JAHS Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) It was inevitable. There is now a petition to support the Mormon Tabernacle choir to sing at the 2017 inauguration. Probably unnecessary since there is no doubt that they are going. https://www.change.org/p/support-mormon-tabernacle-choir-singing-at-inauguration-2017?recruiter=649414151&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition Edited December 28, 2016 by JAHS
Duncan Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) I don't know why they aren't getting the KKK to sing, I mean they even have the robes for it Edited December 28, 2016 by Duncan 3
Bernard Gui Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) Substitute Barack Obama or Bill/Hillary Clinton...would the objections be as intense? Quote I have come to believe that cultural boycotts are not only pointless gestures, they are counter-productive, where proscribed states are further robbed of the open commerce of ideas and art and as a result become even more closed, paranoid and insular. (Sting) http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-07-02/9-celebrities-who-accidentally-performed-evil-foreign-tyrants " Accidentally" performed for millions of dollars? I don't think so. Edited December 28, 2016 by Bernard Gui 2
Duncan Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 It seems that the 'wear only one pair of earrings' situation seems crazy 1
JLHPROF Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 Wow. A goal of 100 supporters. That's sure to impress people. 2
Popular Post The Nehor Posted December 29, 2016 Popular Post Posted December 29, 2016 I am starting a petition to declare both petitions senseless and stupid. Anyone interested in signing? 7
Stargazer Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 On 12/29/2016 at 0:32 AM, Duncan said: It seems that the 'wear only one pair of earrings' situation seems crazy My very faithful LDS wife wears three pairs of earrings! They are very orderly and she looks fine with it. Of course, she looks fine in any case, but you know what I mean I suppose church leaders are trying to have us avoid this kind of thing: There are worse examples that could be posted, but I shall forebear. 1
canard78 Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 23 hours ago, Stargazer said: My very faithful LDS wife wears three pairs of earrings! They are very orderly and she looks fine with it. Of course, she looks fine in any case, but you know what I mean I suppose church leaders are trying to have us avoid this kind of thing: There are worse examples that could be posted, but I shall forebear. Even saying that this ear is breaking some "principle" seems an odd one. Essentially the ear rings rule is one of conservatism and conformity. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the argument is about treating the body as a temple, perhaps the temple chandeliers should go too... Surely being 100lbs overweight is more disrespectful to the body than a few metal bars in the ear. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 (edited) On 12/30/2016 at 4:37 AM, Stargazer said: My very faithful LDS wife wears three pairs of earrings! They are very orderly and she looks fine with it. Of course, she looks fine in any case, but you know what I mean I suppose church leaders are trying to have us avoid this kind of thing: There are worse examples that could be posted, but I shall forebear. As Elder Bednar said, it's not about the earrings. Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 On 12/28/2016 at 11:56 PM, The Nehor said: I am starting a petition to declare both petitions senseless and stupid. Anyone interested in signing? Senseless or not, I just signed the one linked to in the OP.
Duncan Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: As Elder Bednar said, it's not about the earrings. in comparison to singing at US President's events how are earrings even bad? to me it pales in comparison
Scott Lloyd Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Duncan said: in comparison to singing at US President's events how are earrings even bad? to me it pales in comparison So it's not just performing at Trump's inauguration you object to, then. You would prohibit the Church and the choir from any association whatsoever with any U.S. president? Until this moment I had not yet guaged the depth of your zealotry. How about Canadian prime ministers? Would you disaspprove of that as well? About 32 years ago, President Monson entertained the king and queen of Sweden on the grounds of the Church's temple in Stockholm. Does hearing that scandalize you? Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Duncan Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: So it's not just performing at Trump's inauguration you object to, then. You would prohibit the Church and the choir from any association whatsoever with any U.S. president? Until this moment I had not yet guaged the depth of your zealotry. How about Canadian prime ministers? Would you disaspprove of that as well? About 32 years ago, President Monson entertained the king and queen of Sweden on the grounds of the Church's temple in Stockholm. Does hearing that scandalize you? I have never heard of any Prime Minister having the MTC perform for them, I am not sure if they have even come here, they may have I don't know. Canadian PM's nobody cares about though, even Canadians don't care and the swearing in isn't a huge deal, I am not even sure it's televised or broadcast live-if so I have never seen it. If the Church is really non partisan then stay non partisan and get out of performing at inaugurations, I doubt anybody cares though if the chief muck-a-muck of the US comes to SLC and they do something then. Is the King of Sweden as big of a deal as Trump? is he divisive and honestly does anybody know Sweden had a King and Queen? I don't think they are a fair comparison. Would you object if the MTC got invited to perform for the North Korean head guy? even though you probably don't like me but you are more than welcome to come to the Temple dedication and the Hydro building eats are on me 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 15 hours ago, Duncan said: I have never heard of any Prime Minister having the MTC perform for them, I am not sure if they have even come here, they may have I don't know. Canadian PM's nobody cares about though, even Canadians don't care and the swearing in isn't a huge deal, I am not even sure it's televised or broadcast live-if so I have never seen it. If the Church is really non partisan then stay non partisan and get out of performing at inaugurations, I doubt anybody cares though if the chief muck-a-muck of the US comes to SLC and they do something then. Is the King of Sweden as big of a deal as Trump? is he divisive and honestly does anybody know Sweden had a King and Queen? I don't think they are a fair comparison. Would you object if the MTC got invited to perform for the North Korean head guy? even though you probably don't like me but you are more than welcome to come to the Temple dedication and the Hydro building eats are on me I've said nothing about disliking you. I have that meal at the Hydro building penciled into my tickler file in the event I get the Manitoba assignment. And we might as well charge it to my company. 1
Duncan Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I've said nothing about disliking you. I have that meal at the Hydro building penciled into my tickler file in the event I get the Manitoba assignment. And we might as well charge it to my company. good good!!! even though we disagree, it's fine! I don't grudges towards anybody 1
Thinking Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 On 12/28/2016 at 5:32 PM, Duncan said: It seems that the 'wear only one pair of earrings' situation seems crazy I'm with you on this one. Before the "official announcement" my wife had 2 earrings in her right ear and one in her left. It was sexy. After the proclamation by GBH she immediately took the extra one from the right ear out. I begged her to reconsider, but she wouldn't. 2
Jeanne Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As Elder Bednar said, it's not about the earrings. Ouch!! Talking about the picture
bcuzbcuz Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 25 minutes ago, Thinking said: I'm with you on this one. Before the "official announcement" my wife had 2 earrings in her right ear and one in her left. It was sexy. After the proclamation by GBH she immediately took the extra one from the right ear out. I begged her to reconsider, but she wouldn't. That's what it is all about. Whenever a new edict comes out, it is not to question why. When told to jump, the most important and only appropriate response is, "How high?" 1
Thinking Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As Elder Bednar said, it's not about the earrings. Quote For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. IMO Bednar is encouraging blind obedience. Even though Bednar claims it wasn't about the earrings, the number of earrings has become a symbol of obedience because they are visible and easy to count. It really is about the earrings. 3
carbon dioxide Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) I would only sign this petition if was to all future inaugurations as well. Trump might be a man of high moral flaws but Hillary Clinton also had many. Would there be the same response if Hillary won and the choir was invited? I somehow don't think so. Edited January 2, 2017 by carbon dioxide
JAHS Posted January 2, 2017 Author Posted January 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Thinking said: I'm with you on this one. Before the "official announcement" my wife had 2 earrings in her right ear and one in her left. It was sexy. After the proclamation by GBH she immediately took the extra one from the right ear out. I begged her to reconsider, but she wouldn't. I wouldn't call it a proclamation or "official announcement" or anything like that. When I heard him say it I took it more as just some wise council from the prophet. How did this turn into a discussion about earrings?
Duncan Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 Just now, JAHS said: I wouldn't call it a proclamation or "official announcement" or anything like that. When I heard him say it I took it more as just some wise council from the prophet. How did this turn into a discussion about earrings? becuase if singing for Trump is viewed as acceptable, not wearing two earrings seems like a non issue now, among other taboos in the Church-like, "well, if they sing for Trump then maybe I can wear a purple tie with yellow polka dots on it that spell RUN DMC to Church" if you don't have a problem with that then why this?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Duncan said: becuase if singing for Trump is viewed as acceptable, not wearing two earrings seems like a non issue now, among other taboos in the Church-like, "well, if they sing for Trump then maybe I can wear a purple tie with yellow polka dots on it that spell RUN DMC to Church" if you don't have a problem with that then why this? Two or more piercings is not a non-issue. They are still discouraged by Church leaders, as are tattoos. If you want, I can cite references, probably in "For the Strength of Youth" and "True to the Faith."
Duncan Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Two or more piercings is not a non-issue. They are still discouraged by Church leaders, as are tattoos. If you want, I can cite references, probably in "For the Strength of Youth" and "True to the Faith." it's fine, I looked it up! It says a lot of things I noticed too such as, "Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in anything that presents immorality or violence as acceptable. Have the courage to walk out of a movie, change your music, or turn off a computer, television, or mobile device if what you see or hear drives away the Spirit." Let's hope the inauguration isn't any of that, the man seems to be but hopefully the ceremony isn't 1
canard78 Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 12 hours ago, Duncan said: it's fine, I looked it up! It says a lot of things I noticed too such as, "Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in anything that presents immorality or violence as acceptable. Have the courage to walk out of a movie, change your music, or turn off a computer, television, or mobile device if what you see or hear drives away the Spirit." Let's hope the inauguration isn't any of that, the man seems to be but hopefully the ceremony isn't Good point. I agree with the point you're making. If earrings are about a measure of dignity or creating a respectable appearance, then as a principle it seems highly trivial in the face of celebrating the election of someone so immoral. 2
Recommended Posts