The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Because a partisan church having a "nonpartisan" policy  means it won't be partisan?

(I'm not dogging the fact that the church has been very partisan, historically, just pointing out that it is.)

You're still not making sense. What is a "partisan church"? Not the Church of Jesus Christ, surely. Unless you mean it's partisan on the side of truth and righteousness.

[why me]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still not making sense. What is a "partisan church"? Not the Church of Jesus Christ, surely. Unless you mean it's partisan on the side of truth and righteousness.

I suppose that any church that takes stances about moral and ethical issues could be considered partisan. However, outside of this possibility, I see no partisan influence in the lds church. .

[stemelbow]

Wow.  What an interesting but unfortunate thread. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not every day that a member makes a public mistake that drags the Church and now our most beloved and innocuous institution into controversy and disrepute. Unfortunately, the damage continues to spread and there appears to be no good way to contain it. As  I have stated several times, I hope this turns out well for everyone, including our sister.

A public mistake? I see no mistake. I see a member who shared an opinion. She did not claim to speak for MoTab or the church. She was speaking for herself.

Drags the church and MoTab into controversy and disrepute? As has been shown previously, this controversy already existed. She did not drag the church or MoTab into anything.

No good way to contain it- I think this is the real problem. The church and members who disagree with this woman don't have power to end the conversation. They wish it would just go away because they view it as embarrassing. But the world doesn't work this way. One side of the debate doesn't get to control the other.

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not every day that a member makes a public mistake that drags the Church and now our most beloved and innocuous institution into controversy and disrepute. Unfortunately, the damage continues to spread and there appears to be no good way to contain it. As  I have stated several times, I hope this turns out well for everyone, including our sister.

which member are you talking about Sis. Chamberlain or whoever agreed to let the MTC do this?

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still not making sense. What is a "partisan church"? Not the Church of Jesus Christ, surely. Unless you mean it's partisan on the side of truth and righteousness.

Can the LDS Church in any meaningful way be considered partisan as in the way/s the term has been used in this thread?

Sure.

 

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Can the LDS Church in any meaningful way be considered partisan as in the way/s the term has been used in this thread?

Sure.

 

While I believe the situation to be partisan, I, in no way, in this situation believe the church to be partisan.

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's true, it does infer that media exposure equals damage.  If you don't see it that way i can understand why you would view her media attention as neutrally beneficial or harmful to the church.

I think it's really about how it's portrayed in the media as to whether or not it's harmful to the church. As well as how it's received by the general public. I've seen a couple news bites and interviews where this is mentioned and tried to see what the response was to them. And to see if there was anything negative being said about the church specifically. From what I can tell, it was largely balanced, noting that the choir didn't force any member to go to the inauguration. Or barely mentioning the church at all. Sis. Chamberlin did much of the mentioning in unequivocally positive terms. The context was also in the broader context of other groups conflict in deciding whether to go or not, such as the Rockettes who many also said no to performing. Or the conflict by the marching band of a historically black college. Her decision was also mentioned in the late night show with Stephen Colbert. Again, nothing poorly stated about the church and the crowd (considering the audience) cheered her decision. The most negative comments I've seen were toward Sis. Chamberlin from internet trolls/commentary. Some of them are absolutely vicious. Many of the clips are splitzed on like and dislikes. 

In no place have I seen a really negative note to the church. The most negative article I found was before her resignation by a news article that one wouldn't expect much friendliness to the Church in the first place (an LGBT online news source). 

....this is also stated generally, not just to you since I saw a few posts from others talking about damage to the church as well. 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bsjkki]

28 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think it's really about how it's portrayed in the media as to whether or not it's harmful to the church. As well as how it's received by the general public. I've seen a couple news bites and interviews where this is mentioned and tried to see what the response was to them. And to see if there was anything negative being said about the church specifically. From what I can tell, it was largely balanced, noting that the choir didn't force any member to go to the inauguration. Or barely mentioning the church at all. Sis. Chamberlin did much of the mentioning in unequivocally positive terms. The context was also in the broader context of other groups conflict in deciding whether to go or not, such as the Rockettes who many also said no to performing. Or the conflict by the marching band of a historically black college. Her decision was also mentioned in the late night show with Stephen Colbert. Again, nothing poorly stated about the church and the crowd (considering the audience) cheered her decision. The most negative comments I've seen were toward Sis. Chamberlin from internet trolls/commentary. Some of them are absolutely vicious. Many of the clips are splitzed on like and dislikes. 

