The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given that membership in the choir is essentially viewed as a being on a musical mission (i have a friend who is in it and they made this point to her when she joined-it's also why choir members hold no other callings in the church while they are members), it seems very inappropriate.

Why is it inappropriate? Is it because they are on a "mission"? Or because she shouldn't voice any dissent with a choir that is linked to the church? Is there any calling that is not a "mission" of sorts? Is it inappropriate for any person serving to voice disagreement? I think that attitude is heading in a dangerous direction.

 

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I find a significant difference between the office and the man.  An inauguration is about the office primarily and it is not about the man.  It happens consistently at a given time frame and has for a long time in our country's history.  

Entertainers are entertainers; they are not and have never been politicians much to the ridiculous efforts to the contrary.  If an entertainer is asked to perform at the nation's presidential inauguration then they should perform IF they love the country and support its form of government.  Choosing to perform is NOT a political statement and it never has been.  

It is an honor to be asked and to perform for the office.  It does not indicate whether you support a specific party or not.  It does not mean anything other than the entertainer is a citizen and has a role to play as a citizen of our country.  

I have no respect for those who seek to politicize the nation's inauguration and I think such a choice sets a dangerous precedent.  I don't think a Democrat should only have fellow Democrats perform any more than I don't think a Republican should have only Republicans perform and/or participate in an inauguration.  This type of behavior is often chosen by those who provide lip service to tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.  Yet their actions consistently demonstrate they have no concept of the words they use.  Everyone must do what they want in the exact manner they want it and everyone else is burned at the stake if they dare to contradict their "love, tolerance, and inclusiveness".  

I strongly support banning individuals such as Sister Chamberlin because their actions clearly demonstrate a selfish, "me-first" attitude that has no place in the MoTab. 

I agree with most of what you say here, except...

Quote

"This type of behavior is often chosen by those who provide lip service to tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.  Yet their actions consistently demonstrate they have no concept of the words they use.  Everyone must do what they want in the exact manner they want it and everyone else is burned at the stake if they dare to contradict their 'love, tolerance, and inclusiveness'".

kinda sorta doesn't jibe with this (emphasis added):

Quote

I strongly support banning individuals such as Sister Chamberlin...

I fully support Sis. Chamberlin's right to disassociate herself from the Choir.  I take exception to her public and self-aggrandizing-by-vilifying-her-fellow-Choir-members-as-"throw{ing} roses to Hilter ... {and} sing{ing} for him" means of doing so.  But I don't think we should be talking about "banning" anyone.  Banning from what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rpn]

I read her full resignation letter.  https://www.facebook.com/jan.chamberlin.77/posts/10211891389943594   She thinks that the Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation because she equates the Choir singing at the Inauguration with it serenading Hitler.   She thinks that the Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation.  I think the SLTrib article was disingenuous not to have pointed that out because once you know that, the impact of her resignation should be sharply reduced.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, rpn said:

I read her full resignation letter.  https://www.facebook.com/jan.chamberlin.77/posts/10211891389943594   She thinks that the Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation because she equates the Choir singing at the Inauguration with it serenading Hitler.   She thinks that the Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation.  I think the SLTrib article was disingenuous not to have pointed that out because once you know that, the impact of her resignation should be sharply reduced.

 

Why?

She believes that to be the case and so she structured her decision around that belief. Frankly, if she believed it was that big of a deal and did nothing about it she would be a coward. But as it turns out, she's not.

 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So there are apparently strong feelings about the MoTab Choir performing at the inauguration of President-elect Trump.  I had a few thoughts I wanted to share, and then invite others to weigh in as well.  Although this touches on "political" partisanship, I hope we can generally refrain from getting into political argument.  

And now, a few thoughts:

1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.  

2. The common element in the foregoing inaugurations is that the incoming president had won the popular vote in Utah.  

3. The Choir has also previously performed for other presidents in other venues, including William Howard Taft, who attended a concert in the Tabernacle on Sept. 26, 1909, and also concerts in the White House for Taft again on Nov. 15, 1911, and later sang for Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter.

