The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

Everything is politicized today. Just breathing in air and expelling carbon dioxide is a moral and political affront to some. 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

I'm sure Brother Wilberg could come up with an appropriate arrangement.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

Ordinarily, in nearly all elections I can think of, such an issue never comes up.  Why?  Well, because there is a sense of common decency among the various candidates.  With Trump we are in previously uncharted territory.  There are plenty of presidents-elect whom I did not approve of for a variety of reasons, but it never seemed questionable for MoTab to show up and perform.  Perhaps it seems like business-as-usual to some here on this board, but I can't think of much that is usual in this case.

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ordinarily, in nearly all elections I can think of, such an issue never comes up.  Why?  Well, because there is a sense of common decency among the various candidates.  With Trump we are in previously uncharted territory.  There are plenty of presidents-elect whom I did not approve of for a variety of reasons, but it never seemed questionable for MoTab to show up and perform.  Perhaps it seems like business-as-usual to some here on this board, but I can't think of much that is usual in this case.

Not wanting  to create a debate on relative moral values, but Bill Clinton leads the pack exploring reprehensible unchartered territory. If it is unacceptable to perform for Trump it would be equally so for the Clintons. Knowing what we now know of LBJ and JFK, should they have performed for them? 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Not wanting  to create a debate on relative moral values, but Bill Clinton leads the pack exploring reprehensible unchartered territory. If it is unacceptable to perform for Trump it would be equally so for the Clintons. Knowing what we now know of LBJ and JFK, should they have performed for them? 

Was Clinton et al guilty of indiscretions before they took office, i'd say Trump leads them all combined and he isn't even in it yet haha!, he even has a dirty magazine, among other things to his name

Edited January 1, 2017 by Duncan

[thatjimguy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

And I'm sure the people Abinadi was preaching to used that same response.

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Oh, so it's the old wouldn't-put-it-past-him accusation, eh?  As in "I detest him because of what I in my omniscience think he is capable of doing."

If "wouldn't put it past him" carried any validity, we'd probably all stand condemned at one point or another. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not wanting  to create a debate on relative moral values, but Bill Clinton leads the pack exploring reprehensible unchartered territory. If it is unacceptable to perform for Trump it would be equally so for the Clintons. Knowing what we now know of LBJ and JFK, should they have performed for them? 

While it is true that many American presidents had extra-marital affairs before or after taking office (FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr), and while it is true that several presidents committed high crimes and misdemeanors while in office (Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon), the public has generally become aware of them long after any inauguration would be held.  So the issue has not really come up, except of course that the public attitude about Bill Clinton has been that impeachment by a group of Congressional leaders who were themselves engaged in prodigious extra-marital affairs seemed hypocritical and unnecessary -- aside from the general expectation that boys will be boys, and that such matters are best left to immediate family members to suss out privately (Hillary & Chelsea).  Thus, the issue has not really come up before.

The general public seems to expect a president to get the job done, even if he has to get his hands dirty occasionally.  In the case of Jimmy Carter, for example, his high ethics and morals could not get him reelected when he allowed an Ayatolleh to control U.S. foreign policy.

[Duncan]

Isn't it sad though to discuss who is a worse pig in politics? in Canada none of the PMs are good looking enough to have anyone have extra marital affairs with,  the women would be like " no, thank you keep your money" I think there was one "Dief the Chief" supposedly had a child out of wedlock but who knows 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, so it's the old wouldn't-put-it-past-him accusation, eh?  As in "I detest him because of what I in my omniscience think he is capable of doing."

If "wouldn't put it past him" carried any validity, we'd probably all stand condemned at one point or another. 

No, not at all.  I go with the obvious indicators, and, in Trump's case, Mitt Romney and Evan McMullin gave an accurate accounting of his character.  One need not be omniscient to make that judgment, and I take it that your decision not to vote for Trump was based on the obvious indicators.  An excellent decision, by the way, Scott.  Too bad that others were not so prescient.  We might have avoided the coming Dark Night.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

And I'm sure the people Abinadi was preaching to used that same response.

So King Noah and his wicked priests knew about Joseph Smith and latter-day apostasy? And the Church of Jesus Christ and the prophets and apostles who administer it are to be equated with wicked king Noah and his court? 

You're not making sense.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Isn't it sad though to discuss who is a worse pig in politics? in Canada none of the PMs are good looking enough to have anyone have extra marital affairs with,  the women would be like " no, thank you keep your money" I think there was one "Dief the Chief" supposedly had a child out of wedlock but who knows 

Yes, and Canada is so much more orderly and civilized than the U.S. of A.  Dull, but civilized.

[thatjimguy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I certainly do not think she means the leadership's moral standing. I think she means how the church appears to the public eye.

It's like having a kid that wants to hang around some kids from the wrong side of the tracks. Sure, your kid might be a clean as the polar winds, but tell me you would not cringe at the thought of them hanging out and being seen with them.

Even better, how about a girl who wants to hang around some girls, who are fun and nice, but certainly know by the guys to be "quite friendly". This girl, pure as snow, won't do any of those shenanigans. However, do you think that her hanging with them is going to help her image at all?

 

[thatjimguy]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So King Noah and his wicked priests knew about Joseph Smith and latter-day apostasy? And the Church of Jesus Christ and the prophets and apostles who administer it are to be equated with wicked king Noah and his court? 