In no place have I seen a really negative note to the church. The most negative article I found was before her resignation by a news article that one wouldn't expect much friendliness to the Church in the first place (an LGBT online news source). 

....this is also stated generally, not just to you since I saw a few posts from others talking about damage to the church as well. 

With luv,

BD

I think we live in a hyper partisan climate. They psychology is people root for their team. People agree with Chamberlin based on whether they view Trump like she does. If you believe he is a fascist and dangerous, she is taking a principled stand. I just wish she had done so more privately. She is using her position as a former choir member to elevate her opinion. Many choir members support the choir singing as does church leadership, but they are not being interviewed and getting publicity. Democrats now like the CIA more Republicans. Why...because the CIA is saying Russians hacked the DNC. A few years ago, Democrats blamed the intelligence community and their faulty intelligence as lies that started the Iraq War. Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican president had been presiding over the disasters that have taken place in the Middle East in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc...Here is a interesting study discussing the partisan divide.

 http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-and-democrats-opinions-about-the-cia-have-flipped-2017-1

[BlueDreams]

To those curious about damage here are some comments I found on Reddit and Rolling stone. I assumed they would have more negative commentary. They didn't....not directly to the church anyways. There were more genuinely positive comments from them that I saw such as these: 

"I just came here as an agnostic to voice my support for her. It's wonderful to see people stand on the courage of their convictions. I am far more impressed with mormanism for this than if i were to hear some music."

"Not it's not crazy, most mormons earnestly hold their values and Trump is antithetical to basically all of those values. He is a menace to everything great about the United States."

"Say what you will about Mormons, but family values is something that they carry in spades and are long proud of. Trump has none, as indicated by his numerous affairs, children born out of wedlock, comments made about his own daughter, etc. The idea that the Choir WOULD be performing for him was more of a shock than one of it's members resigning because she refused to. "

" Well, good for her. I might not agree with their theology, but Mormons are generally nice people with sound principles."

 

Many of the more negative came in attack of Chamberlin, not the church, and often by trump supporters or people who were anti-mormon to some extent:

"Undo your safety pin, take off your diaper, and put on your big boy pants. Quit whining and support our next President."

" We don't care Snowflake...your generation is worthless...have a crappy year and go hug another worthless Snowflake...leave the country.."

Most comments fell into political argument about Trump v. Clinton. Or Supporting and accepting the new president of #notmypresident feelings.

"Why is this story news? People quit jobs over their religious beliefs all the time, and it is usually because they work for Leftist organizations that actively ridicule them. Ted Turner, for instance, regularly trashed his Christian employees in public over their Ash Wednesday practices. The difference this time is that the MSM thinks that this "story" advances their narrative that Trump is unfit to be President. Funny how we didn't hear any similar tales of MTC singers resigning in 2008 or 2012 over the inauguration of a POTUS who aggressively opposed many things their church believes in. "

Trump supporters or conservatives were the most vocal that I could see. Often very critical and basically along the lines of get in line. 

Here's one who is anti-trump that was pretty typical:

"On Trump being a Fascist or not:

I mostly agree with the statements of "Jay Thomas" and "HZ." However, I don't think Trump is a "racist" like, e.g., his pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Trump looks down at all people: Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Poor Whites, etc. He reminds me of a selfish egocentric character in an Orson Welles movie who was manipulating and abusing ordinary people. In a scene, he was in a room at top of a tower looking down at the people with their kids in a park below. The guys standing next to him (a newspaper guy?) asked him why he was so inhuman in his actions. He replied, "Look at those people below ... they are just ants." I believe Trump is areal life version of that character.

I also totally understand why the lady from Mormon Tabernacle who refused to participate. Here is what I had posted earlier:

"Whether Trump makes good on his promises or not, he and his campaign (Kellyanne Conway, Rudy Giuliani, etc.) created so much hate, falsehood, resentment, ... that it would be impossible to ... "

I think that Utah lady showed great courage and now she is being greatly harassed by the "fanatic" Trump/conservative supporters. I tried to post similar comments on a Fox News site which is filled with "hate" of these people. First they removed my post. When I complained, they harassed me."