4. I suspect that all of these performances were given at the invitation of the president (with the possible exception of the concern at the 1909 Tabernacle concert attended by Pres. Taft).

5. The above list pretty much establishes that the Choir's performances before U.S. presidents have been nonpartisan.

6. This last election cycle has been particularly (singularly?) divisive in terms of political ideology and affiliation.

7. In the news today is an item about a member of the Choir, Jan Chamberlin, who has quit the Choir specifically because it is going to perform at next month's inauguration:

So she was not required to perform at the inauguration, so her very public resignation appears to be more politicized grandstanding than anything else (if you doubt this, read the rest of the above-linked article, which quotes Sis. Chamberlin's comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler, and his pending administration to "tyranny and fa{s}cism").  She also publicly posted her resignation letter on Facebook.

8. While I understand and respect Sis. Chamberlin's decision, I think her publicizing her political disagreement with Mr. Trump is in stark contrast with the Choir's demonstrated nonpartisanship.

9. Daniel Peterson recently commented on the same issue raised by Sis. Chamberlin (whether an inaugural performance by the Choir constitutes some sort of endorsement of the incoming administration):

I think that's right.  Dr. Peterson also wrote a slightly longer blog entry on this issue: Another thought on the Trump inauguration and the Tabernacle Choir.  Some excerpts:

So the determinative issue is not whether the Choir (and, hence, the Church itself) is "endorsing" political administrations.  Rather, the issue is . . . whether the Choir is invited to perform or not.

This is, I think, quite correct.  Jan Chamberlin has done far more to inject partisan political hostilities into the Choir's upcoming performance than the performance itself.

The Choir's acceptance of an invitation to perform is simply an extension of the Choir's ongoing nonpartisan track record.  Rejecting the invitation, on the other hand, would have been nakedly partisan.

I echo these sentiments.  I think we as individuals should respect the office of the president, even if we don't respect the individual holding it.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

As a non-American, you might need to help me out a bit. 

Dan Peterson is saying the inauguration is a celebration of the peaceful passing of power and not a way of welcoming in or celebrating the new president?

If that's so, why are the four ruffles and flourishes played, followed by the song "Hail to the chief?" That sounds like a salute to the new president to me??

I was very impressed with the dignity and integrity of the lady who withdrew. It must have taken great courage to do so. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, canard78 said:

As a non-American, you might need to help me out a bit. 

Dan Peterson is saying the inauguration is a celebration of the peaceful passing of power and not a way of welcoming in or celebrating the new president?

Broadly, yes.  But there are undoubtedly partisan "We Won!" overtones.  President Obama's 2009 and 2013 inaugural events were plainly of this sort.  That's the way things turn out every four years.

However, regarding the participation of the Tabernacle Choir, I do not think it has been "partisan."  It's not like the Choir has refused to perform for incoming or sitting Democratic presidents.  Rather, the Choir, AFAIK, has performed for incoming/sitting presidents every time they have been asked to do so.  The determinative factor is therefore not political partisanship, but is instead . . . whether the Choir is invited or not.

So the only way the Choir could have behaved in a politically partisan manner would have been . . . for the Choir to refuse to perform at the upcoming inauguration.

Quote

If that's so, why are the four ruffles and flourishes played, followed by the song "Hail to the chief?" That sounds like a salute to the new president to me??

Yes, but it's music used for every U.S. President.  It is not used just for Republican ones, or just for Democratic ones.  Hence no partisan politics.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. Or maybe that's the best way she knows how to describe her feelings. I don't know that it's necessary to assume that by expressing her feelings she sees everyone else as unreasonable if they disagree. I see this as her making a statement about how bad she thinks he is and justifying her action to resign. I don't see it as a condemnation on everyone else.

ETA- If you felt so strongly that you considered singing at the inauguration to be akin to giving Hitler flowers, would you do it? Or would it be the moral thing to stand up in opposition? I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but if that's how she views it, and I have no reason to think otherwise, it seems to me she made a conscientious decision and merely used strong language to explain her thought process.

 

No, I wouldn't do it (though I would not quit the choir nor would I publish my views on how it's morally wrong for the choir to sing). 

