The MoTab Choir Performing at the Inauguration: Politicized?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I'm hard pressed to think of anything Trump said or did in his campaign worse than dishonoring the presidency by having sex in the Oval Office with a college-age intern, lying, dissembling and equivocating about it later and (in the case of Hillary) upholding it by defaming Bill's victims. Is our collective memory so short that we have forgotten the ugliness and sordidness of this scandal? 

Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You didn't read my entire post, did you.

I did.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

So hoping you are wrong about that.  I have seen some changes in his temperament and blunt honesty since the campaign.  I just hope he listens..still be upfront and honest about what is going on in the world..but breathes a little more without jumping the gun.  I just hope he at least gets a chance...he won't have one if we rely on the just campaign.  I see some good things happening..cautious of course..but I have hope.  What Obama has done to make huge obstacles, I think, is very unfair.  George Bush made Obama's transition a whole lot easier.

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm hard pressed to think of anything Trump said or did in his campaign worse than dishonoring the presidency by having sex in the Oval Office with an intern, lying and equivocating about it later and (in the case of Hillary) upholding it by defaming the victims. Is our collective memory so short that we have forgotten the ugliness and sordidness of this scandal? 

well, it's still early...and I can think of some already

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

That sounds rather vaguely like a threat (not from you).  We see this rather frequently now.  The Church does something that some segment of the public does not like.  That segment, or sympathizers with it, suddenly become concerned about the Church's "image" and "reputation" and whatnot, issuing predictions about how people will speak ill of the Church because of what it has done.  And then that segment, or sympathizers with it, proceed to fulfill their own predictions.

Quote

2) This does seem partisan as does the choir’s general history of singing at inaugurations.

How do you figure?  The Choir has performed for presidents from both political parties.  The Choir has performed at every inauguration to which it has been invited (including LBJ's in 1969).

It seems to me that refusing an invitation to perform in an inauguration would be a far more partisan act than accepting it.

Quote

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…!

Agreed.  But the Church will, in some quarters, be darned for what it does do, darned for what it does not do, darned no matter what course of action it takes.  That is rather the pernicious nature of fault-finding: one can always succeed at it.

This is why I am generally, but still grimly, satisfying that the Church appears to be striving to do what its leaders think is right, rather than what is popular.

Quote

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.

I am curious: Would you have supported the Choir had it accepted an invitation to perform at Hillary Clinton's inauguration?

Would you have objected to the Choir's rejection of an invitation to perform at Hillary Clinton's inauguration?  Characterized such a thing as "partisan?"  As "sexist" (as I'm sure many would have done)?

Quote

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.

What do you think it would have looked like if the Choir had rejected the invitation to perform?

Quote

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 am reminded of this article I read a while back:

Quote

The Good Guy and the Bad Guy have a meeting. The Bad Guy makes an offer. The Good Guy rejects it outright because he's the Good Guy.

Then the Bad Guy rattles off a few offhand remarks about how beautiful the Good Guy's wife, child, house, dog, mother, whole family, etc. are. He shows recent photos of the lovely person or thing in question, and perhaps a copy of personal information the Good Guy thought was secret. And then comments offhandedly that "It'd be a shame if something bad were to happen to it/them."

The clear implication is if the Good Guy doesn't give the Bad Guy what he wants, something bad will happen to it/them.

This generally gets the Good Guy back to the bargaining table, and shows just how bad the Bad Guy is. It also calls attention to the resource level of the Bad Guy and his criminal conspiracy.

...

 

In linguistics, this sort of threat is known as a Gricean Implicature. Note that another even subtler way to make this kind of threat is to assert hope that some situation will proceed normally as though there were some reason for it not to: "Cute kid you got there. I hope she'll grow up to have kids of her own and live to see a ripe old age.

I have been appalled at some of the disgusting remarks made by Donald Trump (I was also appalled at some of the things said by Hillary Clinton).  But the election is over.

I would have supported the Choir if it had received and accepted an invitation to perform for Hillary Clinton, too.  Why?  Because the inauguration is (or should be) more about celebrating the peaceful transition of power from one political group to another.  I think many of us have been ignorant of, or blind to, the remarkableness of this phenomenon.  Consider these remarks:

Quote

The peaceful transfer of presidential power from one administration to the next is a hallmark of American democracy. This transition, both peaceful and symbolic of continuity and change, continues to amaze the world and represents the best of American democracy. The activities that surround a presidential transition are remarkable. The new president has just two months to plan a new administration and on Inaugural Day begin to move the first family into the White House. After being sworn in as president and saying goodbye and thank you to inauguration ceremony officials, the president can breathe a sigh of relief and enjoy the happy occasion with family and friends. Then the pressures of a new job and settling into a new home and office environment will begin. It is an exciting and challenging period for all concerned.