 

Here's one from someone typically anti-mormon: 

"Wouldn't surprise me if the Mormons put the one dissenter up to it....can't look like a fully hating machine of bigoted androids...lol. And since they produce ~6 kids for indoctrination a pSoop, what's one lost fanatic? There are plenty more being placed on the conveyor belt for full indoctrination to take her place."

 

This is one of the more negative comments about MTC:

" She didn't want to be associated with a group that would be so happy to perform at a Trump event, voluntary or not. So yeah, I understand her wanting to quit." ....it was responded with this " This is a story? It isn't a Trump event by the way. It's the inauguration of the POTUS. It happens about jan 20, every 4 years."

 

Middle ground comment:

"Last time I checked the Constitution, it mentioned freedom of speech. To dissent from singing in any event, no matter the cause, is your right. As a chorister myself, if I was faced with that decision, I would opt out of the inauguration as well. But Jan, I would encourage you not to quit that beautiful choir with whom you associate. Your voice would be missed by those uplifted by your songs of peace and hope. Also, I would hope that MTC would respect your right to dissent and welcome your continued association with them."

 

The vast majority on RS bypassed Chamberlin and the Church almost entirely and just talked about politics.

So to those who say this is causing damage, I'm left with the sense that it's based off of an assumption or a feeling. I'm not seeing the evidence for it. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think we live in a hyper partisan climate. They psychology is people root for their team. People agree with Chamberlin based on whether they view Trump like she does. If you believe he is a fascist and dangerous, she is taking a principled stand. I just wish she had done so more privately. She is using her position as a former choir member to elevate her opinion. Many choir members support the choir singing as does church leadership, but they are not being interviewed and getting publicity. Democrats now like the CIA more Republicans. Why...because the CIA is saying Russians hacked the DNC. A few years ago, Democrats blamed the intelligence community and their faulty intelligence as lies that started the Iraq War. Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican president had been presiding over the disasters that have taken place in the Middle East in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc...Here is a interesting study discussing the partisan divide.

My response to just about any of this would be too political for the thread. But yes, we're divided. More so than normal. Though as I pointed out, believing trump is a facsist or demagogue or generally an unfavorable view is not exactly partisan. As I mentioned I have generally conservative friends who dislike him as well. 

His unfavorability is at 55% and that's the highest unfavorability of a president elect by about 20 pts. Partisan lines are not enough to describe this entirely. The polarization isn't just about partisan allignment but about the person. Partisan plays a part of it, but for many, republican or democrat or indepent...they just don't like him. More so than the oppsing party didn't like Bush or Obama when they were initially elected (from same article):

Quote

 

Trump’s biggest post-election approval rating bump came from Republicans. Before the election, 71 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of Trump, while today 82 percent do. Trump still has a much lower approval rating from his own party than any other recent president-elect, though. After the 2000 election, 93 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of George W. Bush.

Trump received a much smaller bump from Democrats, five percent of whom had a favorable view of Trump before the election compared to 10 percent today. Gallup notes that Democrats dislike Trump far more than the opposition party has disliked any other president in recent history. Only 10 percent of Democrats have a positive opinion of Trump, whereas 31 percent of Democrats had a positive opinion of George W. Bush after the 2000 election. And on the other side of the aisle, 35 percent of Republicans viewed Obama favorably after the 2008 election, and 31 percent of them viewed Bill Clinton favorably after the 1992 election.

 

Edit to add, Independents also really don't like him. The gallup poll mentioned in the article has his approval at a measly 39% post election, with a 7 pt boost. That's really low and significant since much of the nation doesn't ID as democrat or republican but as independent.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bsjkki]

On 12/30/2016 at 10:12 AM, smac97 said:

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.

This is where the OP began and yes, this is what has happened.

 

10 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The vast majority on RS bypassed Chamberlin and the Church almost entirely and just talked about politics.

So the answer is yes, her actions politicized the choir performance more than it already was. From a PR perspective, all publicity is good publicity and the people who usually dislike Mormons may view the church more positively by her actions and conservatives, most likely view her dis-favorably. I don't think the choir should be viewed politically--it's a choir that shares their faith in Christ. That is what has happened and that is where this country is right now. It's sad.

