The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Interestingly, the choir just announced which song they're singing and it looks like they may be taking this to the next level.

Actually the song choice may very well be an important part of this whole situation.  This is how one other performer responded to Trump's request to perform

 

Quote

 

British singer Rebecca Ferguson, who rose to fame on The X Factor and has since released four studio albums, was asked to sing at Donald Trump’s inauguration, and says she will…but on one condition.

Only if she can sing “Strange Fruit”, the song made famous by Billie Holiday protesting racism and lynchings in America.

Wrote Ferguson in a tweet:

I’ve been asked and this is my answer. If you allow me to sing “strange fruit” a song that has huge historical importance, a song that was blacklisted in the United States for being too controversial. A song that speaks to all the disregarded and down trodden black people in the United States. A song that is a reminder of how love is the only thing that will conquer all the hatred in this world, then I will graciously accept your invitation and see you in Washington. Best Rebecca X

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

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....

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.  

Our political system, yes.  There is more than one community's system at play here though.  And just because it works in one system does not mean it is justified in the other system.  She volunteered for her missionary calling as a choir member.  In doing so, I believe she agree to live by the standards of that "system".  Withdrawing from it does remove her from that system, but not in my opinion if she then appeals to her former place in that system to give her words more weight, more authority in the eyes of others.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

They can never appear at a political event again as they will have agreed by their action that their choice to attend events is a demonstration of partisanship.

I personally think it is a good idea to have the example of the MoTabs around reminding people in the midst of the political system that there is more to life than just winning a campaign or having one's desired candidate win.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

I mean Muslims, Jews, women, people of color, refugees, and LGBT people.  

Almost everyone that isn't white, straight, affluent, and Christian.  

I'm not persuaded he blanketly insulted any of these groups, but regarding LGBT people, can you cite a specific instance? In the one interview I så where this came up, he was asked his view on gay marriage. He replied that the question is irrelevant, because gay marriage is now a matter of law. 

That's more moderate than I would have been. I would have replied forthrightly that I am opposed to it on principle. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Our political system, yes.  There is more than one community's system at play here though.  And just because it works in one system does not mean it is justified in the other system.  She volunteered for her missionary calling as a choir member.  In doing so, I believe she agree to live by the standards of that "system".  Withdrawing from it does remove her from that system, but not in my opinion if she then appeals to her former place in that system to give her words more weight, more authority in the eyes of others.

I think there is also the matter of loyalty to be considered. Even if I earnestly disagreed with the choir or Church about something, I can't see myself grandstanding over it, thereby endeavoring to subject the Church to public contempt. Not unless I was in a state of full-scale apostasy, which I can't conceive of ever happening. 

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

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. 

No, she didn't have to go on CNN.  But she did.  And her reason, I am sure, was to get bigger exposure to her belief.  This is not a new concept.  People do this all the time. You have to keep in mind that it is only your opinion that this was a disservice to the choir.  Others would look at it differently.  She certainly feels like she was standing up for what the choir should stand up for.  Just a different way of looking at things.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Our political system, yes.  There is more than one community's system at play here though.  And just because it works in one system does not mean it is justified in the other system.  She volunteered for her missionary calling as a choir member.  In doing so, I believe she agree to live by the standards of that "system".  Withdrawing from it does remove her from that system, but not in my opinion if she then appeals to her former place in that system to give her words more weight, more authority in the eyes of others.

So why did you come to that conclusion?  Do choir members make pledges to never say anything about their political positions as former choir members?

Edited January 3, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not persuaded he blanketly insulted any of these groups, but regarding LGBT people, can you cite a specific instance? In the one interview I så where this came up, he was asked his view on gay marriage. He replied that the question is irrelevant, because gay marriage is now a matter of law. 

That's more moderate than I would have been. I would have replied forthrightly that I am opposed to it on principle. 

Trump is no friend to the gay community.  Actions count a lot.  Virtually every cabinet member he has appointed has had some pretty horrible things about LGBT people.  I think like most of the minority groups Trump has attacked, the LGBT are very afraid of what he might do.  Who he appoints to the Supreme Court has a lot of people nervous.  

Personally, I am not going to get excited about what might happen.  I am willing to give him a chance.  When he actually does something that I disagree with, then I will voice my concern.  

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

This is just a small sample of Trumps obscene remarks

 

I suspect that the video image violates board rules.  You might want to change that to "show as link" rather embedded.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

So why did you come to that conclusion?  Do choir members make pledges to never say anything about their political positions as former choir members?

I think if one is going to capitalize on a former community relationship to give weight to one's words, there is an obligation of recognizing the benefits that past membership is currently giving one due to the community's positive efforts...which puts on an obligation of respect of the community's standards in as far as they are legal and moral, imo.  In this case, the conditions of representing the Church as a missionary.

I understand she sees her choice as representing the Choir in a positive way and that she may see some of the standards as immoral (though she represents it as appearing to be immoral to others, not actually immoral so that adds to my sense of inappropriateness, it would be consistent to try and teach the world how the MoTab sees things rather than try to force the MoTab to accept the world's view when claiming insider status).  I do not see her choice in the same way.  Also I find it somewhat inconsistent with her cutting her association by resigning and then proclaiming "look at me, I am associated with the Choir".  Iow, I think those of her actions are a mistake of judgment, but not immoral.

 I also see the comments about Hitler as mistakes of intellectual laziness, which could lead to the sin of gossip/slander...ignorant sincerity is not an excuse.  However, since there are those who are well educated in the history and still drawing the comparison, it just may be another error of judgment.

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The offense is a picture of kittens. I do apologize if I offended, but not for Trumps offensive words.

You don't need to apologize for someone else's sin, but you don't need to shove it in others' faces yelling "look, look"either, when it is already well known what he said.

And a symbolic substitution that in essence says the same thing as the original vulgarity is still a vulgarity, just as a word is a vulgarity because of what it stands for.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

No, she didn't have to go on CNN.  But she did.  And her reason, I am sure, was to get bigger exposure to her belief.  This is not a new concept.  People do this all the time. You have to keep in mind that it is only your opinion that this was a disservice to the choir.  Others would look at it differently.  She certainly feels like she was standing up for what the choir should stand up for.  Just a different way of looking at things.

I think by the length of this thread, it is clear people have a difference of opinion on the matter. I agree with CNN, that her accusations are a bit, "hysterical." MSNBC had this interview with her.  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/singer-explains-why-she-quit-choir-over-trump-invite-844805187740  She explains, "To me this is a moral issue where I'm concerned about our freedoms being in danger as time goes by." She has the right to quit and make it public. In my opinion, she is using her status as a choir member to publicize her opinion and it hurts the choir. 

[Calm]

Perhaps the whole 'if someone offends you, go in private to resolve the issue' is weighting my conclusions.  I see the Choir as a family...I see the Church as my family.  It feels manipulative to me to use my family position publicly to pressure my family into changing their behaviour.

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think if one is going to capitalize on a former community relationship to give weight to one's words, there is an obligation of recognizing the benefits that past membership is currently giving one due to the community's positive efforts...which puts on an obligation of respect of the community's standards in as far as they are legal and moral, imo.  In this case, the conditions of representing the Church as a missionary.

I understand she sees her choice as representing the Choir in a positive way and that she may see some of the standards as immoral (though she represents it as appearing to be immoral to others, not actually immoral so that adds to my sense of inappropriateness, it would be consistent to try and teach the world how the MoTab sees things rather than try to force the MoTab to accept the world's view when claiming insider status).  I do not see her choice in the same way.  Also I find it somewhat inconsistent with her cutting her association by resigning and then proclaiming "look at me, I am associated with the Choir".  Iow, I think those of her actions are a mistake of judgment, but not immoral.

 I also see the comments about Hitler as mistakes of intellectual laziness, which could lead to the sin of gossip/slander...ignorant sincerity is not an excuse.  However, since there are those who are well educated in the history and still drawing the comparison, it just may be another error of judgment.

 

Well that is why I have been on the fence on this issue.  I do see both points of view.  I guess Sky's post let me to the conclusion that both parties have a right to express their views.  Ironically, they both come from a place of claiming a moral position.  

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps the whole 'if someone offends you, go in private to resolve the issue' is weighting my conclusions.  I see the Choir as a family...I see the Church as my family.  It feels manipulative to me to use my family position publicly to pressure my family into changing their behaviour.

But certainly the church did not follow that course when they very publicly came out against gay marriage and other issues they felt morally strong about.  So there is that.  Wouldn't the church be more consistent with that doctrine if church leaders had stuck with "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves/"  When the church sets an example, it is hard to fault a member for following a similar course.  And that is again the other side of that coin.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Sometime Saint continues to ignore it on this thread when he has been corrected each and every time he has raised the point here. If there is any "political stink," it is not the fault of the choir or of the Church, when they have consistently accepted every invitation that has come to them.

If The Sometime Saint contends otherwise, let him cite even one instance in which the choir has refused an invitation to perform at a government event such as an inauguration when that invitation has been extended by Democrats.

I have never been a member of the MTC ever. So there is no way for me to know from publicly available information that they have ever sought, received, refused, or accepted any invitation to sing at any inaugural what so ever. OTOH it is well known that certain leaders of the Church have publicly expressed very negative idea's about political liberals in general and the LDS one's in particular. Also it is public information that the last time the MTC performed for a Democratic inauguration was over 50 years ago. You can't have it both ways and not be thought of as a partisan. Not exactly the world wide church, at least to our missionary efforts.

