Duncan Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Just now, Bobbieaware said: You are incredibly presumptuous about what's going to happen with the new administration. And I'll bet you're so personally invested in your presumptions, and that you want so much to be proven right about Trump, that you'd rather see the United States fall than have to admit you were wrong 4 years from now. Yes? We'll re visit this conversation when the time comes? Deal? Edited January 7, 2017 by Duncan 1
Danzo Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, Duncan said: You sound like you could handle it but others can't and haven't. I am all for hookers changing their life, they should change their life! I think there are better ways to do things than others Trust me, there was zero temptation. Real prostitutes aren't very attractive. 1
longview Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Both people have an opinion. Both people are allowed to voice that opinion and neither are should be shamed or threatened because of it. "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is horribly one sided. We have seen numerous accounts of violence against Trump supporters but none against "Occupy Wall Street" types. Isn't that a terribly lopsided situation?
HappyJackWagon Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 27 minutes ago, longview said: "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is horribly one sided. We have seen numerous accounts of violence against Trump supporters but none against "Occupy Wall Street" types. Isn't that a terribly lopsided situation? I don't agree that it's one sided. I was particularly referencing death threats Jan Chamberlin received and requests from online posters that she kill herself.
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Jesus also said to go thy way and sin no more. Not to go thy way and sin some more. 1
why me Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 16 hours ago, Duncan said: Utah declared porn a "public health crisis" but the Church feels good enough to perform at a guy who was on the front cover of a dirty magazine and his current wife who posed. Love it. Remember this?! http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/16252-was-trump-looking-at-photo-of-ex-wife-marla-maples-in-a-bikini-before-eating I hope the Choir member has a good time Interesting, it was a anti-trump superpac that brought the attention to Melania's photo. In the photo, nothing can be seen actually. And she was young at the time, trying to make her mark as a model in the USA. Exploitatioin is rampant for beginnings. And a dirty magazine? Who is without sin? With your perfectionist standards, the choir would only be performing for itself 1
why me Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: A choir member takes a principaled, positive, and moral stand to explain why she will sing at the inauguration, citing the example of Black American vocalist Marian Anderson. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865670560/Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir-member-explains-in-Facebook-video-why-she-will-sing-at-Trump-inauguration.html?s_cid=Email-4 Jesus even dined with sinners and Republicans! Let's not rehash the issue of the sister who refuses to perform, but some comments on this sister's thoughts might be appropriate. This choir member makes Jan look foolish and superficial. The member is absolutely right. Seeing how church members are reacting to Trump and his wife, I can see a problem with judgementalism and shallowness. Such perfectionists need to look in the mirror and see a sinner.
Bernard Gui Posted January 7, 2017 Author Posted January 7, 2017 17 hours ago, JAHS said: This kind of reasoning might help those who don't feel good about going to sing because of their opinion about the man Trump. But to label him a sinner might be considered a judgmental attitude to have. ("judge not that ye be not judged") The safer and most reasonable reason to go is that which was voiced by the church spokesperson. Sense of humor meter on low setting.
why me Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, longview said: "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is horribly one sided. We have seen numerous accounts of violence against Trump supporters but none against "Occupy Wall Street" types. Isn't that a terribly lopsided situation? I am a left wing guy...in fact far left. But I am disgusted with the left these days. They have lost direction. Back in the day, it was all about class and class struggle. Now, it has warped into identity politics and power, controlling speech and ideas. When one looks how the democratic party paid operatives to disrupt trump rallies and how left wing students shut down alternative thinking, one can see the beginnings of the loss of freedom to think. 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 7, 2017 Author Posted January 7, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I am so offended that this choir member decided to grandstand and make a public statement about this. How dare she voice opposition to her former choir-mate and drag the choir further into an embarrassing public debate. It's just unconscionable. See how silly that is? Yet those things, and much worse, were said about Jan Chamberlin doing the same thing. Both people have an opinion. Both people are allowed to voice that opinion and neither are should be shamed or threatened because of it. Good thing she did't compare Trump with Mother Theresa. 1
