The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[sunstoned]

8 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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

This thread in not about Hillary. It is bout Trump.  If you voted for him you voted an adulterer  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Thank you for the clarification.  It is odd though that the choir director has not backed up what the choir president said.  Maybe he thought the choir president's statement was clear enough

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I am not liking this post Scott.  Unless this is a proven fact, it seems like spreading gossip.  There are plenty of things that are facts without inserting gossip.  You might want to reconsider this approach.  Just my opinion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

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.

I suspect given information is less available from the past there were likely a few slime balls as bad or worse.  There are certainly a number of them known for having multiple affairs while in office as well as before.  There is gossip out about Presidents and their affairs going way, way back.  Given the intense stigma of rape in the past, the view of rape itself (a woman 'consented' just by being in a room with a man for many, a husband could rape his wife every night and be viewed as just exercising his rights, etc) and the political and money power used to bribe and pressure women with fear into silence, I think it is quite possible that those men known for many affairs had rapes in there as well where the woman changed her mind or he wouldn't take no for an answer.  However, at best there might be a little gossip...not something likely to surface a hundred or two years later.  I suppose it might still be possible that some diary of from the earlier 1900s might should up.

7 Presidents were known to have had affairs.  Kennedy was called a compulsive womanizer and likely had scores, including other men's wives.  LBJ bragged about having more than him.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-kennedy/articles/the-sex-life-of-jfk/

Apparently Nixon prolonged the Vietnam war by persuading Saigon not to talk to Johnso before the election so Nixon could win, Johnson apparently viewed it as treason.  I think he was probably right. But then Johnson's people got the info from wiretaps, Nixon was only modeling his predecessor in that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/three-new-revelations-about-lbj/377094/

Warren Harding might have been poisoned by his wife for his countless affairs.  Inept and corrupt as well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding

Various corruption scandals in various administrations:

http://www.attn.com/stories/11743/most-corrupt-american-presidents-in-history

More corruption takes...gets quite depressing:

http://fortune.com/2016/11/07/clinton-trump-corrupt/

I am not excusing behaviour just because others have done as much and more in terms of disgusting sexual behaviors and political corruption, I am just suggesting a more realistic appraisal may put the gut fear response on the back burner so something actually useful might be thought of to get rid of corruption and immorality in our leaders...or at least not have it appear as if it comes standard with the rest.  Perhaps in studying past evils, we might be able to figure out what to avoid in the future and what worked for them...if there were actual successes rather than just moving on to the next scandal each time.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Thank you for the clarification.  It is odd though that the choir director has not backed up what the choir president said.  Maybe he thought the choir president's statement was clear enough

It would not seem odd to you if you were as familiar with the choir organization and routine as I am. Mack Wilberg rarely makes statements to the news media unless it is to appear at press conferences with guest artists in connection with upcoming concerts such as the annual Christmas and Pioneer Day concerts. The role of spokesman for the choir is held mainly by the choir president, Ron Jarrett (who, by the way, does not sing with the choir; his position is administrative).

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

In fact, he may already have done so at some time or other. If anyone can render a musical silk purse from a musical sow's ear, it is he. 

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours 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. 

Indeed.  Speaking of "wouldn't put it past him," this is probably off-topic (but I can't resist posting links to things I've written: heck, at the risk of blowing my own horn, many of them are quite good)!

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/ethics-of-zealous-defense-ii/

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Some are welcome to stop. BTW It is the increase of CO2 that is the problem.

[thesometimesaint]

12 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? 

Last I looked Bill Clinton wasn't on the ballot. Personally I don't believe they should perform for any President. Just to keep it non-political.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, SteveO said:

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.

Do you need to  be reminded of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

[Duncan]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Last I looked Bill Clinton wasn't on the ballot. Personally I don't believe they should perform for any President. Just to keep it non-political.