I also would believe that everyone who would sing was completely unreasonable since no reasonable person would throw flowers to Hitler. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why is it inappropriate? Is it because they are on a "mission"? Or because she shouldn't voice any dissent with a choir that is linked to the church? Is there any calling that is not a "mission" of sorts? Is it inappropriate for any person serving to voice disagreement? I think that attitude is heading in a dangerous direction.

 

 

I believe that using your status as a missionary to voice political beliefs is inappropriate.  The missionaries should be politically neutral, just as the church is.  

 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

.ETA- If you felt so strongly that you considered singing at the inauguration to be akin to giving Hitler flowers, would you do it? Or would it be the moral thing to stand up in opposition? I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but if that's how she views it, and I have no reason to think otherwise, it seems to me she made a conscientious decision and merely used strong language to explain her thought process.

“Merely used strong language to explain her thought process?”   Isn’t that sorta like what Trump apologists say when  trying to rationalize his “strong language?”

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why?

She believes that to be the case and so she structured her decision around that belief. Frankly, if she believed it was that big of a deal and did nothing about it she would be a coward. But as it turns out, she's not.

 

Unless Trump is guilty of murdering 15 million people, and starting a European war that caused 30 million deaths, I think comparing any American contemporary to Hitler is silly, and--as has been already stated--greatly diminishes her reasons for leaving.

I'm sorry, but I can't take her seriously.

I also think she's totally throwing the rest of the choir under the bus.  Is there not any sense of comradeship?  Any sense of family?  I get trying to follow your conscience, but the second you trumpet it from Facebook, I don't give your intentions the benefit of the doubt.  To just put the choir in that position seems...just downright wrong.

[MorningStar]

She could have just decided not to attend.  She wouldn't have been forced to do so.  If I were in MoTab, I don't know if I would have chosen to go.  I wouldn't consider it singing for Trump, but I have no desire to be around him. 

Edited December 31, 2016 by MorningStar

[rpn]

Of course standing on one's conscience is important.   But the rest of us get to weigh on whether her analysis is worth respecting.  Because her belief that singing at the inauguration is the equivalent for choosing to sing for Hitler knowing he committed the atrocities he has means her conscience is in overdrive (perhaps of silliness, though some would argue you have to wait until the end of DJT's presidency to know for sure).

And her suggestion that the whole choir should be disrepected because of her analogy to Hitler makes her part of the problem,

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It's from your own post. 1. The Tabernacle Choir has been invited to perform in five previous inaugurations: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Richard M. Nixon in 1969, Ronald Reagan in 1981, George H. W. Bush in 1989 and George W. Bush in 2001.

This is unresponsive. He was calling for you to provide a reference of when the choir has refused a presidential invitation to perform. 

Answer the CFR. 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe that using your status as a missionary to voice political beliefs is inappropriate.  The missionaries should be politically neutral, just as the church is.  

 

Amen. 

The choir members are set apart as missionaries, and it is a privilege to belong to it. At any give time, there are many more people who would love to be a member of the choir than can be accommodated. 

She has a right to her beliefs and to voice them, but using her choir membership, current or former, as a platform for political speechmaking is contemptible. 

[Duncan]

if you combine this thread and the addiction thread can we should stay far away from sin or embrace the honour and privilege to participate in it. it seems the world has picked up on it and doesn't seem to support it the missionary opportunity doesn't seem to be working, because they see it for what it is.To paraphrase Elder Bednar  The issue was not the Choir

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I do not see this as a political issue. For me it is a moral issue. I applaud Sis Chamberlain and her public concern for the moral character of the church.

And if Hillary had won?  Would she have resigned  if the choir accepted an invitation to the Inauguration.  Would she have examined her soul and found a equally compelling moral outrage?

Or was this her 15 minutes of fame with her partisan outrage.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you combine this thread and the addiction thread can we should stay far away from sin or embrace the honour and privilege to participate in it. it seems the world has picked up on it and doesn't seem to support it the missionary opportunity doesn't seem to be working, because they see it for what it is.To paraphrase Elder Bednar  The issue was not the Choir

Don't assume the world as a whole opposes the choir' s appearance at the inauguration. And don't assume the First Presidency don't know what they're doing in supporting it. 