why me Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, longview said: "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is horribly one sided. We have seen numerous accounts of violence against Trump supporters but none against "Occupy Wall Street" types. Isn't that a terribly lopsided situation? Trump Derangement Syndrome seems to be very real. The comparisons to Hitler have been over the top. And the fake news that are surrounding Trump have reached high levels. Interestingly, the left is now siding with the intelligence agencies when just a short time ago, such agencies were listed as tools of the fascist state. This is how deranged things have come because of trump. It is now the progressives who want to confront Russia with threats and Assange and Snowden who were once their heros, have become their enemy. It is amazing how things have turned because of trump derangement syndrome. .Amd many church members here on this forum would have rather have clinton as president, regardless if she began the war with libya, supported the muslim brotherhood in Eygpt etc. and she favors late term abortion. Amazing turn of events. Edited January 7, 2017 by why me
bluebell Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 16 hours ago, Duncan said: on one hand we this public health crisis and how often do we hear and read how porn is bad (it's even in a current ensign article) but on the other the choir is singing for these two who did that and I dunno, seem okay with it-to me it's hard to justify having high morals or saying we do and feel okay with people who don't (we do this all the time, associate with people who don't share our values but we don't sing to them ) but then say well, it's a crisis but yeah sure i'll sing for someone to did XYZ, it seems to me we're supporting it. Obviously we aren't to condemn Trump but are we justifying his and his wife's salacious past? Are we losing moral high ground? Trump is not a moral man and doesn't seem repentant about it so why are we supporting him by singing to him or singing for a country that voted for him How is singing for their profession more akin to supporting them than having dinner with them or hanging out with them? I still don't think i understand. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Christ invites all to come to dinner. He doesn't go to them for dinner.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Christ invites all to come to dinner. He doesn't go to them for dinner. That's not true though. He went to the sinner's homes to eat dinner with them. He specifically sought out Zacchaues for example and told him He needed to eat dinner at his home that night. He didn't even have a place to invite people to for dinner. Edited January 7, 2017 by bluebell 3
Duncan Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: How is singing for their profession more akin to supporting them than having dinner with them or hanging out with them? I still don't think i understand. dinner with who? Romney?
Calm Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 I feel the same way about this Choir member using their Choir calling to gain public attention. Which means if she got permission to speak out publicly as a Choir member, I am now iffy about Sister Chamberlain's choice to do so. This though does not support or condemn a political individual while Sister Chamberlain did. I can't decide yet if her message is sufficiently different to justify the "I am a Choir member so you should listen to me" use as this one appears closer to the missionary purpose itself. Given the current controversy, I hope this Choir member did seek permission to post as a Choir member first. If she didn't, my concerns about that are the same for both, not particularly huge, but think it inappropriate. 2
Duncan Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Honestly sometimes I think we get mixed messages in the Church. We're against porn and it's a big deal but it's fine to sing for a guy and his wife who have a nefarious porno past. We shouldn't judge people but don't even think about being immodest, getting a tattoo or two earrings. The President elect said Mexicans are rapists but he's protected by free speech and we act all surprised that Mexico hasn't had a new stake created in 2016...if I was a Mexican I wouldn't let two Americans in to teach me if they were standing at my doorway and probably would take an American GA all that seriously if he came to stake conference if I knew the Choir sang for Trump-how do I know he doesn't secretly believe Trump? We shouldn't flirt with immorality or sin, "date to stand alone" "do what is right let the consequences follow", "The Lord's side of the Line" but don't judge others and by all means go into their homes and spend time with people, and it's not so bad you can save them! The Church is politically neutral but they sing at PUSA inaugurations, I wonder if they have ever sung at any other countries' swearing in ceremony? I doubt they were invited and why is that? but can you guess the hoo and cry if North Korea invited the Choir to sing for that man? Edited January 7, 2017 by Duncan
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, bluebell said: That's not true though. He went to the sinner's homes to eat dinner with them. He specifically sought out Zacchaues for example and told him He needed to eat dinner at his home that night. He didn't even have a place to invite people to for dinner. SEE Luke 19:1-10New International Version (NIV) Zacchaeus the Tax Collector 19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. 5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. 7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.” 8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
