The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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.

You perhaps have forgotten -- or perhaps you didn't know -- that within <moments> after the networks had called the race for Trump on election night, that same Deseret News editorial board went online with an editorial accepting the voice of the people and offering well wishes to the president-elect. 

The campaign ended nearly two months ago. It's past time to accept that and move on. 

 

[Nevo]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

There are lots of bigots on the Internet, of all ideological stripes. I don't dispute it. It's a depressing fact of modern life. But I didn't form my opinion of Trump based on FB posts and the comment sections of online news sites. His own words and actions are damning enough.

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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

Agree to disagree

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You perhaps have forgotten -- or perhaps you didn't know -- that within <moments> after the networks had called the race for Trump on election night, that same Deseret News editorial board went online with an editorial accepting the voice of the people and offering well wishes to the president-elect. 

The campaign ended nearly two months ago. It's past time to accept that and move on. 

 

The Chicago Cubs broke a long standing curse and then what like a week later the American People elected one. Let's hope Trump isn't playing the Church to get back at Romney

Edited December 31, 2016 by Duncan

[SteveO]

21 minutes ago, Nevo said:

There are lots of bigots on the Internet, of all ideological stripes. I don't dispute it. It's a depressing fact of modern life. But I didn't form my opinion of Trump based on FB posts and the comment sections of online news sites. His own words and actions are damning enough.

That's not what you wrote though.  You made it pretty clear what your opinion is of those who don't share your "moral" view.

Good to see someone is so certain of being on the right side of history though

[Nevo]

21 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Good to see someone is so certain of being on the right side of history though

I'm not certain of very much but I absolutely do believe that I'm on the right side of history where Trump is concerned. I think he is wholly unfit to be president. But I'd love to be proven wrong. In the meantime, I will pray for him and his administration. 

[Storm Rider]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Participating in the choir is a privilege, imo.  To participate you become a member of something much greater than yourself and you accept the responsibility of devoting yourself to that organization.  You are not entitled to aggrandize yourself or your personal political agendas.  Sister Chamberlin chose to put herself and her agenda above the Choir.  This type of attitude is unacceptable and demonstrates that she has chosen to disassociate herself of the standards of belonging to such an organization.  For doing so, she disqualifies herself; thus she should be permanently excused from participating.  This will allow her all the time in the world to devote herself to her personal agenda, which she obviously feels is more important than being a member of the Choir.  

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not certain of very much but I absolutely do believe that I'm on the right side of history where Trump is concerned. I think he is wholly unfit to be president. But I'd love to be proven wrong. In the meantime, I will pray for him and his administration. 

I pray for the American people.

[Sleeper Cell]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

1. “ KISS is standing up to Trump, sad that the MTC won’t?”   
“Standing up?“  Precisely what does KISS risk by declining to play at the inaugural?  
2.  “The church … performing for Trump is a sign of submitting to something that to me isn't Christian like?”  
I wonder if your FB friend regarded the Deseret News editorial (calling on Trump to withdraw from the race) as a sign of  the Church refusing to submit to something that wasn’t “Christian like?”  Out of curiosity, did you, and, if so, how do you reconcile the two “signs?”  
3.  Presumably, the FB comment about LDS and LSD (unlike the Star Trek line) -- was intended to insult the church and its members.  If so, how Christian-like is that? 

BTW, I did not vote for Trump; I was a “never-Trumper” from the beginning.  

[Sleeper Cell]

22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

“That” being her opinion that the “Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation because she equates the Choir singing at the inauguration with it serenading Hitler.”  Frankly, I fail to see how  publicly accusing  the Choir of the moral equivalent of "serenading Hitler", shows any concern, whatsoever, for the Choir’s reputation.  Indeed, it strikes me as the sort of rhetoric one might expect from someone trying to damage the Choir’s reputation. 

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

1. “ KISS is standing up to Trump, sad that the MTC won’t?”   
“Standing up?“  Precisely what does KISS risk by declining to play at the inaugural?  
2.  “The church … performing for Trump is a sign of submitting to something that to me isn't Christian like?”  
I wonder if your FB friend regarded the Deseret News editorial (calling on Trump to withdraw from the race) as a sign of  the Church refusing to submit to something that wasn’t “Christian like?”  Out of curiosity, did you, and, if so, how do you reconcile the two “signs?”  
3.  Presumably, the FB comment about LDS and LSD (unlike the Star Trek line) -- was intended to insult the church and its members.  If so, how Christian-like is that? 