Or do you believe the choir leadership would even consider this opportunity for a moment without the First Presidency's blessing?

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't assume the world as a whole opposes the choir' s appearance at the inauguration. And don't assume the First Presidency don't know what they're doing in supporting it. 

Or do you believe the choir leadership would even consider this opportunity for a moment without the First Presidency's blessing?

KISS is standing up to Trump, sad that the MTC won't. I will grant that most of the don't care about the MTC or the Church but Trump is big stuff! I don't know what the process was for the MTC to even agree to do this or if the 1st Presidency were like what Pres. Hinckley was like when he appeared on the Mike Wallace piece and if it goes well, great if not, "I will never set foot in that trap again" I wonder if they are they getting paid for it or is it for free? I was on FB and an totally inactive friend posted this 

"This is my 2 cents on this.... I grew up in the Mormon faith. Now since I no longer practice the faith and converted to Catholicism. I can still say truly my experience growing in the church was wonderful. The church gave me the foundation of my christian faith. I was taught to love and respect people. Something that Jesus has taught us..Anyways I want to say that not all Mormons are Trump supporters and I knows what Trump have said and done contradict to what the church has stand for. So I am glad that a member of the choir stand up for her beliefs and refused to sing. I know the church has tradition to perform for the incoming president regardless of political party. But I hope the church sees that performing for Trump is a sign of submitting to something that to me isn't Christian like. That is all I want to say and that is my own opinion on it. " he is now a missionary to his FB friends pro et con and now there is a comment about LDS and LSD

all we can do now is hope that Trump doesn't want them back, the Church doesn't actually get involved politically in any countries' political matters and things turn out allright

Edited December 30, 2016 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I believe that using your status as a missionary to voice political beliefs is inappropriate.  The missionaries should be politically neutral, just as the church is.  

 

Is being in the choir a missionary calling? For real? Or just "like" a mission? If it's an actual mission I'd love to see a reference about that. Otherwise the mission comparison is a bit of hyperbole

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is being in the choir a missionary calling? For real? Or just "like" a mission? If it's an actual mission I'd love to see a reference about that. Otherwise the mission comparison is a bit of hyperbole

No, being in the choir literally is considered being a missionary. You are serving a musical mission. They take it very seriously.

[Nevo]

I was disappointed—but not really surprised—to see the choir accept the invitation to sing at Donald Trump's inauguration. I think it tarnishes them and the Church by association. But then they also sang on the soundtrack for Oliver Stone's film Nixon so I guess they're not choosy. I am just glad that at least one choir member is taking a principled stand against it. That national news organizations are now picking up this story is, I think, a net positive for the Church. At least it shows that not all Mormons are willing to prostrate themselves before Trump and/or celebrate his accession to the presidency.

Just a few months ago, a Deseret News editorial called on Trump to step down as a presidential candidate, feeling "a duty to speak clearly on issues that affect the well-being and morals of the nation." Would that more Mormons still felt a duty to oppose Trumpism, as Daniel McLellin has recently vowed to do on his blog: "Donald Trump is a self-described unrepentant sexual predator who has repeatedly asserted intentions to facilitate grotesquely racist, sexist, xenophobic, and generally hateful, violent, and destructive legislation. His elevation to the presidency has already catalyzed a spike in hatred and a scurrying to exploit and protect the mainstreaming and normalization of that hatred. I believe this is the greatest threat to our nation and to its citizens that our generation has ever faced, and I will not participate in its normalization, much less its celebration, in any sense whatsoever." This isn't a partisan stance; it's a moral one.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Nevo

[SteveO]

37 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I was disappointed—but not really surprised—to see the choir accept the invitation to sing at Donald Trump's inauguration. I think it tarnishes them and the Church by association. But then they also sang on the soundtrack for Oliver Stone's film Nixon so I guess they're not choosy. I am just glad that at least one choir member is taking a principled stand against it. That national news organizations are now picking up this story is, I think, a net positive for the Church. At least it shows that not all Mormons are willing to prostrate themselves before Trump and/or celebrate his accession to the presidency.