And these:

Quote

By 1796, George Washington had created a solid government for the new Republic. But he was tired; the political wrangling taken its toll on him. Had he wanted a third term, there is no doubt he would’ve been reelected, but he longed to return to Mount Vernon to live out his years as a farmer.

Washington was sixty-four years old when he decided to end his political life. Besides, he was committed to a government where power changed hands frequently and peacefully, so he did not want to continue in office too long. This peaceful transfer of power may well have been his greatest achievement. And we see it repeated every four years when we elect, then inaugurate, a new president.

And now contrast these sentiments with these:

Quote

NO PEACEFUL TRANSITION

On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States. We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies. If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over. It must be made clear to the whole world that the vast majority of people in the United States do not support his presidency or consent to his rule. 

Which approach to the upcoming inauguration do you think will be better for the United States?  

In closing, I would like to quote a passage from Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë.  In this novel, the heroine, Jane, is a poor but intellectually astute, and also very moral, young woman who obtains employment as a governess in the household of a rich man, Mr. Rochester.  Mr. Rochester has had a stormy and mysterious past, and Jane and the readers come to discover some of the things he has done.  Nevertheless, Jane and Rochester develop a mutual respect for each other.

How is it that an upright, moral person such as Jane can get along with a seeming reprobate like Rochester?  I think the following passage sums things up rather well (at this point in the story, Jane has just discovered part of a great secret of Mr. Rochester's):

Quote

He laughed sardonically, hastily took my hand, and as hastily threw it from him.

"If I could do that, simpleton, where would the danger be? Annihilated in a moment. Ever since I have known Mason, I have only had to say to him 'Do that,' and the thing has been done. But I cannot give him orders in this case: I cannot say 'Beware of harming me, Richard;' for it is imperative that I should keep him ignorant that harm to me is possible. Now you look puzzled; and I will puzzle you further. You are my little friend, are you not?"

"I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right."

"Precisely: I see you do. I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face, when you are helping me and pleasing me — working for me, and with me, in, as you characteristically say, ' all that is right :' for if I bid you do what you thought wrong, there would be no light-footed running, no neat-handed alacrity, no lively glance and animated complexion. My friend would then turn to me, quiet and pale, and would say, 'No, sir; that is impossible: I cannot do it, because it is wrong;' and would become immutable as a fixed star.  Well, you too have power over me, and may injure me: yet I dare not show you where I am vulnerable, lest, faithful and friendly as you are, you should transfix me at once."

"I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right."  Is it possible, now that Mr. Trump has won the election, for Americans who have previous disagreed with Mr. Trump to adopt this approach?

Is it possible that the Choir may likewise be attempting to support Mr. Trump to the extent it can do so "in all that is right"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2017 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm hard pressed to think of anything Trump said or did in his campaign worse than dishonoring the presidency by having sex in the Oval Office with an intern, lying and equivocating about it later and (in the case of Hillary) upholding it by defaming the victims. Is our collective memory so short that we have forgotten the ugliness and sordidness of this scandal? 

You're using Clinton as a deflection.

Surely the objections to the MTC singing at a Clinton inauguration would be strong, but Trump's more recent outrageousness makes it hard to compare.

Essentially, his behaviour should have been inadmissible. If that makes Clinton's inadmissable, too, fine.

Now can you acknowledge the basic ways Trump attacked the basic humanity of many groups of people without deflecting to Clinton?

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did she say they knew they were doing such a thing?

So not only is she publicly accusing her fellow Choir members of "throw{ing} roses to Hitler ... {and} sing{ing} for him", she also thinks they are too stupid to recognize that?  That she was the only member of the Choir to see the tumult and division in this last electoral cycle?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I know that's a widespread perception, exacerbated on social media by scores of immature, leftist, "social justice warriors" who refuse to accept the results of a duly conducted election.