BlueDreams Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: A choir member takes a principaled, positive, and moral stand to explain why she will sing at the inauguration, citing the example of Black American vocalist Marian Anderson. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865670560/Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir-member-explains-in-Facebook-video-why-she-will-sing-at-Trump-inauguration.html?s_cid=Email-4 Jesus even dined with sinners and Republicans! Let's not rehash the issue of the sister who refuses to perform, but some comments on this sister's thoughts might be appropriate. Good for Sis Brazao and for Sis. Chamberlin for following their conscience and making earnest decisions based on them. I've been thinking about the split message that is found in the scriptures. You're right, Jesus did dine with sinners and publicans (technically not republicans....just saying....time lapse). Personally I think the parallel would be closer to pharisees and saducees. But he clipped few from talking to him. Though, as someone pointed out. He did overthrow the money-changers and drive them out. And lambast said pharisees/saducees and vipers and in the midst of a variety of sin. We have the scriptures to judge not and to love one another as Jesus would. But also that if someone offends you cut them off. And to judge righteously. We have times where people were called to remain with a fallen people to the very end (Moroni/Mormon) and to leave them (Nephi and his people). Moments of great forgiveness and repentance even laying down to be killed by ones enemies. And others where war and defense were used. It was based on circumstance. Many decisions made today are also individual. I've watched people try to dictate or make universal rulings for another. But there isn't. Everything has an exception to the rule. I've been asked to do things based on prayer and study in my life that I wouldn't suggest or expect of another. But it's right FOR ME in MY PLACE and MY JOURNEY. So I do it. The point is, is that this isn't a one size fits all scenario. There isn't a clear answer for one or the other. Cristi Brazao felt it her duty to go based on history and spiritual example. I wouldn't go for similar reasons. Jan Chamberlin felt it her duty to not and resigned for moral and after pondering (and I assume) prayer. I wouldn't have resigned for similar reasons. If I felt prompted otherwise, I would do that, no matter what another did. Neither is inherently wrong or right. There's a reason this was a voluntary decision and that, from what I heard, it was requested that people respect another's decision. And there's a reason both Brazao and Chamberlin stated basically the same thing in explaining their dection: "I can’t speak on behalf of everyone in the choir but for me." What is unfair is lambasting one or the other for making a horrible choice when there wasn't an exact right or wrong (in this situation) to begin with. Just because one decision aligns more with our own personal thoughts and values doesn't make the opposing choice more right. We are not moral authorities for everyone else. And the people with some authority for both sisters have not come out condemning or condoning either one. With luv, BD 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE Luke 19:1-10New International Version (NIV) Zacchaeus the Tax Collector 19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. 5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. 7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.” 8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” What are you trying to prove with this? The scripture says Jesus told Zaccheus that He (Jesus) would stay at His (Zaccheus's) house. Doesn't that support Bluebell's point and rebut your argument?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: Good for Sis Brazao and for Sis. Chamberlin for following their conscience and making earnest decisions based on them. I've been thinking about the split message that is found in the scriptures. You're right, Jesus did dine with sinners and publicans (technically not republicans....just saying....time lapse). Personally I think the parallel would be closer to pharisees and saducees. But he clipped few from talking to him. Though, as someone pointed out. He did overthrow the money-changers and drive them out. And lambast said pharisees/saducees and vipers and in the midst of a variety of sin. We have the scriptures to judge not and to love one another as Jesus would. But also that if someone offends you cut them off. And to judge righteously. We have times where people were called to remain with a fallen people to the very end (Moroni/Mormon) and to leave them (Nephi and his people). Moments of great forgiveness and repentance even laying down to be killed by ones enemies. And others where war and defense were used. It was based on circumstance. Many decisions made today are also individual. I've watched people try to dictate or make universal rulings for another. But there isn't. Everything has an exception to the rule. I've been asked to do things based on prayer and study in my life that I wouldn't suggest or expect of another. But it's right FOR ME in MY PLACE and MY JOURNEY. So I do it. The point is, is that this isn't a one size fits all scenario. There isn't a clear answer for one or the other. Cristi Brazao felt it her duty to go based on history and spiritual example. I wouldn't go for similar reasons. Jan Chamberlin felt it her duty to not and resigned for moral and after pondering (and I assume) prayer. I wouldn't have resigned for similar reasons. If I felt prompted otherwise, I would do that, no matter what another did. Neither is inherently wrong or right. There's a reason this was a voluntary decision and that, from what I heard, it was requested that people respect another's decision. And there's a reason both Brazao and Chamberlin stated basically the same thing in explaining their dection: "I can’t speak on behalf of everyone in the choir but for me." What is unfair is lambasting one or the other for making a horrible choice when there wasn't an exact right or wrong (in this situation) to begin with. Just because one decision aligns more with our own personal thoughts and values doesn't make the opposing choice more right. We are not moral authorities for everyone else. And the people with some authority for both sisters have not come out condemning or condoning either one. With luv, BD If an action does not align with our own values, then said action is, by definition, wrong in our own view. And what do you expect the people "in authority" to do? There is a whole array of unwise behavior one might engage in that isn't going to bring down harsh reprisal from people "in authority."
