Jeanne Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Duncan said: I'm sure. I am all for the American economy doing well, Obama saved your skins because of the last republican PUSA you had in. Canada is the biggest trading partner with the US so more money is always nice but I wonder if Trump is the guy do that? interesting as this is it doesn't have anything to do with the Choir If Clinton had won i'd be fine with the Choir performing but I don't know if she would invite them or what. I think they would be eked out by the million hollywood people that would be eager to participate Duncan, during he past 8 years, I have lost housands of dollars of my reitirement monies...This means I have to work longer at that crappy store for another umpteen years...whatever Trump can do to help me..I am forever grateful.
Duncan Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Just now, Jeanne said: Duncan, during he past 8 years, I have lost housands of dollars of my reitirement monies...This means I have to work longer at that crappy store for another umpteen years...whatever Trump can do to help me..I am forever grateful. Hopefully! what kind of store do you work at?
Bobbieaware Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 29 minutes ago, Duncan said: I'm sure. I am all for the American economy doing well, Obama saved your skins because of the last republican PUSA you had in. Canada is the biggest trading partner with the US so more money is always nice but I wonder if Trump is the guy do that? interesting as this is it doesn't have anything to do with the Choir If Clinton had won i'd be fine with the Choir performing but I don't know if she would invite them or what. I think they would be eked out by the million hollywood people that would be eager to participate Do you know much about the Clintons? You would have no problem with the MTC singing for her even though she's a high priestess of partial birth abortion and she's tried to destroy the lives of women who said they were sexually assalted by her so-called husband? 1
Duncan Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Just now, Bobbieaware said: Do you know much about the Clintons? You would have no problem with the MTC singing for her even though she's a high priestess of partial birth abortion and she's tried to destroy the lives of women who said they were sexually assalted by her so-called husband? Ever hear of Mike Pence and the barbaric laws in Indiana about abortions and Donald Trump and his wives and affairs? spare me. I asked before why does the MTC has to perform at all? Don't you have any other choirs in the US? Why don;t you get these guys? minus one of course 1
Duncan Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 https://www.ksl.com/?sid=42757842 if Porn is a public health crisis why would the Choir want to sing for a guy who was on the front cover of a dirty magazine and his wife posed in the buff? you can't have it both ways 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Duncan said: Ever hear of Mike Pence and the barbaric laws in Indiana about abortions and Donald Trump and his wives and affairs? spare me. I asked before why does the MTC has to perform at all? Don't you have any other choirs in the US? Why don;t you get these guys? minus one of course I find it incredibly ironic that you would call laws designed to make it harder for a woman to have her unborn baby killed "barbaric," but you seem to have nothing to say about truly barbaric partial birth abortion. 1
Duncan Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Just now, Bobbieaware said: I find it incredibly ironic that you would call laws designed to make it harder for a woman to have her unborn baby killed "barbaric," but you seem to have nothing to say about truly barbaric partial birth abortion. Trump does, I think men should never makes laws about women's bodies. I think it's awful to go through. I am saying it should be the women's choice and should be easier to do than what Trump et al are wanting and doing in Indiana. Did you read that Utah lady's story about her 9 month I think abortion for her twins? awful stuff. If she lived in Indiana she would have to pay for the burial..... again as interesting as back to the choir
Tacenda Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I already pointed out when somebody brought this up earlier, within minutes after the news networks had called the race for Trump on election night, the Deseret News went online with an editorial of congratulations and support for the new president-elect. Were you aware of that, Tacenda? Do you really think these two events are comparable? I don't know how comparable, but quite significant. She might have reigned in a bit. But she wore her heart on her sleeve I guess. Des News did it too in a different way, IMO.
Bobbieaware Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Duncan said: Trump does, I think men should never makes laws about women's bodies. I think it's awful to go through. I am saying it should be the women's choice and should be easier to do than what Trump et al are wanting and doing in Indiana. Did you read that Utah lady's story about her 9 month I think abortion for her twins? awful stuff. If she lived in Indiana she would have to pay for the burial..... again as interesting as back to the choir More and more I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. I never dreamed the day would come when many active members of the Church would sound like typical pro-legalized abortion progressives. Aside from your personal belief that abortions should be legal, do you believe women who abort heathy babies that are not the product of rape or incest are committing serious sin? And do you believe medical professionals who abort healthy babies that are not the product of rape or incest are committing serious sin?