Exactley-I wish the Church would come out with some statement something to the affect like "we are a non partisan Church, we stay out of politics but we respect the PUSA and sustain the laws of the land" otherwise you get this divisiveness and backlash and stuff so avoid all that, stay out of politics means don't put your toe in the water

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Do you need to  be reminded of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

Or LBJ and JFK?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Exactley-I wish the Church would come out with some statement something to the affect like "we are a non partisan Church, we stay out of politics but we respect the PUSA and sustain the laws of the land" otherwise you get this divisiveness and backlash and stuff so avoid all that, stay out of politics means don't put your toe in the water

Can you show where this divisiveness over MTC appearances has occurred prior to this appearance? Official CFR please.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

So, let's expect this president to get the job done too.

The Clintons' corruptions go far far beyond dirty hands....Bill's violent abuse of women with his wife's support are disqualifiers even if one tries to lower the bar and lump him in with the rest of the Philanderers in Chief, plus that all was known during his presidency and her campaign. What self-respecting choir member would throw roses at them?

That said, I am no fan of Trump. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

Can you show where this divisiveness over MTC appearances has occurred prior to this appearance? Official CFR please.

I wasn't alluding to prior appearances just this one and to me, wouldn't the Church want to avoid all this and just say something like I wrote previously? if they say they are neutral then actually be neutral and say sorry we don't get involved in these types of events but we hope all the best for your presidency

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wasn't alluding to prior appearances just this one and to me, wouldn't the Church want to avoid all this and just say something like I wrote previously? if they say they are neutral then actually be neutral and say sorry we don't get involved in these types of events but we hope all the best for your presidency

If there was no diviseness with previous events, then it isn't the event that is at issue.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours 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.  

If you didn't know about Bill's deprivations then you were not paying attention. Even if you were paying attention, to reward their debauchery with another stint in the WH (remember the twofer he promised) would be revolting.

[Bernard Gui]

So, if the choir is endorsing Trump by singing at his inauguration and would have endorsed Hillary by singing at hers had she won, I suppose that would make the choir and the church 

 

 

 

 

the blesser of two evils.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or LBJ and JFK?

I'm old but not that old. I'm too young to have voted for or against JFK or LBJ. I joined the Church at 20 years old in 1971. No I don't approve of having the MTC sing for any President. Just for non-partisanship's sake.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

If you didn't know about Bill's deprivations then you were not paying attention. Even if you were paying attention, to reward their debauchery with another stint in the WH (remember the twofer he promised) would be revolting.

Bill was publicly impeached. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with his sexual affairs. Last I looked Hillary wasn't on the ballot.

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

If there was no diviseness with previous events, then it isn't the event that is at issue.

for future events! hahaha! if and there is problems with this appearance then for future events would want to, I imagine, avoid problems so learn from this upcoming one and make the changes necessary-such as having a say to inaugurations policy

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Last I looked Bill Clinton wasn't on the ballot. Personally I don't believe they should perform for any President. Just to keep it non-political.

Fortunately you don't get to make that decision. Such insularity is directly contrary to the teachings of the prophets and the apostles, who have taught that we should make our influence for good felt in the public sphere even as the Church as an institution maintains neutrality with respect to partisan politics. The Church leaders are not about to retreat from that position now, and as for me, I cast my lot with the prophets. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Bill was publicly impeached. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with his sexual affairs. Last I looked Hillary wasn't on the ballot.

She's not "on the ballot" now. Neither is Trump. The campaign is over. It's time you got over it. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm old but not that old. I'm too young to have voted for or against JFK or LBJ. I joined the Church at 20 years old in 1971. No I don't approve of having the MTC sing for any President. Just for non-partisanship's sake.

So is it wrong for an apostle to shake a president's hand to talk to him?

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

for future events! hahaha! if and there is problems with this appearance then for future events would want to, I imagine, avoid problems so learn from this upcoming one and make the changes necessary-such as having a say to inaugurations policy

Are they allowed to perform at other events where a president or prime minister or any politician may appear?

Edited January 1, 2017 by Calm