You're not making sense.  

 

You know better than to think that I mean it like that.

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by thatjimguy

[Duncan]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Canada is so much more orderly and civilized than the U.S. of A.  Dull, but civilized.

it's funny, we have never had an assasination or an attempt really except for one or two times. Here, nobody really cares about politicians enough to get out of Tim Hortons to harm them or anything. I met a PM once, no body guards at all, nobody frisked me or anything-how easily could I have done the guy in and got outta dodge in a jiffy

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's funny, we have never had an assasination or an attempt really except for one or two times. Here, nobody really cares about politicians enough to get out of Tim Hortons to harm them or anything. I met a PM once, no body guards at all, nobody frisked me or anything-how easily could I have done the guy in and got outta dodge in a jiffy

Yeh, but the brutal assassination of MP Jo Cox in England does give one pause.

[Duncan]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, but the brutal assassination of MP Jo Cox in England does give one pause.

that's true, just because Canada hasn't had one today doesn't mean tomorrow won't bring something different. I remember a few years some terrorist group had some designs on the West Edmonton Mall (huge mall here) but I think the reaction was obviously upset people but also like, go ahead that place is a dump anyways, just clear everyone out and then blow it up

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

You must mean the choir president. I don't think Mack Wilberg has made any public statement about this matter. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

I certainly do not think she means the leadership's moral standing. I think she means how the church appears to the public eye.

It's like having a kid that wants to hang around some kids from the wrong side of the tracks. Sure, your kid might be a clean as the polar winds, but tell me you would not cringe at the thought of them hanging out and being seen with them.

Even better, how about a girl who wants to hang around some girls, who are fun and nice, but certainly know by the guys to be "quite friendly". This girl, pure as snow, won't do any of those shenanigans. However, do you think that her hanging with them is going to help her image at all?

 

The Church and choir leadership have steadfastly maintained that the acceptance of the invitation is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of the man, but rather, giving honor to the country, the orderly transition of power, a system of government by the people, etc. If, on the other hand, the choir were to refuse the invitation, it would unavoidably have to be interpreted as a political statement against Trump, as no other such invitation has ever been refused by the choir. Forever after that, the choir would be doomed to have whatever decision it made with future such invitations be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a political statement. It would be foolish indeed for the choir to do what you are demanding. 

I'm grateful the Church is administered by men of wisdom and understanding and subject to divine inspiration rather than social pressure. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

 

You know better than to think that I mean it like that.

 

I certainly hope you don't mean what your words appear to express. That's why I say you are not making sense. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Was Clinton et al guilty of indiscretions before they took office....

The alleged rape happened in 1978, Paula Jones' claims are from 1991 when he was governor.

Wikipedia kindly c collected the info for us:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

I read that Hillary had had several abortions earlier in their marriage but they had opted to carry one pregnancy to full term because they thought having a child would help Bill's political career. 

Now, I find that at least as unsavory as anything I've heard that Trump has said or done. But I still wouldn't have objected had the choir agreed to perform at her inauguration if she had won.

Again, it's not about endorsing the individual, it's about honoring and supporting the nation. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SteveO]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

The alleged rape happened in 1978, Paula Jones' claims are from 1991 when he was governor.

Wikipedia kindly c collected the info for us:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Thank you, was about to post similar after my eyes almost rolled out of their sockets. 

Bill Clinton is, bar none, the biggest slime ball to ever hold the office of the presidency, so this entire discussion is rather moot.

Edited January 1, 2017 by SteveO

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not wanting  to create a debate on relative moral values, but Bill Clinton leads the pack exploring reprehensible unchartered territory. If it is unacceptable to perform for Trump it would be equally so for the Clintons. Knowing what we now know of LBJ and JFK, should they have performed for them? 

Clue in Bernard. We didn't know about Bill Clinton's shenanigans at election time because most of them hadn't happened yet.  With Trump is was different.  We knew what he had done to women, and what he thought of women. He said he grabbed them by the p****.  And yet Mormons voted for him. We knew what he thought of Muslims, Mexicans, and other non-while populations, and yet Mormons voted for him.  They voted for a Trump simply because he was a Republican even though he displayed behaviors that are repugnant to the gospel of Christ.  Mormons voted for a adulterer and abuser of women. And now the Tab Choir is going to sing for this adulterer.  So much for stand for something.  So much for do what is right let the consequences follow.  

[SteveO]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Clue in Bernard. We didn't know about Bill Clinton's shenanigans at election time because most of them hadn't happened yet.  With Trump is was different.  We knew what he had done to women, and what he thought of women. He said he grabbed them by the p****.  And yet Mormons voted for him. We knew what he thought of Muslims, Mexicans, and other non-while populations, and yet Mormons voted for him.  They voted for a Trump simply because he was a Republican even though he displayed behaviors that are repugnant to the gospel of Christ.  Mormons voted for a adulterer and abuser of women. And now the Tab Choir is going to sing for this adulterer.  So much for stand for something.  So much for do what is right let the consequences follow.  

See above.  I'm not going to list what a reprehensible person Hillary was.  The election was between two terrible people. This whole discussion is over hurt feelings.  Not a "moral" position.  

Climb on down off that high horse and enjoy the New Year