[BlueDreams]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is where the OP began and yes, this is what has happened.

 

So the answer is yes, her actions politicized the choir performance more than it already was. From a PR perspective, all publicity is good publicity and the people who usually dislike Mormons may view the church more positively by her actions and conservatives, most likely view her dis-favorably. I don't think the choir should be viewed politically--it's a choir that shares their faith in Christ. That is what has happened and that is where this country is right now. It's sad.

No, that's your interpretation. From the comments, most didn't talk about her, the choir, or the church AT ALL. They just saw Trump's inauguration and went on their own soap box tirades, which ever side they leaned towards. It's like what happens here where people ask a specific question or line of thought within a controversial topic and people end up, rather quickly, wondering from the topic to say the basic opinion on what was loosely related....even if it only marginally applies. But worse, because there's no moderators. 

Also, those who generally dislike mormons or were anti-mormon stayed about the same. People who knew little about mormon and had problems with the president elect or value free speech were the ones likely to have a more positive outlook, if marginally. And because the choir is performing in one of the most unfavorable (if not the most unfavorable) president elect's inauguration, it was already politicized. They gave their response as to why, yes, but it still is politicized. If this was any other election it probably wouldn't be. Not this much.

What's sad to me is that we as a nation are not as represented in our governing system. I don't care what side we fall on as long as we're actually running as a representative democracy. And there have been several events that are simply not and that have serious flaws. And IMHO, we've been weakening as being a government for the people by the people. It's becoming a power grab and game of greed to have things to push their agenda through. An agenda that often doesn't represent the people's desires and may often just be about benefiting themselves and money. What you mentioned as sad, is on my low list of sad for our political landscape. But again, I'm getting to political. So I digress.

But I've spent too much down time on the site. Need to get some work done...

With luv,

BD

Edited January 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No, that's your interpretation. From the comments, most didn't talk about her, the choir, or the church AT ALL. They just saw Trump's inauguration and went on their own soap box tirades, which ever side they leaned towards. It's like what happens here where people ask a specific question or line of thought within a controversial topic and people end up, rather quickly, wondering from the topic to say the basic opinion on what was loosely related....even if it only marginally applies. But worse, because there's no moderators. 

Also, those who generally dislike mormons or were anti-mormon stayed about the same. People who knew little about mormon and had problems with the president elect or value free speech were the ones likely to have a more positive outlook, if marginally. And because the choir is performing in one of the most unfavorable (if not the most unfavorable) president elect's inauguration, it was already politicized. They gave their response as to why, yes, but it still is politicized. If this was any other election it probably wouldn't be. Not this much.

What's sad to me is that we as a nation are not as represented in our governing system. I don't care what side we fall on as long as we're actually running as a representative democracy. And there have been several events that are simply not and that have serious flaws. And IMHO, we've been weakening as being a government for the people by the people. It's becoming a power grab and game of greed to have things to push their agenda through. An agenda that often doesn't represent the people's desires and may often just be about benefiting themselves and money. What you mentioned as sad, is on my low list of sad for our political landscape. But again, I'm getting to political. So I digress.

But I've spent too much down time on the site. Need to get some work done...

With luv,

BD

I disagree with your opinion on some of this but I do respect your opinion. I agree any further discussion is much too political and would have little to do with the choir. 

[why me]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Edit to add, Independents also really don't like him. The gallup poll mentioned in the article has his approval at a measly 39% post election, with a 7 pt boost. That's really low and significant since much of the nation doesn't ID as democrat or republican but as independent.

 

With luv,

BD

However,  somebody liked him. He carried most parts of the country, especially in the rural areas county by county. If one would look at a map, the map would be red except for the east and west coast and in some major cities. I would not trust polls anymore.

https://www.google.fi/search?q=map+of+where+trump+one+by+county&biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihosDd46vRAhUJBSwKHZfhAQIQ7AkIJw#imgrc=U5jQ9KgoL6QF4M%3A

quite a lot of red.

The media made a mistake in believing the polls.