BTW, I did not vote for Trump; I was a “never-Trumper” from the beginning.  

1)KISS and the MTC aren't exactley A-list celebrities, but  KISS plays all over the world and let's be honest Trump isn't exactley well liked, they know their crowd and what's acceptable and what isn't so a risk of declining crowds but because they aren't playing I think they'll get the same crowds and possibly new fans. The backlash against the MTC hasn't such a wonderful missionary opportunity and so now people have another reason to think less of the Church and may not be interested when the missionaries come by, and that's all over the world now that this news has spread 

2) well based on opinions here and other places the DN isn't controlled by the Church and the First Presidency didn't have anything to do with it or something and didn't give their blessing that it be printed and now that the doorway to sin is open the Church is honoured to be singing to this "man". If the Church is actually non partisan and doesn't take sides i'd like to see evidence of it. In singing for Johnson in 1965 is that the same as singling for Trump today? or is the political climate different?

3) Christ called Herod a Fox so maybe!

Edited December 31, 2016 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Participating in the choir is a privilege, imo.  To participate you become a member of something much greater than yourself and you accept the responsibility of devoting yourself to that organization.  You are not entitled to aggrandize yourself or your personal political agendas.  Sister Chamberlin chose to put herself and her agenda above the Choir.  This type of attitude is unacceptable and demonstrates that she has chosen to disassociate herself of the standards of belonging to such an organization.  For doing so, she disqualifies herself; thus she should be permanently excused from participating.  This will allow her all the time in the world to devote herself to her personal agenda, which she obviously feels is more important than being a member of the Choir.  

Choir participation is more than a privilege. It's a Church calling. To resign over politics is in effect to abandon one's calling. 

[thesometimesaint]

Everyone here knows my politics. So I won't get into them. My objections to performing for Trump by the MTC are rooted in the vulgar comments he has made about women. It gives the impression that the Church approves of them. I don't believe that is the impression we want to have in place.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

“That” being her opinion that the “Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation because she equates the Choir singing at the inauguration with it serenading Hitler.”  Frankly, I fail to see how  publicly accusing  the Choir of the moral equivalent of "serenading Hitler", shows any concern, whatsoever, for the Choir’s reputation.  Indeed, it strikes me as the sort of rhetoric one might expect from someone trying to damage the Choir’s reputation. 

I think her intentions are good and that she loves the Church and Choir, but feels justified in using a form of shock treatment to bring them to a recognition of the harm being done to them and others by this action, but she has fallen in the trap that she despises in Trump, which is vilifying a person/group ("identifying a problem") and stirring up fanaticism and fear (evil on the level of Hitler is prospering).  I suspect most of the harm we are seeing in regards to the Choir being "associated" with Trump is done by those spreading the idea the performance creates an endorsement associationin people's minds; if they had spent the same energy and space into promoting the Church's stance that this is about celebrating civility and the democratic process, that would be what the vast majority would now be thinking imo...at least in the US and eventually overseas...but this would, of course first require an atmosphere where this sort of fevered accusation would not happen in the first place, so that is a pipe dream.

I wonder how many people pay attention to such things normally worldwide and change their view about the Church depending on where or for whom the Choir are performing as opposed to their view of the Choir based on what their actual performance.  Undoubtedly there are some.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Came across this and thought some might be interested:

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1160/1/Every-president-of-the-United-States-Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir-performances-for-and-with-famous.html

"Founded in August of 1847, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is a world-renowned organization. The famous choir tours around the globe, holds a yearly, well-known Christmas concert and has been nominated for five Grammy Awards, winning one of them.

Throughout its travels over the years, the choir has performed for, and with, many prominent individuals.

The following is a look at just a few of the well-known faces the choir has sung alongside, from famous actors and talented musicians to authors and presidents.  

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung for every president of the United States, beginning with President William Howard Taft. Here, choir members are in the Battleship Utah in November 1911 for the presentation of the State Silver Service at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York. 

It was during this visit to the East Coast that the choir made its first appearance at the White House for President William Howard Taft..."

Edited December 31, 2016 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

Some people pay attention to the wrong things.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/conservative-radio-host-caught-in-lie-that-mormon-tabernacle-choir-sang-at-obama-inauguration/

[Calm]

The Choir may not have been invited, but there were two apostles there:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570368/Two-Mormon-apostles-to-represent-LDS-Church-at-presidential-inaugural.html

And there was a joke about the Battle Hymn of the Republic being sung by the award winning Tabernacle Choir (which was the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/nyregion/brooklyn-tabernacle-choir-at-inauguration-reaches-global-audience.html

"When Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced the singers of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” at President Obama’s second inauguration, he first called them the “award-winning tabernacle choir,” as if the huge crowd were expecting another, more famous group, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

But the senator, the inauguration’s impresario and M.C., quickly, with a mischievous smile, corrected himself. With a prideful emphasis he called the group “the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir.”"

Edited December 31, 2016 by Calm

[Sleeper Cell]

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

ust 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.

I agree that Trump’s 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.”  Unfortunately, most of that "spike in hatred" seems to have been catalyzed among his opponents.  Or do you believe that McLellin’s demonizing rhetoric  (“Grotesquely racist, sexist, xenophobic, … hateful, violent, destructive … the greatest threat to our nation and to its citizens) or Chamberlain’s  Hitler rhetoric doesn’t count as “hate speech” because they are the “good guys?”  

If one’s “moral stance” does not hold one’s own side  to the same high standard as “the other side,” it is a partisan stance.   

As a practical matter, don’t you see that  this sort of anti-Trump rhetoric is pushing  away us “never-Trumpers" as well as the “lesser-of-two-evils-Trumpers” -- the very groups that you guys are going to need to help restrain Trump while in office  and hopefully limit him to one term?   Don’t you see that this sort of rhetoric will enable Trump to blame his failures on his opponents' refusal to even attempt to work with him to find common ground?  And don’t you realize that the next time one of your guys is elected president, he/she will be unlikely to receive the usual “honeymoon period“ that, up to now, has traditionally been accorded a newly elected president?  

[Jeanne]

The thing is for me...I would just about be more than thrilled to be there.  My feelings would be the same with Hillary if I was just invited to go and just look and see the actual oath, the songs the patriotism..and the very reason to be there.  No matter who won the presidency, I can't imagine having an opportunity to be there and turn it down.  The politics will always be there...there are differences; but it doesn't change that fact that this is America..we choose our presidents and we do have a voice.  To sham all of this seems to me to be an ungrateful thing..for those who have died so that we could even vote.  I would love to be there!

Quote

 

 

[Nevo]

9 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

As a practical matter, don’t you see that  this sort of anti-Trump rhetoric is pushing  away us “never-Trumpers" as well as the “lesser-of-two-evils-Trumpers” -- the very groups that you guys are going to need to help restrain Trump while in office  and hopefully limit him to one term?   Don’t you see that this sort of rhetoric will enable Trump to blame his failures on his opponents' refusal to even attempt to work with him to find common ground?  And don’t you realize that the next time one of your guys is elected president, he/she will be unlikely to receive the usual “honeymoon period“ that, up to now, has traditionally been accorded a newly elected president?  

I'm sorry that you find the anti-Trump rhetoric off-putting. Normally, I would agree with you, but in Trump's case I think the extreme descriptors unfortunately apply. But I've already said enough about it. I'm not even an American. Just another Canadian interloper giving his two cents (= $0.0148 USD). For the record, though, I've always preferred Republican presidential candidates in the past. I supported the Iraq War and George W. Bush, and would have voted for Mitt Romney if I'd been able to. Politically, my views are probably closest to those of David Frum. For whatever little that may be worth.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is for me...I would just about be more than thrilled to be there.  My feelings would be the same with Hillary if I was just invited to go and just look and see the actual oath, the songs the patriotism..and the very reason to be there.  No matter who won the presidency, I can't imagine having an opportunity to be there and turn it down.  The politics will always be there...there are differences; but it doesn't change that fact that this is America..we choose our presidents and we do have a voice.  To sham all of this seems to me to be an ungrateful thing..for those who have died so that we could even vote.  I would love to be there!

 

Assuming my press credentials come through, I will be there. I'll think of you while I'm there, Jeanne.

It will be the chance of a lifetime for me. And, like you, I would have felt the same had it been Hillary taking the oath. This is our America, and it is thrilling to watch it function.

[Calm]

It is unfortunate that there are less and less civil events that are considered nonpartisan at least for the general public (I accept that everything is likely political for a politician unfortunately).

(corrected word choice)

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

1)KISS and the MTC aren't exactley A-list celebrities, but  KISS plays all over the world and let's be honest Trump isn't exactley well liked, they know their crowd and what's acceptable and what isn't so a risk of declining crowds but because they aren't playing I think they'll get the same crowds and possibly new fans. The backlash against the MTC hasn't such a wonderful missionary opportunity and so now people have another reason to think less of the Church and may not be interested when the missionaries come by, and that's all over the world now that this news has spread 

2) well based on opinions here and other places the DN isn't controlled by the Church and the First Presidency didn't have anything to do with it or something and didn't give their blessing that it be printed and now that the doorway to sin is open the Church is honoured to be singing to this "man". If the Church is actually non partisan and doesn't take sides i'd like to see evidence of it. In singing for Johnson in 1965 is that the same as singling for Trump today? or is the political climate different?

3) Christ called Herod a Fox so maybe!

1.  It appears we agree that it required more courage for the MTC to accept the invitation than for KISS to reject it.  Incidentally, isn’t one of the things that distinguishes missionary work from a PR campaign is that the former sometimes requires taking a principled stand, even if doing so is bad PR.  As Scott pointed out: “The campaign ended nearly two months ago. It's past time to accept that and move on..”  If the MTC appearance does nothing more than help some people realize this, it will have, IMO, performed a great service.  

2.  True, the DN isn’t controlled by the FP.  Neither does the FP regard the MTC singing at a presidential inaugural as a partisan or personal endorsement of a new president. (Nor, up to now, has anyone else).   But that is the spin now being put upon it by others.  On the other hand,  there have always been a considerable number who regard the DN as speaking for the church.  Given the fact that the church has said that neither the MTC appearance  nor the DN editorial are "signs" of church support, on what grounds do you seemingly accept the Church’s word for one and reject it for the other?  

2A. “If the Church is actually non partisan and doesn't take sides i'd like to see evidence of it. In singing for Johnson in 1965 is that the same as singling for Trump today? or is the political climate different?”
The evidence is that it has accepted every presidential invitation that was extended to it.  Do you seriously think that the MTC would have refused Cliinton’s or Obama’s invitation, has they asked?   Once the MTC rejects an invitation on the grounds they don’t like the president, on what grounds will they be able to accept future invitations, and still argue that they are non-partisan?   BTW, the political climate is almost always different than it “used to be.” (It was far worse during 1966-1973).   If anything, today’s bitter partisan climate needs those who are willing to put the country ahead of politics by rising above the bitter rhetoric -- at least for a couple of days. 

3.  “Jesus called Herod a For, so maybe …”   I presume that you said this in jest.  (But just in case you didn’t,  couldn’t Trump use the same argument for justifying his name calling of Hillary and Obama?)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Choir may not have been invited, but there were two apostles there:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570368/Two-Mormon-apostles-to-represent-LDS-Church-at-presidential-inaugural.html

And there was a joke about the Battle Hymn of the Republic being sung by the award winning Tabernacle Choir (which was the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/nyregion/brooklyn-tabernacle-choir-at-inauguration-reaches-global-audience.html

"When Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced the singers of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” at President Obama’s second inauguration, he first called them the “award-winning tabernacle choir,” as if the huge crowd were expecting another, more famous group, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

But the senator, the inauguration’s impresario and M.C., quickly, with a mischievous smile, corrected himself. With a prideful emphasis he called the group “the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir.”"

At first, I took it as a political dig against Utah and the Mormons, but I soon chalked it up to my being oversensitive.

I was present at Carnegie Hall last year when Sen. Schumer was the guest conductor for the closing selection of the Tabernacle Choir concert during its Atlantic Coast tour. So I'm confident Schumer doesn't hold the choir too much in contempt.

[Sleeper Cell]

Instead of confining our discussion to whether the MTC should sing at the inaugural,  perhaps it might be fun to consider what they should sing.  “Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words to Each Other”  comes to mind 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

“That” being her opinion that the “Choir singing will decimate its stellar reputation because she equates the Choir singing at the inauguration with it serenading Hitler.”  Frankly, I fail to see how  publicly accusing  the Choir of the moral equivalent of "serenading Hitler", shows any concern, whatsoever, for the Choir’s reputation.  Indeed, it strikes me as the sort of rhetoric one might expect from someone trying to damage the Choir’s reputation. 

If it were merely a matter of her wanting to quiet her conscience by refusing to appear at the event, she could have accomplished that simply by declining to put her name into the pool of potential invitees. Even if she thinks that performing at the Trump inauguration will forever taint the choir to the point that it is now beneath her station to ever participate with it again, she could have quietly resigned her position.

But no, she couldn't leave it at that, electing instead to engage in public grandstanding, in effect seeking to impose her political will on her fellow choir members and the choir and Church leadership by pressuring them through her public disparagement. She has crossed way over the line of propriety.