Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 5 hours ago, Jude2 said: Well this is, My open letter to Sister Chamberlin, I posted it on Yahoo and face book, don’t know if she’ll see it. Sister Chamberlin, Singing in the Choir is a privilege and being gifted with a voice worthy of it is a great blessing indeed, something I will never be able to do. My vocal cords have been damaged because of a chemical reaction. I would give anything to be able to sing once again. I’m having a hard time controlling my righteous indignations. To be blunt your holier than thou attitude is sickening and shameful. You could have quietly declined to go but you have put yourself above all of the other members of the choir and the church. It’s called being arrogant. I believe Sister Chamberlin that you need to apologies first to the other 360 members of the Choir and the Church for making this very political statement. The Church has always stated neutral but you have chosen to come out publicly with this horrendous comparison of President Trump to Hitler. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, thousands of Gays, Gypsies, mentally ill and the handicapped. Over 400,000 American servicemen gave their lives to fight that monster. Over 60 million people were either killed or died from starvation. Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is trivializing their agony and spiting in the face of all those who suffered and died at Hitler’s hands. You also spit on this great privilege which God gave you to sing in the Choir. Okay you don’t like his politics but you don’t have some special connection to the Holy Spirit above others, your "conscience" isn’t better or more clear than any other church member. Thousands of other Mormons prayed also, we listened to what Trump was saying and not what the media was saying. Maybe we did not agree with everything he had to say but a lot of it was right on! We looked at his family and saw his greatest achievement, wicked men do not raise such a family. He obeys the Word of Wisdom, he doesn’t drink, smoke or do drugs. He also never assaulted anyone, those are the things a drunk man does and he does not drink. Note how they all just disappeared, those women were lying! He attends Church regularly and yes underneath all that boisterous noise he really is a humble man. He is a man who appreciates the common working men and women and their hands on skills. He has taken all of his success and thanked the American people, he knows he could not have done it without them. I don’t think you know what fascism is. Here’s the definition; A dictatorial movement; any movement, ideology or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism Well he loves America, that’s his only hint at being a fascist and God bless him! He wants to decentralize the government by sending a great deal of the decision making back to the States as the founding fathers intended. He wants to take the dictatorial controls of government regulations off private enterprise so that businesses can grow and people can get back to work. When banks have more lawyers helping them stay within the regulations than they do loan officers then something is upside down. Perhaps you don’t know that the real unemployment rate is 9%. Obamacare is dictatorial government, regulations written by non elected bureaucrats is dictatorial and fascism! Like it or not Trump will be the next president and instead of sitting in your own self made judgment seat you should be praying for him and those he is choosing to help him lead. You should be asking the Lord to guide him in the many decisions he must make each day. Now I’m sorry for being so blunt but someone has to let you know how angry you have made the majority of your fellow church members. Oh some will pat you on the back but most of those sitting around you in sacrament meetings and Sunday school will be quietly angry. Nancy Brown Most Church members reside outside the US and Trump is even more disliked outside the US. Is it really honest to claim someone has a "holier than thou" attitude when they're genuinely struggling to be true to their convictions? 1
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So are histrionics devoid of rationality -- such as equating Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler. What are we to learn from the groupthink that allowed the Holocaust to occur? Are we never supposed to warn about social/economic malaise used for collective scapegoating of entire classes of people? There are similarities now. It's not as if that means Trump will initiate genocide, but it can be argued that he's helping to worsen conditions that lead masses to collectively make very bad decisions. Edited January 2, 2017 by Meadowchik
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 My thoughts on this whole thing: 1) Whether you approve, disapprove, or don’t care, this is a big deal. We live in perilious times and actions taken even by a few can shape the narrative and information used to make future decisions. 2) This does seem partisan as does the choir’s general history of singing at inaugurations. 3) Appearances do matter. Consider how many rules the Church make good impressions: modesty, missionaries wearing sunglasses, wearing only one earring in each ear, etc…! 4) As a lifelong conservative and NeverTrumper opposing him because of his base unfitness to serve in public office, the day I heard this, it personally felt like a punch in the gut. 5) I believe in the potential for good and I accept the possibility of good coming out of this, however slim I believe that to be, but as of now I think it looks like the LDS Church is endorsing Donald Trump and all he’s stood for. 6) In effect, this besmirches the Church’s reputation, puts ugly words in its mouth, and corroborates terrible accusations of sexism and closemindedness against the Church, while also contributing to the disinformation spread by Trump himself, his doublespeak and inherent dishonesty. I will always hope that good will yield good fruit, but unfortunately this plan of the Choir so far looks bad and conscientious objections to it, even those sincerely stated publicly, can be a form of sustaining the general leadership, especially if the bad flowing out of the plan is because of the message it unintentionally conveys. 2
cdowis Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Is it really honest to claim someone has a "holier than thou" attitude when they're genuinely struggling to be true to their convictions? Yes, when they claim moral superiority above the leaders of the church. 1