But in the aftermath of the campaign, I've taken occasion to re-examine this issue by watching YouTube videos of election coverage and what not, and, apart from the intemperate and belligerent language to which Trump seems to be prone, I'm starting to believe what he did on this matter was not much worse than calling for immigration reform with much more stringent vetting of those who are allowed within our borders so as to hinder other countries from exporting their criminal element to us. We can argue all day about the politics pertaining to this, but I refuse to believe it makes Trump a Nazi.

But in any case, that seems outside the purview of this thread, which, as I understand it, is to discuss the unprecedented politicizing of the Tabernacle Choir's decidedly apolitical acceptance of an invitation to perform at a presidential inauguration as it has done on six past occasions.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You're using Clinton as a deflection.

Surely the objections to the MTC singing at a Clinton inauguration would be strong, but Trump's more recent outrageousness makes it hard to compare.

Essentially, his behaviour should have been inadmissible. If that makes Clinton's inadmissable, too, fine.

Now can you acknowledge the basic ways Trump attacked the basic humanity of many groups of people without deflecting to Clinton?

Well, I'm just wondering where your outrage is about what he did while in office as well as before. Apparently you would have had no qualms about a Tabernacle Choir performance at a Hillary Clinton inauguration, so it's a question of consistency.

Is it that you are too young to remember much about the Bill Clinton administration?

 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That sounds rather vaguely like a threat (not from you).  We see this rather frequently now.  The Church does something that some segment of the public does not like.  That segment, or sympathizers with it, suddenly become concerned about the Church's "image" and "reputation" and whatnot, issuing predictions about how people will speak ill of the Church because of what it has done.  And then that segment, or sympathizers with it, proceed to fulfill their own predictions.

How do you figure?  The Choir has performed for presidents from both political parties.  The Choir has performed at every inauguration to which it has been invited (including LBJ's in 1969).

It seems to me that refusing an invitation to perform in an inauguration would be a far more partisan act than accepting it.

Agreed.  But the Church will, in some quarters, be darned for what it does do, darned for what it does not do, darned no matter what course of action it takes.  That is rather the pernicious nature of fault-finding: one can always succeed at it.

This is why I am generally, but still grimly, satisfying that the Church appears to be striving to do what its leaders think is right, rather than what is popular.

I am curious: Would you have supported the Choir had it accepted an invitation to perform at Hillary Clinton's inauguration?

Would you have objected to the Choir's rejection of an invitation to perform at Hillary Clinton's inauguration?  Characterized such a thing as "partisan?"  As "sexist" (as I'm sure many would have done)?

What do you think it would have looked like if the Choir had rejected the invitation to perform?

I am reminded of this article I read a while back:

I have been appalled at some of the disgusting remarks made by Donald Trump (I was also appalled at some of the things said by Hillary Clinton).  But the election is over.

I would have supported the Choir if it had received and accepted an invitation to perform for Hillary Clinton, too.  Why?  Because the inauguration is (or should be) more about celebrating the peaceful transition of power from one political group to another.  I think many of us have been ignorant of, or blind to, the remarkableness of this phenomenon.  Consider these remarks:

And these:

And now contrast these sentiments with these:

Which approach to the upcoming inauguration do you think will be better for the United States?  

Thanks,

-Smac

LBJ won Utah in 1964, didn't run in 68. Do you know of a time the MTC sang at the inauguration of a candidate that did not win Utah?

The first part was about the importance of the action, that's all.

To your last questions, peace is very important, but perfect peace is not always appropriate.  Did Enos settle for "peace" before he struggled in prayer? Did Joseph?

Are there times when we should struggle against evil and voice even-tempered opposition to it, demanding better than what has been demonstrated? We can have a relatively peaceful transition of power while still voicing criticism for unacceptable speech and behaviour of our political leaders, of Trump.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, I'm just wondering where your outrage is about what he did while in office as well as before. Apparently you would have had no qualms about a Tabernacle Choir performance at a Hillary Clinton inauguration, so it's a question of consistency.

Is it that you are too young to remember much about the Bill Clinton administration?

 

I remember. 

You stomp out the bigger fires first.

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that's a widespread perception, exacerbated on social media by scores of immature, leftist, "social justice warriors" who refuse to accept the results of a duly conducted election.

But in the aftermath of the campaign, I've taken occasion to re-examine this issue by watching Facebook videos of election coverage and what not, and, apart from the intemperate and belligerent language to which Trump seems to be prone, I'm starting to believe what he did on this matter was not much worse than calling for immigration reform with much more stringent vetting of those who are allowed within our borders so as to hinder other countries from exporting their criminal element to us. We can argue all day about the politics pertaining to this, but I refuse to believe it makes Trump a Nazi.