Bobbieaware Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Duncan said: We'll re visit this conversation when the time comes? Deal? Yes 1
Duncan Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Just now, BlueDreams said: Good for Sis Brazao and for Sis. Chamberlin for following their conscience and making earnest decisions based on them. I've been thinking about the split message that is found in the scriptures. You're right, Jesus did dine with sinners and publicans (technically not republicans....just saying....time lapse). Personally I think the parallel would be closer to pharisees and saducees. But he clipped few from talking to him. Though, as someone pointed out. He did overthrow the money-changers and drive them out. And lambast said pharisees/saducees and vipers and in the midst of a variety of sin. We have the scriptures to judge not and to love one another as Jesus would. But also that if someone offends you cut them off. And to judge righteously. We have times where people were called to remain with a fallen people to the very end (Moroni/Mormon) and to leave them (Nephi and his people). Moments of great forgiveness and repentance even laying down to be killed by ones enemies. And others where war and defense were used. It was based on circumstance. Many decisions made today are also individual. I've watched people try to dictate or make universal rulings for another. But there isn't. Everything has an exception to the rule. I've been asked to do things based on prayer and study in my life that I wouldn't suggest or expect of another. But it's right FOR ME in MY PLACE and MY JOURNEY. So I do it. The point is, is that this isn't a one size fits all scenario. There isn't a clear answer for one or the other. Cristi Brazao felt it her duty to go based on history and spiritual example. I wouldn't go for similar reasons. Jan Chamberlin felt it her duty to not and resigned for moral and after pondering (and I assume) prayer. I wouldn't have resigned for similar reasons. If I felt prompted otherwise, I would do that, no matter what another did. Neither is inherently wrong or right. There's a reason this was a voluntary decision and that, from what I heard, it was requested that people respect another's decision. And there's a reason both Brazao and Chamberlin stated basically the same thing in explaining their dection: "I can’t speak on behalf of everyone in the choir but for me." What is unfair is lambasting one or the other for making a horrible choice when there wasn't an exact right or wrong (in this situation) to begin with. Just because one decision aligns more with our own personal thoughts and values doesn't make the opposing choice more right. We are not moral authorities for everyone else. And the people with some authority for both sisters have not come out condemning or condoning either one. With luv, BD I think as humans we go with whatever message we want to hear at the time. We're against gambling https://www.lds.org/topics/gambling?lang=eng but we'll sing for a guy who owns casinos...we're against porn but we'll sing for a guy who owns a strip club(s) The Church is anti gay but supports Trump who supposedly loves gay people, the L...G....B....T.....Q..... what does the teleprompter say? oh, community.Yet, you know if we ever engaged in these activities....I can't even, I can't Edited January 7, 2017 by Duncan
BlueDreams Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: What are you trying to prove with this? The scripture says Jesus told Zaccheus that He (Jesus) would stay at His (Zaccheus's) house. Doesn't that support Bluebell's point and rebut your argument? It could technically support both. Zaccheus wast viewed as a sinner by the people because of his position/job title that was seen as a betrayal to the common Jew. You could make a case that like Trump, people are judging them based off of position. But Zaccheus also points out that he gives half of his goods to the poor and would, with willing heart give more to anyone he has offended or harmed. It indicates that his position stated little of the true state of his heart. It would also then point out that many of these scriptures about sinners and worthiness were based off of outward political and community indicators that the people valued. Many of the "sinners" weren't exactly sinners...or with sins that would follow them into the afterlife. And the "Sinners" who were doing moral wrong were trying to follow and come unto Jesus....ie. They're repentant. Christ was not as nice to those who were flagrantly doing things in mockery of God or who were blatant hypocrits and unrepentant sinners. You can also make a pretty good case that Trump does not fit into the category of generous soul that's misunderstood, flagrantly sins, and is fairly unrepentant. I course, I'm not TSS. I don't know why he quoted it. With luv, BD 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: What are you trying to prove with this? The scripture says Jesus told Zaccheus that He (Jesus) would stay at His (Zaccheus's) house. Doesn't that support Bluebell's point and rebut your argument? There is no argument that Christ was/is very accepting of sinners including us. When they/we don't fully repent they/we have no promise. I can't get into anyone's mind. Nor do I want to. But from all the available evidence Trump has yet to even meet the Zacchaeus standard. 1
Recommended Posts