 

[why me]

The comparison to Hitler was amplified in the NYTs. It came during a review of a recent biography of Hitler by Volker Ullrich.

http://www.dw.com/en/trump-subtweet-helps-make-hitler-biography-a-us-hit/a-35934290

However, the author of the biography disagreed with the reviewer from the NYTs. But this is how hysteria starts: with a biased media that are set to destroy Trump before he becones president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/this-new-york-times-review-of-a-hitler-book-sure-looked-like-a-thinly-veiled-trump-hitler-comparison/?utm_term=.7c2e832aa50b

It is now understandable why the choir member would compare trump to hitler: hard to avoid when such a comparison is all over the media.

 

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not every day that a member makes a public mistake that drags the Church and now our most beloved and innocuous institution into controversy and disrepute. Unfortunately, the damage continues to spread and there appears to be no good way to contain it. As  I have stated several times, I hope this turns out well for everyone, including our sister.

The Church made a decision that brought itself controversy. Chamberlin provided more interest for the controversy through her personal story.

Is the Church responsible purely for its own actions (ie decision for the choir to sing at Trump's inauguration) or is it also responsible for any disrepute it may bring upon itself, the choir and individual members through this decision?  Is Chamberlin responsible purely for her own choice to resign from the choir and make public her heartfelt concerns, or is she also responsible for any consequences of the resulting attention?

Who to blame and who to admire?

There is a third option:  independent of any political consequences of actions of either party, we can choose to make the most charitable interpretations of either, respectively.  We can choose to believe both in their stated intentions.  Our own opinions about the political wisdom involved is our own, including personal convictions about our individual responsibilities.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, why me said:

However,  somebody liked him. He carried most parts of the country, especially in the rural areas county by county. If one would look at a map, the map would be red except for the east and west coast and in some major cities. I would not trust polls anymore.

 

I would really like to see a poll on why they voted for Trump.  Every Utahn Trump voter I know did not like him as a candidate, but voted for him as "NotClinton".

So I don't think you can count any vote as a "like" unless they actually state they were voting for him because they liked him and not because they disliked/hated him less.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

45 minutes ago, why me said:

However,  somebody liked him. He carried most parts of the country, especially in the rural areas county by county. If one would look at a map, the map would be red except for the east and west coast and in some major cities. I would not trust polls anymore.

https://www.google.fi/search?q=map+of+where+trump+one+by+county&biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihosDd46vRAhUJBSwKHZfhAQIQ7AkIJw#imgrc=U5jQ9KgoL6QF4M%3A

quite a lot of red.

The media made a mistake in believing the polls.

 

He carried through the electoral college. And lost dramatically by the Popular vote. By about 2.9 million. That number is not from a poll, that's just the election results. With many, he didn't win because he was liked but because some people disliked Clinton more. The polls were technically not all that off. What wasn't taken into account was how those voters were distributed. 

But again, that's politics. Not important to the thread.

With luv,

BD

Edited January 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still not making sense. What is a "partisan church"? Not the Church of Jesus Christ, surely. Unless you mean it's partisan on the side of truth and righteousness.

And there's the rub. Not long ago I engaged an active member of the Church (a scholarly academic type) in a debate. For reasons I don't now remember, the subject of abortion came up and I was really stunned to learn this individual not only supports the unlimited right to abortion and partial birth abortion but even went so far as to say it's virtuous, noble and self-affirming when a woman decides to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. I thought to myself, 'welcome to the brave new world of 21st century progressive Mormonism,' a version of LDS belief I can't even begin to wrap my mind around.

Here are some questions: How in today's politically correct world can one condemn obviously destructive ungodliness without setting himself up to be accused of being rancorously political? When any political party decides to wade in on any particular moral issue, and then unwittingly passes laws that come down on the side of the devil and his plan for the destruction of the human race, how can those who seek to uphold the Lord's revealed standard of righteousness escape the accusation of being devisively political and for that reason have their moral positions invalidated? Is this how the voices of those who warn the world of the need for repentance and reconciliation with God will be silenced in the future? Is all that needs to be done is to accuse the Lord's servants of being poitical when they advocate for the Lord's positions on moral issues, and then say churches have to stay out of politics,  and finally make threats of severe government reprisals if they don't keep their mouths shut.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[why me]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

He carried through the electoral college. And lost dramatically by the Popular vote. By about 2.9 million. That number is not from a poll, that's just the election results. With many, he didn't win because he was liked but because some people disliked Clinton more. The polls were technically not all that off. What wasn't taken into account was how those voters were distributed. 

