, and celebrate the Triumph of the Will? A couple of thoughts on this. One is that I would have to see what the choir director would have said in conjunction with the choir’s attending. Performing in the USA in 2017 has the advantage of having a constitution supported in scripture as well as the ideals of Christian freedom and liberty, which ideals are what the choir support. The other is that people are clearly offended by Trump for what he has actually said. It seems only fair to give the choir the same benefit in explaining their purpose for performing at the inauguration (an event that would occur, regardless of who was voted in), which I think most people can agree with. Another is that in their function as missionaries, I think the choir would have taught Hitler the Gospel given the opportunity, especially if they had foresight. 2
CV75 Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I certainly hope that you are correct, Scott. But then Hitler was not yet the full-fledged monster in January of 1933. It took him few years to get up to speed. Alas. if anyone could have shut him down, it would have been the Rockettes.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 26, 2016 Author Posted December 26, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, CV75 said: A couple of thoughts on this. One is that I would have to see what the choir director would have said in conjunction with the choir’s attending. Performing in the USA in 2017 has the advantage of having a constitution supported in scripture as well as the ideals of Christian freedom and liberty, which ideals are what the choir support. The other is that people are clearly offended by Trump for what he has actually said. It seems only fair to give the choir the same benefit in explaining their purpose for performing at the inauguration (an event that would occur, regardless of who was voted in), which I think most people can agree with. Another is that in their function as missionaries, I think the choir would have taught Hitler the Gospel given the opportunity, especially if they had foresight. I believe the Facebook post I quoted in the prior thread from choir general manager Scott Barrick very well expresses the position of the choir. Edited December 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted December 26, 2016 Posted December 26, 2016 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: .................................a totalitarian and hegemenous nation waging global aggressive warfare and carrying out massive genocide on its own citizenry? Six months? A year? Near the end of the four-year term? Sounds like you want to start another of your famous clocks, even though I said none of those things. You probably need to go back and take a look at the actual quotes from both Mitt Romney and Evan McMullin (whom I named earlier for you) on not only why the Donald is the wrong ethical and moral choice, but why he is a national security threat to us all. This is not just another political issue, and I did not vote for Hilary. The circumstances are in fact very dire.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 26, 2016 Posted December 26, 2016 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: Alas. if anyone could have shut him down, it would have been the Rockettes. Yes, through distraction.
PeterPear Posted December 26, 2016 Posted December 26, 2016 On 12/24/2016 at 0:11 PM, 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. It was Hillary Clinton who started the birther movement. Pay attention next time. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/7-news-stories-2008-prove-hillary-started-obama-birtherism/
Recommended Posts