cdowis Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: My thoughts on this whole thing: .... I will always hope that good will yield good fruit, but unfortunately this plan of the Choir so far looks bad and conscientious objections to it, even those sincerely stated publicly, can be a form of sustaining the general leadership, especially if the bad flowing out of the plan is because of the message it unintentionally conveys. I have asked this questions to others ==>> What if Hillary had won the election, should the choir accept the invitation then? Just curious whether this is merely partisan outrage, or if it is sincere. Edited January 2, 2017 by cdowis
cdowis Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Nevo said: Talk about bringing enmity. Speaking of enmity, are you going to answer my question about whether you would have the same position if Hillary had won.. Otherwise I can only conclude that this to be a simple case of partisan outrage, with a total lack of sincerity. Edited January 2, 2017 by cdowis
Kenngo1969 Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 5 hours ago, Calm said: Just make sure they have a foreign tour scheduled every four years at this time in the future. Hmmm, that gets the Choir out of U.S. presidential politics, but, sadly, wherever it goes in our Politically Correct World, whenever it goes there, it's bound to tick of somebody in the Aggrieved Perpetual Victim Class: "I can't believe the Choir went to Elbonia, home of a ruthless fascist dictator who tortures, murders, and oppresses his own people by the gazillions!"
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 41 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Hmmm, that gets the Choir out of U.S. presidential politics, but, sadly, wherever it goes in our Politically Correct World, whenever it goes there, it's bound to tick of somebody in the Aggrieved Perpetual Victim Class: "I can't believe the Choir went to Elbonia, home of a ruthless fascist dictator who tortures, murders, and oppresses his own people by the gazillions!" You make a good point, but I'm confident Calm was not serious about her suggestion. Notwithstanding the partisan histrionics that are being expressed here and elsewhere, I continue to believe it is a prestigious thing for the choir to be included in most any U. S. presidential inaugural and there is no cause to view it with shame. 1
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 1 hour ago, cdowis said: Yes, when they claim moral superiority above the leaders of the church. Who did that? That is a claim of a very broad action.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 59 minutes ago, cdowis said: I have asked this questions to others ==>> What if Hillary had won the election, should the choir accept the invitation then? Just curious whether this is merely partisan outrage, or if it is sincere. It's a fair question, but what some of them seem to be saying is that the choir should no longer participate in <any> government event, at least on a national level, that it should curl up in insularity that altogether defeats the choir's purpose of being a goodwill ambassador for the Church and helping to bring it out of obscurity. It's a reactionary, johnnie-come-lately attitude that totally ignores the fact that the choir has been doing this sort of thing for many, many years, that it has been mutually beneficial for the country and the Church. It earned from President Ronald Reagan the appellation "America's choir," a name that has stuck for very good reason. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Who did that? That is a claim of a very broad action. It ceased to be merely grappling with conscience and crossed the line into strident and hysterical activism the moment she went on Facebook with her open letter accusing the choir and by extension the Church of "throwing roses at Hitler." Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 1 hour ago, cdowis said: I have asked this questions to others ==>> What if Hillary had won the election, should the choir accept the invitation then? Just curious whether this is merely partisan outrage, or if it is sincere. I'm a Republican, my opinion has nothing to do with party, except the fact that such a disgustingly behaving man represents my party and soon our country. Clinton's deportment especially speech during her campaign came nowhere near the low levels of Trump's. The two are not comparable.
cdowis Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Who did that? That is a claim of a very broad action. Jan Chamberlin vs church leadership. She could have simply declined to participate, but got upon her moral high horse and ... Quote “I’ve tried to tell myself that it will be alright and that I can continue in good conscience before God and man. But it’s no use. I simply cannot continue with the recent turn of events. I could never look myself in the mirror again with self respect.” Chamberlin, who said her resignation was a “hugely moral issue,” said she’s received hateful messages since announcing her decision. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has said that participation in Trump’s inauguration is not required, and the choir’s involvement is not a political statement but is instead a “demonstration of our support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power.” Chamberlin, who sang with the choir for five years, said the choir had betrayed its message and its morals by agreeing to perform for Trump, whose transition team has been unable to attract many others to take part in the inauguration. “I only know I could never ‘throw roses to Hitler,'” Chamberlin wrote. “And I certainly could never sing for him.” Clearly she is morally superior to church leaders who would throw roses to Hitler. Edited January 2, 2017 by cdowis 1
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's a fair question, but what some of them seem to be saying is that the choir should no longer participate in <any> government event, at least on a national level, that it should curl up in insularity that altogether defeats the choir's purpose of being a goodwill ambassador for the Church and helping to bring it out of obscurity. It's a reactionary, johnnie-come-lately attitude that totally ignores the fact that the choir has been doing this sort of thing for many, many years, that it has been mutually beneficial for the country and the Church. It earned from President Ronald Reagan the appellation "America's choir," a name that has stuck for very good reason. I wish people supporting Trump would acknowledge that in his campaign he crossed unprecedented lines most alarmingly. 1
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It ceased to be merely grappling with conscience and crossed the line into strident activism the moment she went on Facebook with her open letter accusing the choir and by extension the Church of "throwing roses at Hitler." That's her conviction about what the action communicates to many people. Isn't it fair to assume that the leadership might not be aware of what the decision communicates to many?