Tacenda Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: More and more I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. I never dreamed the day would come when many active members of the Church would sound like typical pro-legalized abortion progressives. Aside from your personal belief that abortions should be legal, do you believe women who abort heathy babies that are not the product of rape or incest are committing serious sin? And do you believe medical professionals who abort healthy babies that are not the product of rape or incest are committing serious sin? How about the life of the mother? Case in point...http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/womans-late-term-abortion-story-in-response-to-trump-goes-viral-w446206
Calm Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Duncan said: If she lived in Indiana she would have to pay for the burial..... again as interesting as back to the choir http://www.snopes.com/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/ Before making accusations of an extreme nature, it is wise to research them: "The law, which was passed by the Republican-heavy state legislature, does require that aborted or miscarried fetuses be buried or cremated. It also requires that women involved in these cases be given the chance to decide how this is carried out. However, it did not require the women involved to be present during — or to pay for — the disposal of the material. Instead, that fell to the facility in which the miscarriage or abortion took place..." Only if the woman chooses to do something different than the facility supplies does she pay for it, a reasonable request, imo, otherwise elaborate measures could be demanded and costs would go up significantly. And btw, the law was suspended before it could go into an effect by a federal judge...so even that is not required. "Pratt's ruling means that, despite the efforts of Pence and state Republicans, Indiana women will not be asked whether to they wish to bury or cremate (rather than donate) their miscarried or aborted fetuses. Even so, had the law not been suspended, parents would not have been forced to hold funerals for abortions or miscarriages — much less at their own expense." Edited January 6, 2017 by Calm 1
why me Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Duncan said: Are you not American? The people that won on the Apprentice loved him, but the ones that didn't probably didn't! hahahhaha! I never watched the Apprentice, because of my standards for TV programming and I don't watch shows about sharks because they are boring I think that you missed the point: Shark Tank is a show where entrepenuers pitch their ideas to a group of people who have billions so they can invest in their ideas so that they can also become extremely rich. It is very popular on TV. And Trump's apprentice show was high in the ratings. It is not about who loved him. It was about the American fascination with money. Trump was a personality before he ran for president and very popular: an American icon. Edited January 6, 2017 by why me 1
Calm Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) "For women who choose to have an abortion, the process can still end once the pills are swallowed or the stirrups are down. If families choose not to handle the disposal process, hospitals and clinics are responsible for taking care of the remains, along with the funeral and cemetery businesses with which they work. Absent state-mandated funerals or car rides to the crematorium, women don’t have to help their fetuses come to a dignified end; abortion providers and funeral directors will be the only witnesses to the interment or cremation. And even though fetuses are now afforded the disposition rights of humans, they still don’t have other rights of personhood—including, for example, the right to life. According to United States law, fetuses are not people.... For women who miscarry or go through emergency medical abortions, this law creates a mechanism for grieving. Hospitals will provide not only medical advice, but tools for memorializing loss. For others—who may be happy, sad, or indifferent about terminating their pregnancy—the purpose of the ritual is less clear. Perhaps legislators want to peel women’s eyelids open, Clockwork Orange-style, and make them confront the meaning of abortion. Perhaps they wanted fetuses to be seen in the way they seem to them: as human.... Not that funeral directors are complaining about the law. “We strongly believe that mankind needs to remember and memorialize our dead,” Rostad said. “If the state comes along and makes it imperative that fetal remains of under 20 weeks receive that same treatment, that’s a decision that society makes. We’re simply there to carry that out..." Do you still see the law as "barbaric" when the intent is to give a small part of humanity---even if it is only a lost potential and not a full expression of humanity---dignity instead of treating them the same as trash (in Indiana, they are currently treated as "medical waste")? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/state-mandated-mourning-for-aborted-fetuses/482688/ Edited January 6, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 More: "That sense of dignity and respect is what makes this measure significant. “All this law does is declare that any fetal remains under 20 weeks is human remains,” Rostad said. All it does. Indiana may not legally be able to declare fetuses human in life. But in death, apparently, it can... For a long time, many states didn’t give women and families the option to bury or cremate their fetuses or miscarried or stillborn infants. Roughly 10 years ago, Marsh said, parents started pushing to change those laws. Over time, she said, pro-life organizations also signed on to this movement, which is why this recent wave of legislation has concerned not just choices for would-be parents, but the status of all fetuses. Americans United for Life offers model legislation for states on this topic, which covers both fetal-tissue donation and burial and cremation." So it would appear that this and other similar laws are more about giving women/parents choices than taking them away save in the case of those states that ban medical donation.