[Duncan]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

I have never been a member of the MTC ever. So there is no way for me to know from publicly available information that they have ever sought, received, refused, or accepted any invitation to sing at any inaugural what so ever. OTOH it is well known that certain leaders of the Church have publicly expressed very negative idea's about political liberals in general and the LDS one's in particular. Also it is public information that the last time the MTC performed for a Democratic inauguration was over 50 years ago. You can't have it both ways and not be thought of as a partisan. Not exactly the world wide church, at least to our missionary efforts.

this was on CTV's( A national Canadian broadcaster) FB thread and our local paper had a write up and I overheard two ladies here talk about it before it hit our papers, and not well I might add

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It depends on how you define political. Bluebell has already made this point, but if you mean partisan, your assertion is debatable. 

And the Church and choir have already made it clear their intent is not partisan endorsement. 

I don't think you can honestly blow off their statement of intent. They must be regarded as the world's foremost authorities on what their intent is.  

The definition of political I'm referencing is straightforward.

And I don't second guess their stated intent...the problem is, are the likely consequences consistent with their intent?

As I said earlier, perhaps this could result in good, in some unexpected miracle, but until then, objections based on the obvious conflicts this generates should be considered and are certainly legitimate.  

Let the objections be duly noted.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

Sorry, but if you're going to call what I said as meaning I think Hitler and Trump are "the same," reason has no hope in this exchange.  Care to take it back?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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.

I think she said she won't throw roses at or sing for Hitler. That's not the same as your characterisation.

[Calm]

The best of what is left that I can find quickly.

"Chamberlin made it abundantly clear how strongly she feels about the issue, saying in her letter, "I only know I could never 'throw roses to Hitler.' And I certainly could never sing for him.""

"History is repeating itself; the same tactics are being used by Hitler (identify a problem, finding a scapegoat target to blame, and stirring up people with a combination of fanaticism, false promises, and fear, and gathering the funding). 

I plead with everyone to go back and read the books we all know on these topics and review the films produced to help us learn from these gargantuan crimes so that we will not allow them to be repeated. 

Evil people prosper when good people stand by and do nothing. We must continue our love and support for the refugees and the oppressed by fighting against these great evils."

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/12/mormon-choir-member-quits-rather-than-perform-for-trump/

 

Another article has more where she states she is addressing the appearance and that other Choir members could feel differently, but she felt that the Choir would massively appear to outsiders and other church members as endorsing Trump iirc.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry, but if you're going to call what I said as meaning I think Hitler and Trump are "the same," reason has no hope in this exchange.  Care to take it back?

I'm sorry if you take issue with the term 'the same.'  I'll amend it and say that you provided an example of how they are comparable.   I'm fine with our conversation ending though.  I think we've probably said everything to each other that needs to be said.  Time to move on.   

Edited January 3, 2017 by bluebell
Emoji added to help clarify tone.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have never been a member of the MTC ever. So there is no way for me to know from publicly available information that they have ever sought, received, refused, or accepted any invitation to sing at any inaugural what so ever. OTOH it is well known that certain leaders of the Church have publicly expressed very negative idea's about political liberals in general and the LDS one's in particular. Also it is public information that the last time the MTC performed for a Democratic inauguration was over 50 years ago. You can't have it both ways and not be thought of as a partisan. Not exactly the world wide church, at least to our missionary efforts.

So your repetitious innuendo about the choir playing politics is nothing more than your own conspiracy theory. Well, you've expressed that more than enough times now. We get the point. It is no more credible now than when you first said it. 

In fact, it is preposterous. If the choir, according to your fanciful speculation, black balls Democrats, why did they invite Chuck Schumer to be a guest conductor last year at their Carnegie Hall concert?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

I just read this story about how Bill and Hillary have decided to attend the inauguration.  I guess that means they are endorsing Trump according to much of the logic displayed on this thread. Hillary is attending but a MTC choir member thinks it's like supporting Hitler. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/bill-and-hillary-clinton-will-attend-the-trump-inauguration.html  George W. Bush and his wife are also attending even though they did not vote for Trump. This is how we should come together for the good of the country and the peaceful transfer of power. Jimmy Carter earlier announced he would be attending.

Edited January 3, 2017 by bsjkki
There are many sources confirming now

[Duncan]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I just read this story about how Bill and Hillary have decided to attend the inauguration.  I guess that means they are endorsing Trump according to much of the logic displayed on this thread. Hillary is attending but a MTC choir member thinks it's like supporting Hitler. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/bill-and-hillary-clinton-will-attend-the-trump-inauguration.html  George W. Bush and his wife are also attending even though they did not vote for Trump. This is how we should come together for the good of the country and the peaceful transfer of power. Jimmy Carter earlier announced he would be attending.

The Clintons aren't a religion, supposedly holding the moral ground though?????