smac97 Posted January 2, 2017 Author Posted January 2, 2017 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Most Church members reside outside the US and Trump is even more disliked outside the US. Is it really honest to claim someone has a "holier than thou" attitude when they're genuinely struggling to be true to their convictions? I think a person can be "true to their convictions" without publicly accusing her friends, her fellow choir members, her church of "throw{ing} roses to Hitler ... {and} sing{ing} for him". Thanks, -Smac 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: What are we to learn from the groupthink that allowed the Holocaust to occur? Are we never supposed to warn about social/economic malaise used for collective scapegoating of entire classes of people? There are similarities now. It's not as if that means Trump will initiate genocide, but it can be argued that he's helping to worsen conditions that lead masses to collectively make very bad decisions. When did we lose our grip on reality in these discussions? Trump was not my choice for president either, but the campaign is over. It's time to try to find some unity the way we have done with each and every presidential election that I can remember going back to JFK in 1960. Let's get at least a year into the new administration before engaging in the public handwringing about "groupthink," genocide, halocaust, scapegoating and neo-Naziism. 2
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, cdowis said: Jan Chamberlin We're allowed to have our own convictions, but beyond that it is also important to recognise the message being perceived might be different than what was intended, and that can only be known if people speak up.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I wish people supporting Trump would acknowledge that in his campaign he crossed unprecedented lines most alarmingly. I thought the Clintons (both of them) did that during his administration with the Lewinsky scandal and its aftermath. Somehow the nation survived. Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think a person can be "true to their convictions" without publicly accusing her friends, her fellow choir members, her church of "throw{ing} roses to Hitler ... {and} sing{ing} for him". Thanks, -Smac Did she say they knew they were doing such a thing?
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought the Clintons (both of them) did that during he's administration with the Lewinsky scandal and its aftermath. Somehow the nation survived. If Trump did worse in his campaign, as I think he did, we can rationally expect him do so worse in his term of service.
cdowis Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm a Republican, my opinion has nothing to do with party, except the fact that such a disgustingly behaving man represents my party and soon our country. Clinton's deportment especially speech during her campaign came nowhere near the low levels of Trump's. The two are not comparable. OK, Tfump is "disgusting" and we should not go, while Hillary is ok except for her "deportment especially speech". Not going down the road of a political discussion, but just a suggestion that you do a little more research on H.
cdowis Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: We're allowed to have our own convictions, but beyond that it is also important to recognise the message being perceived might be different than what was intended, and that can only be known if people speak up. You didn't read my entire post, did you.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: That's her conviction about what the action communicates to many people. Isn't it fair to assume that the leadership might not be aware of what the decision communicates to many? Well it's obvious I give the "leadership" (and that of necessity includes the Church leadership) a whole lot more credit for intelligence, wisdom and vision than you do . But even if I thought they were on the wrong track with something I wouldn't go on social media inciting a torches-and-pitchforks blowback against them. Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Meadowchik Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: When did we lose our grip on reality in these discussions? Trump was not my choice for president either, but the campaign is over. It's time to try to find some unity the way we have done with each and every presidential election that I can remember going back to JFK in 1960. Let's get at least a year into the new administration before engaging in the public handwringing about "groupthink," genocide, halocaust, scapegoating and neo-Naziism. Unity with who? Without some extended penitent blubbering to the contrary, Trump has established himself as an enemy to swaths of groups of people, plus anyone who disagrees with him or hinders him. Perhaps you don't understand. There are Americans who adopted the social contract of civility including with those they oppose. Trump came along and ripped that up. He publicly and repeatedly said terrible things about Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, women, and about people against him. Do you know how it feels to have someone who has acted like your personal enemy reach a position of power over you? This was not like other campaigns.
Recommended Posts