But in any case, that seems outside the purview of this thread, which, as I understand it, is to discuss the unprecedented politicizing of the Tabernacle Choir's decidedly apolitical acceptance of an invitation to perform at a presidential inauguration as it has done on six past occasions.

I'm going by direct quotes in context, not media spin.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm going by direct quotes in context, not media spin.

I'm trying to see past media spin as well -- the media spin that would equate Trump to Hitler because he strongly favors immigration reform.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So not only is she publicly accusing her fellow Choir members of "throw{ing} roses to Hitler ... {and} sing{ing} for him", she also thinks they are too stupid to recognize that?  That she was the only member of the Choir to see the tumult and division in this last electoral cycle?

Thanks,

-Smac

Even very smart people cannot be aware of everything. And if they're fortunate, their friends will warn them of potential harm.

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm trying to see past media spin as well -- the media spin that would equate Trump to Hitler because he strongly favors immigration reform.

Trump said that the current immigration system would "absolutely destroy America."

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

LBJ won Utah in 1964, didn't run in 68. Do you know of a time the MTC sang at the inauguration of a candidate that did not win Utah?

 

I don't get this blaming of the Church and Utah because past members of the Democratic Party have not been broadminded enough to Invite the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to perform at their presidential inaugurations. Let such an invitation be extended by a future victor in a presidential campaign who is a Democrat, and we'll see that the choir and the Church will accept that invitation just as readily as it has all the others.

Did you note my post on this thread about Chuck Schumer, the outspoken, liberal U.S. senator from New York, being invited last year to be a guest conductor at a Mormon Tabernacle Choir concert at Carnegie Hall? The same Chuck Schumer who, at Obama's inauguration, introduced (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir to perform "Battle Hymn of the Republic." Some might have seen this as a dig at Utah for voting Republican or a dig at Mitt Romney for his being a Mormon. But from what I can tell, no one did.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Even very smart people cannot be aware of everything. And if they're fortunate, their friends will warn them of potential harm.

But their friends, if they are true friends, won't bring a torches-and-pitchforks mob against them.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm trying to see past media spin as well -- the media spin that would equate Trump to Hitler because he strongly favors immigration reform.

 

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Trump said that the current immigration system would "absolutely destroy America."

So that makes him the equivalent of Hitler?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Trump said that the current immigration system would "absolutely destroy America."

I'm not sure how that makes his actions comparable to Hitler's.  Can you explain what you mean?

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Trump said that the current immigration system would "absolutely destroy America."

Something has to be fixed..It is not working.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours 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!"  

A group that exposes celebrities who are paid millions to perform for despots...

https://humanrightsfoundation.org/programs/hrf-programs

 

Edited January 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure how that makes his actions comparable to Hitler's.  Can you explain what you mean?

Using social and economic malaise to scapegoat entire groups of people for the country's problems, that's a similarity (and irresponsible and dangerous in and of itself.)

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Something has to be fixed..It is not working.

A lot IS working, on the other hand. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  But the Church will, in some quarters, be darned for what it does do, darned for what it does not do, darned no matter what course of action it takes.  That is rather the pernicious nature of fault-finding: one can always succeed at it.

This is why I am generally, but still grimly, satisf[ied] that the Church appears to be striving to do what its leaders think is right, rather than what is popular.

This is a good reminder to me, Smac.

I confess that sometimes I take it so much for granted that the Church leadership will behave with wisdom and principle, sometimes bucking social pressure to do it, that I forget to be grateful when they so behave. It is comforting to have a Church leadership in which one can repose so much confidence.

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Using social and economic malaise to scapegoat entire groups of people for the country's problems, that's a similarity (and irresponsible and dangerous in and of itself.)

All things considered, it is not self-evident that Trump has done this, though I know that's the party line among political leftists, Hollywood elite, "social justice warriors" and other members of the "never Trump" movement.

But assuming arguendo that this is what he did, I don't see that you can call it unprecedented. How about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement? Or Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables"? Or both sides blaming the news media?

Or, going back into history, the viciously anti-Mormon rhetoric of politicians during the early-Utah period of Church history?

Blaming problems on groups of people seems to be part-and-parcel of politics.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd