The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

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 

If musical excellence and aesthetic quality weren't a factor, I suppose that could be considered.

 

[Nevo]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Michael Hicks's opened his recent history of the choir with that anecdote:

Quote

At Barack Obama’s second inauguration on 21 January 2013, Senator Charles Schumer announced that “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” was about to be sung by the “award-winning Tabernacle Choir.” Then, with a playful smile, he added, “the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir.” The audience laughed, because who could not be in on the joke? The Mormon Tabernacle Choir had been the only “tabernacle choir” to sing at a presidential inauguration before—six times, to be exact. Since Ronald Reagan dubbed them America’s Choir at his first inauguration, they had been known by that nickname. They had become the state choir of the republic to which the battle hymn was devoted—and the group that won a Grammy for its version of the “Battle Hymn” in 1959. As one writer put it, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was “the anointed voice of America’s civil religion.” But the pivot toward a new tabernacle choir seemed fitting, not only for a new era, but for the specific circumstance: Obama had beaten Mitt Romney, a Mormon, in the election.

— Michael Hicks, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir: A Biography (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015), ix.

I don't remember that moment from the inauguration but Hicks doesn't seem to have taken it as a dig either.

[Duncan]

Just now, Sleeper Cell said:

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?)

1) if missionary work is the prime aim for this it isn't working and is creating a mess. On one board people think our Church is the Waco Texas group but reborn...I don't see the great service but people are seeing this as a sign that the Church supports Trump, else if you didn't why would you go? if the Church is politically neutral why is it singing at any US President thing? Why not other countries? How would you feel if they were invited to sing for the North Korean guy?

2) why write an article in a Church owned publication under "our opinion" saying he should resign and things and now say well, the Church nothing to do with it but also say the Church has no say, why write an article about Trump in the first place, who is the "our" in our opinion?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html

 

I would suggest that the Eric Hawkins quotation needs to be front and centre, him saying it isn't an endorsement, well, unless I'm losing my mind I don't see it on the Church website. I wonder why Obama and Clinton hadn't asked them to perform? hmmmmmmmmmmmm, what a mystery! The Church for some reason leans to Republican ideals, not sure if it has always. I hope they wouldn't have refused an invite but I don't know one way or the other.

30 I think Trump just says whatever he wants and then i's funny he went on that victory tour and told everyone he basically said whatever and has no clue what he;s doing, he basically sold them a lemon so we'll see what happens

 

 

[Meadowchik]

Hold up...something can be non-partisan AND political. Singing at the inauguration would ALWAYS be a political act and that is admittedly a motive of the Church. Transition of power is inherently political.

[Vance]

18 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. 

That's ok.  There are many (even on the board) that think that the out going individual was "wholly unfit to be president".

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

She believes, imo, the Choir, its members, and the Church and its will be harmed through people associating the Choir with Trump...Given I don't see much of the Choir being associated with Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Taft, Truman, and all the rest of the Presidents they have performed for or with in the past, I think she is wrong, but I see her trying to influence the Church to change its position because she believes members and investigators will be harmed, not because she seeks to impose her will over others.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hold up...something can be non-partisan AND political. Singing at the inauguration would ALWAYS be a political act and that is admittedly a motive of the Church. Transition of power is inherently political.

Agreed, using the wrong word.

[Calm]

Dang lost the post to Duncan...

In essence presidents request music reflecting their own personal preferences such as Garth Brooks for .Bush and Fleetwood Mac for Clinton...there is an article out there on this I just read.

The MTC has played for Clinton and possibly Obama assuming the 2012 DN article I posted is correct.  

[Calm]

This Mormon Newsroom article states the purpose of the performance is to serve the country:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-tabernacle-choir-trump-inauguration

"The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has a great tradition of performing at the inaugurals of U.S. presidents," said Ron Jarrett, president of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. "Singing the music of America is one of the things we do best. We are honored to be able."

The article itself says nothing, imo, about Trump as an individual or his politics...it is solely about honoring the democratic process of the swearing in of a president and Vice President established to involve Americans in general in their government, interchangeable with all the other presidents past and future.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Michael Hicks's opened his recent history of the choir with that anecdote:

I don't remember that moment from the inauguration but Hicks doesn't seem to have taken it as a dig either.

It seems more of a compliment than a dig to me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

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 

As long as it is not "Choose the Right".

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

She believes, imo, the Choir, its members, and the Church and its will be harmed through people associating the Choir with Trump...Given I don't see much of the Choir being associated with Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Taft, Truman, and all the rest of the Presidents they have performed for or with in the past, I think she is wrong, but I see her trying to influence the Church to change its position because she believes members and investigators will be harmed, not because she seeks to impose her will over others.

Whatever, it's still political grandstanding, and it's still unseemly.

 

[thatjimguy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Sometimes you have to challenge the things you love if you think they are going in the wrong direction. Simply being silent isn't an option. Abinadi sure didn't keep quiet to what he believed was wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

Sometimes you have to challenge the things you love if you think they are going in the wrong direction. Simply being silent isn't an option. Abinadi sure didn't keep quiet to what he believed was wrong.

I'm sure nearly every apostate from the days of Joseph Smith on down to today has used that rationalization.

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

On 12/30/2016 at 10:15 AM, 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.

LMAO,like Bill and Hillary were moral superior people.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/30/mormon-tabernacle-choir-singer-quits-over-trump-inauguration-i/21644526/?mv=_global:sidedoor-test&show-more=1 

Quote

"Looking from the outside in, it will appear that Choir is endorsing tyranny and racism by singing for this man... History is repeating itself; the same tactics are being used by Hitler (identify a problem, finding a scapegoat target to blame, and stirring up people with a combination of fanaticism, false promises, and fear, and gathering the funding). I plead with everyone to go back and read the books we all know on these topics and review the films produced to help us learn from these gargantuan crimes so that we will not allow them to be repeated. Evil people prosper when good people stand by and do nothing."

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/30/mormon-tabernacle-choir-singer-quits-over-trump-inauguration-i/21644526/?mv=_global:sidedoor-test&show-more=1 

 

This link was already provided in the OP. You didn't explain your point in repeating it. I for one find it no more persuasive now than I did when I first read it on Facebook several days ago. 

There is no virtue in denouncing a thing when one is wrong to do so. 

Edited to add: By the way isn't there a rule on this board relating to Godwin's Law? Wouldn't irrationally equating the president-elect to Nazi war criminals (as is done in the Chamberlin denunciation) fall within the purview of Goswin's Law? 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On December 30, 2016 at 11:15 AM, 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.

The "moral character of the Church" (and by that, I presume you mean its leadership) is in good stead. It is Sister Chamberlin and her supporters who are wrong. 

[Nevo]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no virtue in denouncing a thing when one is wrong to do so. 

As a wise man once said of another Chamberl(a)in:

"...at the Lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour."

Edited January 1, 2017 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Nevo said:

As a wise man once said of another Chamberl(a)in:

"...at the Lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour."

As I already indicated, I don't object to her following her conscience with regard to performing. It's the self-righteous public grandstanding, subjecting the Cihurch to a hailstorm of attack that bothers me. Then, loyalty becomes a factor to consider. 

Again, she could have assuaged her conscience simply by removing her name from (or declining to put it into) the pool of prospective participants. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I added the following to my post above, but I'm reposting it here lest it go unnoticed:

Edited to add: By the way isn't there a rule on this board relating to Godwin's Law? Wouldn't irrationally equating the president-elect to Nazi war criminals (as is done in the Chamberlin denunciation) fall within the purview of Godwin's Law? 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

I personally think that the choir director made it quite clear why the MTC has accepted the invitation and I think that is a worthy and valid point.  It is a great gesture by the church to accept the invitation to try and heal the nation from a bitter election.  Unfortunately, this message is probably lost in the firestorm this acceptance has created.  Even if it was not the intention of the choir to make some kind of endorsement of Trump, a lot of people think they have.  And that is unfortunate for the church.  I find it hard to believe that the choir director had no idea that this acceptance would be taken as a political endorsement by a large group of people no matter how unfair that is.  Others were able to make that decision, clearly knowing the implications if they accepted an invitation.  I personally would probably would have erred on the side of caution rather than allowing the MTC to become a political football and simply come up with a conflict in scheduling.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Had Hillary won and they had been invited to perform at her inaugural, would they refuse based not only on the Clintons' words but also on their abusive actions?

Edited January 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

What! The choir allowed Schumer to direct a number? Cancel my request for membership. I would never throw lilies at Chairman Mao.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This link was already provided in the OP. You didn't explain your point in repeating it. I for one find it no more persuasive now than I did when I first read it on Facebook several days ago. 

There is no virtue in denouncing a thing when one is wrong to do so. 

Edited to add: By the way isn't there a rule on this board relating to Godwin's Law? Wouldn't irrationally equating the president-elect to Nazi war criminals (as is done in the Chamberlin denunciation) fall within the purview of Goswin's Law? 

Yeh, except that Hitler wasn't a Nazi war criminal when he first came into office.  All the signs were there, and explictily so in Mein Kampf.  One must follow his conscience, even when others don't take that view.  Godwin's Law or group think?