Just a few months ago, a Deseret News editorial called on Trump to step down as a presidential candidate, feeling "a duty to speak clearly on issues that affect the well-being and morals of the nation." Would that more Mormons still felt a duty to oppose Trumpism, as Daniel McLellin has recently vowed to do on his blog: "Donald Trump is a self-described unrepentant sexual predator who has repeatedly asserted intentions to facilitate grotesquely racist, sexist, xenophobic, and generally hateful, violent, and destructive legislation. His elevation to the presidency has already catalyzed a spike in hatred and a scurrying to exploit and protect the mainstreaming and normalization of that hatred. I believe this is the greatest threat to our nation and to its citizens that our generation has ever faced, and I will not participate in its normalization, much less its celebration, in any sense whatsoever." This isn't a partisan stance; it's a moral one.

Uh huh...right

I'd invite you to read some of the FB comments of some of the news articles--in particular, the Huffington Post's piece on it.  I assure you that degenerate reprobates aren't confined to Trump supporters.  The comments are dripping with hatred for Trump, and incidentally, for the church--although they applaud this woman for breaking with the racist, sexist, xenophobic, and generally hateful, violent, and destructive Mormon church...these people hated the church long before the election, and would continue to hate it regardless of the choir's decision to perform. 

Forgive me, but I'm not going to concern myself with appeasing these kind of people who've showed me their depressing ability to come up with some pretty disgusting smears.

Now excuse me, I have to go prostrate myself before Trump 

 

[bsjkki]

In this link she states, "Well, let’s see. Today I’ve been called many things, such as bigot, selfish, self righteous, closed minded, and I believe also disrespectful. Also implied comments to question my character. And previously unpatriotic, unfaithful to God and faith, and not a good hard working Choir member. I think that’s hilarious!"

http://www.ldsdaily.com/entertainment/member-mormon-tabernacle-choir-resigns-refuses-sing-trump/

She didn't have to go. She chose to make it public when she resigned. She doesn't like being criticized for it. She is implying she thinks all her fellow choir members are weak and immoral by participating.

I've been called most of those names for being Mormon. Since I voted for Trump, to many that means I'm racist and misogynistic too. She should have realized half the country would think she was a hero and the other half, not so much. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is being in the choir a missionary calling? For real? Or just "like" a mission? If it's an actual mission I'd love to see a reference about that. Otherwise the mission comparison is a bit of hyperbole

They are each set apart for missionary service as a member of the choir. The role of choir president is an ecclesiastical one, and setting apart choir members is one of the things he does. 

The choir leadership is closely supervised by the First Presidency, and I would be astounded to learn that they accepted this invitation without the explicit approval of the First Presidency. 

I've been along on two choir tours now (as a journalist, not a singer) in as many years, and I know that a General Authority is assigned to travel with them to give ecclesiastical support and oversight. 

Furthermore, if past patterns hold, I'm confident one or more of the Brethren will attend the inauguration to officially represent the Church. I'm guessing it will be President Uchrdorf. 

[Okrahomer]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They are each set apart for missionary service as a member of the choir. The role of choir president is an ecclesiastical one, and setting apart choir members is one of the things he does. 

The choir leadership is closely supervised by the First Presidency, and I would be astounded to learn that they accepted this invitation without the explicit approval of the First Presidency. 

I've been along on two choir tours now (as a journalist, not a singer) in as many years, and I know that a General Authority is assigned to travel with them to give ecclesiastical support and oversight. 

Furthermore, if past patterns hold, I'm confident one or more of the Brethren will attend the inauguration to officially represent the Church. I'm guessing it will be President Uchrdorf. 

Just a link to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir website where the calling is explained--just as you outlined:

"When a person joins the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, they receive an official letter in which they are called to serve as a musical missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This call is not taken lightly, as the all-volunteer, 360-member chorus rehearses up to five hours per week and performs for concerts, conferences, tours, recording sessions, and weekly broadcasts. Their weekly broadcast, Music and the Spoken Word, which started in 1929, is the world's longest-running continuous network broadcast."