BlueDreams Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: My perception is that "progressive Mormon" is a self-styled appellation that is more-or-less ideologically based. That still doesn't give a working definition to the word. All it does is tell me that it's self-ID'd and may be based on some unnamed ideology. In this same thread Bobbie began to use the same term in broader terms.I have seen a few lists to what a progressive mormon may believe or want, and a number I don't necessarily disagree with. Does that make me a progressive mormon? No idea. Really depends the definition. But none of the criticisms of it on this thread fit me in the least. Without a working definition it still feels like propping up an amorphous straw man. With luv, BD 1
BlueDreams Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Yes, there are varying shades of progressives within the progressive movement. But when you put all the varying shades of progressives together and blend them to make a single combined color, I believe the movement as a composit whole is still destructive to the limited government/self-government model championed by the inspired Founding Fathers, and that too much of what it espouses is antithetical to the teachings of the Restored Gospel of Christ. And you can count on the fact that as the world continues to ripen in iniquity the progressive movement will become progressively more and more radical and antithetical to the religion of Christ. Even then there will likely still be a fair number of 'moderates' within the ranks of the progressive movement but they will be viewed as naive idealists by those who lust for power at the top of the pyramid. Again. There is heavy irony in the broad assumptions and projections you've made in light of the thread. With luv, BD 2
Calm Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) What exactly was your issue with the woman's abortion, Duncan? Trump's comments about it were wrong, but that does not make the procedures that allowed it to take place barbaric. If I understand correctly, it was not illegal as she [mis?]stated, but it sounds like it was required for that late of term pregnancy termination to get approval by the hospital board. She couldn't come in at 9 months and say I need an abortion and have it immediately done. Since the one child was dead, it must have been about ensuring there was nothing that could be done for the second child. If so, seems wise especially if later the woman might wonder to herself as she hears about almost miraculous savings of other children "maybe my child could have been saved". It sounds like her trauma was emotional and nothing that the doctors, her husband, and her LDS bishop who supported her could really help, but caused by the tragic deaths of her two children: "The abortion was terrible. It was done very gently, by Caesarean section, leaving the babies in their amniotic sacs. The living baby passed very quickly." Facts on abortion in Utah: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-utah Some Utah abortion opponents are even trying to enact laws that require pain meds are given to any fetus past 20 weeks for an abortion, so a late term abortion can hardly be illegal: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/utah-abortion-law-fetal-anesthesia.html Add-on: Utah apparently has very strict abortion laws in comparison to most other states, but even so from the below link it was hardly illegal: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/utah-law/utah-abortion-laws.html Edited January 6, 2017 by Calm
Meadowchik Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 7 hours ago, why me said: What last part? If Hillary is going and if all the past presidents are going, why not the choir? No one is attacking jimmy carter or hillary or bill. Or the bushes. Maybe trump should just be sworn in and get to work. Why have any performances? Back in 1993 bill clinton had michael jackson perform holding children and bill cosby was there. At the end of the day, who needs to be entertained by hollywood? We will all know more 6 months from now. Then, we all can have opinions about his presidency. And why listen to the left wing of the spectrum? Is the united states so controlled by the so called left wing? I can only imagine if Trump supporters were pressuring people not to perform for clinton. I can only imagine the reaction of the media about trump supporters. The last paragraph of that post I mine. You left it out of the quote and it was the conclusion of what you quoted. We can charitably believe the stated intentions of both the choir and Chamberlin without conflict. 1
Duncan Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: More and more I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. I never dreamed the day would come when many active members of the Church would sound like typical pro-legalized abortion progressives. Aside from your personal belief that abortions should be legal, do you believe women who abort heathy babies that are not the product of rape or incest are committing serious sin? And do you believe medical professionals who abort healthy babies that are not the product of rape or incest are committing serious sin? interesting questions! why don't you start a thread about it?
Calm Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, Duncan said: interesting questions! why don't you start a thread about it? Feel free to address my posts in the other thread... 1
why me Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: How about the life of the mother? Case in point...http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/womans-late-term-abortion-story-in-response-to-trump-goes-viral-w446206 The problem with late term abortion is that there is room for corruption. For example, a woman can want a late term abortion even though her life is not threatened. Can she find a doctor to do it and then doctor the books, making it seem that her life was in danger? I think that this can be a problem. It allows for corruptiion. Not to mention a possible culture of death.
Bernard Gui Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Meadowchik said: There was already controversy before Chamberlain said anything. Please don't make the mistake of transferring the dissent of thousands onto her shoulders. No mistake except the public one she made that exosed the Church and choir to undeserved criticism and now divides the Saints.. I hope it turns out well for her. Edited January 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, BlueDreams said: That still doesn't give a working definition to the word. All it does is tell me that it's self-ID'd and may be based on some unnamed ideology. In this same thread Bobbie began to use the same term in broader terms.I have seen a few lists to what a progressive mormon may believe or want, and a number I don't necessarily disagree with. Does that make me a progressive mormon? No idea. Really depends the definition. But none of the criticisms of it on this thread fit me in the least. Without a working definition it still feels like propping up an amorphous straw man. With luv, BD There used to be a message board called "New Order Mormons." I read that it went belly up for whatever reason, so I can't link to it, even if I were sure that would be permitted on this board. But it was pretty much birds of a feather. And again, it wasn't a matter of those who disagree with them broad brushing them; they did it to themselves. Edited January 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
why me Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) Do people have Trump Derangement Syndrome? Maybe the choir member who resigned has such a syndrome. It seems that many may be suffering from it. Edited January 6, 2017 by why me 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't know how comparable, but quite significant. She might have reigned in a bit. But she wore her heart on her sleeve I guess. Des News did it too in a different way, IMO. Did she really rein herself in? It appears to me she doubled down by going on CNN. But the clear difference is that immediately after the electorate had spoken, the Deseret News shifted to a posture of cooperation and a goal of unity. Jan Chamberlin, on the other hand, joins the multitude who can't accept that the campaign is over. And shamefully (in my view) she has sought to drag the Church and the Tabernacle Choir into the fray. 2
Recommended Posts