But again, that's politics. Not important to the thread.

With luv,

BD

Many of those votes came from california and nyc. It is shown in the map. I don't think that a republican can ever win the popular vote again in a presidential election. The demographics are against it. Thus, it is good to have the electoral college which makes the race more interesting. They were quite off when looked upon nationally. All experts agree on this. There is also a reason why many democrats and progressives want to abolish the electoral college and it has to do with demographics and the almost impossibility for republican to win the presidency by popular vote.

[why me]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

And there's the rub. Not long ago I engaged an active member of the Church (a scholarly academic type) in a debate. For reasons I don't now remember, the subject of abortion came up and I was really stunned to learn this individual not only supports the unlimited right to abortion and partial birth abortion but even went so far as to say it's virtuous, noble and self-affirming when a woman decides to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. I thought to myself, 'welcome to the brave new world of 21st century progressive Mormonism,' a version of LDS belief I can't even begin to wrap my mind around.

.

And this is why I believe that the woman who resigned from the choir would probably have sung for hillary clinton regardless of clinton's stance on long term abortion. It is just a sign of our times and how morals and morality are in flux and just how worldly values and the direction of such values have influenced members of the lds church. What can be said, if true?

[why me]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The Church made a decision that brought itself controversy. Chamberlin provided more interest for the controversy through her personal story.

Is the Church responsible purely for its own actions (ie decision for the choir to sing at Trump's inauguration) or is it also responsible for any disrepute it may bring upon itself, the choir and individual members through this decision? .

 

Since Hillary Clinton is going to Trump'a inauguration and her husband too. And since the Bushes are going and Jimmy Carter too, why not the choir? I see no pressure for the above former presidents and their wives not to go. They are there to support the peaceful transition of power. And so why not the choir? I think that many people are being too overly dramatic about the choir going to the inauguration. I say, lets wait and see what happens are the event. I am sure that it will be fine and enjoyable to watch.

Edited January 5, 2017 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

And there's the rub. Not long ago I engaged an active member of the Church (a scholarly academic type) in a debate. For reasons I don't now remember, the subject of abortion came up and I was really stunned to learn this individual not only supports the unlimited right to abortion and partial birth abortion but even went so far as to say it's virtuous, noble and self-affirming when a woman decides to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. I thought to myself, 'welcome to the brave new world of 21st century progressive Mormonism,' a version of LDS belief I can't even begin to wrap my mind around.

Here are some questions: How in today's politically correct world can one condemn obviously destructive ungodliness without setting himself up to be accused of being rancorously political? When any political party decides to wade in on any particular moral issue, and then unwittingly pass laws that come down on the side of the devil and his plan for the destruction of the human race, how can those who seek to uphold the Lord's revealed standard of righteousness escape the accusation of being devisively political, and for that reason have their moral positions invalidated? Is this how the voices of those who will warn the world of the need for repentance and reconciliation with God be silenced in the future? Is all that needs to be done is to accuse the Lord's servants of being poitical when they advocate for the Lord's positions on moral issues, and then say churches have to stay out of politics,  and finally threaten them with severe government reprisals if they don't keep their mouths shut.

Brave new world indeed. 

Reminds me of Ralph Hancock's talk at the last FairMormon Conference in which he spoke of a conversation he had with someone who said a person ought to repent for having the temerity to try to teach someone about the principle of repentance. So-called "progressive Mormonism" is a version of Mormonism that seems alien and out-of-kilter to me. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, why me said:

And this is why I believe that the woman who resigned from the choir would probably have sung for hillary clinton regardless of clinton's stance on long term abortion. It is just a sign of our times and how morals and morality are in flux and just how worldly values and the direction of such values have influenced members of the lds church. What can be said, if true?

By the way, an issue has been raised here about the Deseret News during the campaign having called on Trump to resign his candidacy. I was reminded today that the Deseret News called on Bill Clinton to resign his presidency in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal. Of course, back then, Hillary Stand-by-Your-Man Clinton was busily vilifying Bill's female victims.