Sky Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 The Mo Tab has sung in the inaugurations of all the presidents that have carried and won in Utah over the last 50 years or so. I will applaud the day when they sing in the inauguration of a Democratic president that didn't win in Utah. Then I will believe their claim of being completely neutral and non-partisan.
bsjkki Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Gray said: Just based on the hyperlinks and headlines, these don't sound like credible sources at all. Fake news strikes again? The Washington Post spread the fake news. Try to wrap your mind around that. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/02/how-the-washington-posts-defense-of-its-russian-hacking-story-unraveled-through-web-archiving/#4d554cde2bc1 And they admitted it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-do-not-appear-to-have-targeted-vermont-utility-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/01/02/70c25956-d12c-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.e5e718a90b26 Lawnewz is a liberal site...I tried to get a summation from a liberal site because I know liberals don't believe anything printed by a conservative source. Here is a CNN source. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/308227-cooper-to-warren-no-evidence-bannon-a-white-supremacist The Jewish Press is a conservative/orthodox jewish publication so here is some backup. I think Chamberlin believed everything she read about Trump in the press and that is what led to her actions. Trump was my 17th choice and he has issues but he is not Hitler. She should have resigned quietly because of her role as a missionary and not made it a public spectacle. Edited January 3, 2017 by bsjkki 1
california boy Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 29 minutes ago, Calm said: CB, there is a significant difference, imo, in using a calling...especially a missionary calling...to gain publicity to be heard. If she had resigned and then publicly called for them to refuse the invite without referring to her former calling, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. My main problem though is the whole Trump is early Hitler vibe even if I think it inappropriate to promote oneself using church callings when that is to give oneself an edge in judging the Church, even if the promotion is for good intentions. I can see someone appropriately using their experience as a missionary or bishop or whatever to explain how they became familiar with a community's need in their humanitarian efforts, but if they were then to add that they were stepping up because the Church was doing things the wrong way and needed to change or trashed the community they were called to serve with love and compassion, that would be inappropriate in my view and disrespectful of one's calling and the ultimate source the calling was serving, God. I agree with you about the whole Trump is Hitler thing. That is why I was on the fence about this issue for so long. I don't agree with the rhetoric. I personally want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and hope he becomes a great president. But I am also a great believer in consequence for past deeds. Trump has given anyone plenty of reasons for not wanting to perform at his swearing in. Because a choir member is holding him responsible for past comments and being vocal for her reasons for not performing is how our system works. The choir has publicly made their position clear. She is making her position clear. Some people support what the choir has done. Some people support what the choir member has done. That's how things work. She used her former position in the choir to make it clear why she resigned. That is not an uncommon way people make their voices heard. Movie stars, politicians, world leaders, church leaders, etc do this all the time. They use their positions to add weight and notoriety to their positions.
california boy Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 38 minutes ago, cdowis said: I am having difficulty in seeing an endorsement of Trump as being a moral instead of a partisan political issue. If I voted for Trump, do I need to confess this to the bishop? Have my temple recommend taken away? If someone is prepared to look foolish, by all means declare yourself in the public square and we will help clarify things for you. But it will be painful. Does that answer your question. I think you do. Perhaps that is why I am not your bishop. In all seriousness, you can't see why some people find it immoral to support Trump and what he stands for?
CV75 Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: "of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. "a period of political and economic stability" synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More of or relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics. "a decision taken for purely political reasons" synonyms:politically active, party; More" She is referring to the first definition and you, the second, I believe. Partisan is a less ambiguous word choice for what you mean, I think. I am referring to the first definition in bold (government); the second in italics (partisanship); and both in the underline: "I don't see that it is. By nature, the inauguration is merely the neutral process (in this case, the USA system of government) that formally admits presidents to office, regardless of their party or personal morality, which seems rather transcendent to me... The choir clearly described why it is performing, at a function that transcends politics. "Now there is nothing wrong with addressing transcendent values in the political process, as morality is the root of law. But undermining the expression of other common, transcendent values and misrepresenting someone's good-faith expression of what he stands for, to make a political point about what you stand against, is dirty no matter how worthy the values; none of them are mutually exclusive anyway." --- But as I shall now wax political, I agree entirely! And I entirely agree with her as well in her point of fact (if not entirely in deed or intent). 1
bsjkki Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, california boy said: I think you do. Perhaps that is why I am not your bishop. In all seriousness, you can't see why some people find it immoral to support Trump and what he stands for? I do understand why some people may think Trump is immoral and could not support him. His recorded statement about women was crude and offensive. Do you understand that for some, Hillary was more immoral? Her policies on abortion alone, made it impossible for my very Catholic and Born Again family members to ever vote for her. Do you feel they were immoral for choosing Trump over Hillary because of her abortion stance? These are not simple, clear cut debates. Edited January 3, 2017 by bsjkki 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, Sky said: I'm referring to all the people and groups that Trump has insulted. You mean terrorists? And criminals entering the country so they can find cover for their crimes? Such groups ought to be insulted.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even taking his comments at their most literal and applying the least charitable interpretation to them, Trump is no Hitler. And to bring it back to the topic of this thread, Sister Chamberlin has been intemperate in her speech and behavior -- a thing she charges Trump with -- and compounding that, she has included the choir and its leadership in the broad sweep of her contempt and is thereby bringing them into public disrepute. 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: CFR with direct quotes, please. Well now, I can't very easily do that as she has taken down her Facebook post. But I'm referring to (going by memory here) her statement to the effect that the choir singing at the inauguration is throwing roses at Hitler and singing for Hitler. How could such remarks not be understood as reflecting negatively on her former colleagues in the choir and on the choir leadership. And since the choir does not accept an invitaiton like this without First Presidency approval, it reflects on them too.
thesometimesaint Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You mean terrorists? And criminals entering the country so they can find cover for their crimes? Such groups ought to be insulted. SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/he-doesnt-like-trump-one-bit-choir-quitter-isnt-only-mormon-with-inauguration-dread/ 1
california boy Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Performing at a presidential inauguration has never been regarded by the Church as a moral issue. So Jan Chamberlin and others who are holding the choir (and, by logical extension, the Church) in contempt for performing at the inauguration are endeavoring to hold the Church accountable for a standard that the Church does not accept. In all fairness Scott, we have never had a presidential candidate that has said the kind of things, that Trump has said. She does not stand alone in thinking that Trump is immoral and his statements are reckless. I am willing to look at both sides of this issue. I don't have a problem with the choice the choir made. I also don't have a problem with the choice Sis Chamberlin made. 2
Tacenda Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I do understand why some people may think Trump is immoral and could not support him. His recorded statement about women was crude and offensive. Do you understand that for some, Hillary was more immoral? Her policies on abortion alone, made it impossible for my very Catholic and Born Again family members to ever vote for her. Do you feel they were immoral for choosing Trump over Hillary because of her abortion stance? These are not simple, clear cut debates. Trump was smart in his campaign and targeted a lot of men out there...hunters, gun carriers, blue collar workers, towns that are in decline, etc. And people that are sick of politicians. I hope he does well, I really do. I support this woman for standing up for what she believes in. And even bought Pres. Hinckley's book, "Standing for Something" a few years back. So he may too. I don't fault the choir for singing at the inauguration a bit. I'm sure it will give Trump some class indeed. 1
california boy Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 15 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I do understand why some people may think Trump is immoral and could not support him. His recorded statement about women was crude and offensive. Do you understand that for some, Hillary was more immoral? Her policies on abortion alone, made it impossible for my very Catholic and Born Again family members to ever vote for her. Do you feel they were immoral for choosing Trump over Hillary because of her abortion stance? These are not simple, clear cut debates. Yes. I do understand. And I speculate that if Hillary had won and invited the choir to sing at her inauguration, we would be having this same discussion. just a different choir member. 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Trump was smart in his campaign and targeted a lot of men out there...hunters, gun carriers, blue collar workers, towns that are in decline, etc. And people that are sick of politicians. I hope he does well, I really do. I support this woman for standing up for what she believes in. And even bought Pres. Hinckley's book, "Standing for Something" a few years back. So he may too. I don't fault the choir for singing at the inauguration a bit. I'm sure it will give Trump some class indeed. Bad money chases out good money. In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation.
Duncan Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: The Church's website states the Choir is going to serve the country. Nothing about serving the President. I think it is unfair to ignore that. https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng I don't see it
Calm Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sky said: The Mo Tab has sung in the inaugurations of all the presidents that have carried and won in Utah over the last 50 years or so. I will applaud the day when they sing in the inauguration of a Democratic president that didn't win in Utah. Then I will believe their claim of being completely neutral and non-partisan. And if a Democratic President doesn't invite them in the future to give them the chance to prove themselves by your standard? Is it fair to keep judging them by something they can't control? Isn't that like judging a woman as less capable when she was never considered for a job because she was a woman in the first place? Why is future behaviour the essential measure when we have actual past behaviour to refer to? Is there any evidence that the Choir's standards of choice have changed in 50 years? If not, why can't even older standards be used as evidence? If you believe there is evidence of change, I am issuing a CFR for this. Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm 1
bluebell Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Duncan said: right heh I just read something about Trump is changing the Government ethics committee and no press access, what's that about? The House of Representatives had plans to change the ethics committee. Trump was not impressed. That's all i've seen on it. 1
Calm Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Duncan said: https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng I don't see it See the Mormonnewsroom link I posted. It is the top hit googling "site:LDS.org" "Mormon Tabernacle Choir"...at least for me. Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm
Tacenda Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said: Bad money chases out good money. In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation. Break this down for me TSS. It's completely over my airhead.
Calm Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Bad money chases out good money. In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation. Random post, tss. If you are posting to persuade people or even just to stand as a witness, you need to put more effort into making your point and not just throw something out there, hoping it sticks...because it doesn't. 1
bluebell Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: My point cannot be summarised as "good people doing nothing." I was not referring to that, even, but to otherwise "good" people actively participating. Again, I've also read and studied this subject extensively. As you saw in my post, I did describe the mechanics of collective support for mass crimes against humans. (I've also seen something similar happen on a micro level.) Regarding reductio ad hitlerum, I don't recommend it as a rhetorical device, but that doesn't change the fact that the Holocaust should be a teachable moment, and that detailed comparisons of the mechanics of the collective crimes can still be legitimate. I agree. But we're talking about Chamberlain use of the Hitler comparison, and your support of it by providing an example of how Hitler and Trump are the same. No reasonable person would ever disagree that the Holocaust is a teachable moment.
thesometimesaint Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: Break this down for me TSS. It's completely over my airhead. Bad morals chase out good morals. IE; If my friends are unrepentant Gadianton Robbers it won't take long for me to be thought of as a Gadianton Robber as well.
Calm Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, california boy said: In all fairness Scott, we have never had a presidential candidate that has said the kind of things, that Trump has said. That were publicized. There are a number of presidents who have demonstrated in their private lives sexist, racist, reckless, immoral behaviour. I think it does make a difference, but primarily in the sense it demonstrates a lack of political caution that he didn't change his approach more in public at least when he became a candidate. It shows possible poor impulse control or poor understanding of others. I base this on his rewriting of his history into less offensive words and outright lying to hide his errors. Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm 3
bsjkki Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, california boy said: Yes. I do understand. And I speculate that if Hillary had won and invited the choir to sing at her inauguration, we would be having this same discussion. just a different choir member. That could be true because both candidates were vilified. I feel she has the right to resign, quit and not participate. She didn't ever have to go. It was voluntary. She didn't have to go on CNN nor make her decision public. I would have expected the same from someone who protested Hillary. Her public stance does a disservice to the choir and insults her fellow choir members. 1
bluebell Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Sky said: The Mo Tab has sung in the inaugurations of all the presidents that have carried and won in Utah over the last 50 years or so. I will applaud the day when they sing in the inauguration of a Democratic president that didn't win in Utah. Then I will believe their claim of being completely neutral and non-partisan. They have sung at all the inaugurations they were invited to sing at. Are you saying the day they show up and try to sing at an inauguration they weren't invited to is the day you'll believe their claims? You're not making sense because you seem to be holding the choir accountable for someone else's decisions. Can you clarify? Edited January 3, 2017 by bluebell 2
Duncan Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 What would be the worse thing that could happen if the choir turned this gig down? pardon me while I cross the street and really celebrate America by eating at McDonalds
Recommended Posts