Great MoTab concert last night

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

In what world does voicing one's opinion about a public servant equate to throwing the church under the bus?

 

I have already effectively responded to this question when i said in a prior post: 

Quote

I think her actions made the choir -- and the Church -- the target of brickbats from political partisans, hostile critics and news media looking for a sensational story. That's not OK with me.

If you are going to converse with me, you will refrain from posing questions that have already been answered.

 

Quote

And a choir singing at an inauguration didn't imply precisely that?! 

This was argued at length on here last January. The choir has appeared at each and every presidential inauguration to which it has been invited. It responds to such invitations to honor the office of the presidency and the peaceful transfer of power.

Quote

(not interested in debating what the choir chose to do...I respect their choice too.) 

Then I have to wonder why you posed the question you did.

 

Quote

 

Scott, by saying implied endorsement is fine for the 99, but not for the 1, you're presenting a blatant double standard. Unjust. Unkind to the one exercising her right to speak her mind/heart...the very thing we're supposedly *encouraged* to do.

We simply can't have it both ways, and maintain a pretense of integrity. Something's gotta give.

 

This makes no sense to me. There is no implied endorsement in the choir answering an invitation to appear at a national event. Unless it is an implied endorsement of patriotism and public spritedness.

As for the disgruntled soprano, the moment she chose to make her resignation public was the moment she became an anti-Trump activist first and a Latter-day Saint second.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hagoth7]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe we can logically extend that to not allowing one's political activism to reflect negatively on the Church or its institutions...  

The Canadian elephant in the room says Balderdash. (As respectfully as an elephant can.)

It would reflect more negatively if a church preaching love, liberty, and grace lacked the strength/character to allow others to differ...without getting knickers in a knot...over a small handful opting to engage in the political sphere, as is their right....bled for by patriots.

...out in open opposition to decisions made by the Church leaders or under the direction of Church leaders. 

? I thought you prefered people to be open about any supposed what-might-be-called opposition. .

There is a difference between criticizing a leader and disagreeing with *a decision* made by one. I view the latter feedback loop as an important/responsible part of sustaining...as I'm' wired to think/feel....just as you're wired to view/judge any such thing as rogue/subersive activity. On this matter, we are opposites. Whether that also means oil & vinegaar, will let you judge.

I'll give an example. Long ago, I published something intended to be helpful...intending to contribute. In doing so, I needed to frankly address/resolve the cognitive dissonance that some would encounter on a matter that had been spoken about by general authorities. Although general authorities had spoken on both sides of the matter, the only opinion widely circulated/believed just happened to be a well known general authority.

So I waded in, presented his assertion, offered the reader the evidence which suggested an opposing conclulsion, and backed it up citing secular and GA citations.

Some bristled and viewed that as rogue activity. That was over two decades ago, a simple matter of dueling opinions between general authorities *who were not authorities on the matter in question* and I still get flack from that, claiming i wish to do the church harm. Argh..  

In short, we are to be a good influence in society and government, but we should not presume to involve the Church in our politics, either affirmatively or negatively. 

Precisely. And the best influence we can be in the political sphere is to actually walk the talk - and demosntrate that we're a people that actually respects, allows, and encourages passionate/measured independent thinking and political engagement. If we truly believe the letter read each week.

...but we should not presume to involve the Church in our politics, either affirmatively or negatively. 

?  We should not presume that voicing one's opinion drags the rest of the church anywhere, other than into the spotlight that affirms we proudly stand as those very people that letter encourages us to be,.

[hagoth7]

54 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

?  We should not presume that voicing one's opinion drags the rest of the church anywhere, other than into the spotlight that affirms we proudly stand as those very people that letter encourages us to be,.

Should explain. Addressing/lresolving an unvoiced objection.

It's gonna come up from somebody some day, and perhaps already is bothering somebody, so I'll address it now head-on.

:::propping up a straw man with its hands positioned adamantly on hips:::: "So mr. Loud-opinion, if you're so gung-ho about freedom and involvement, how come you haven't naturalized?"

3 main reasons.

1. Naturalizing would require me to surrender citizenship to a nation that I love and respect, a land of my forefathers who opted to retreat there when the Consitutional freedoms of their co-religionists were denined here. The relatively-recent requirement that an applicant for citizenship has to disavow ties to their nation of birth or heritage, simply to have "rights" in this nation, most such rights which were once said to be God-given and inalienable, is a disrespect to the founding documents, to my heritage, and to the very concept of liberty that I'm simply unwilling to align with. Not *at all* a reasonable/just requirement. If previous generations could maintain dual citizenship...the recent shift is arbitrary pseudo-patriotism. 

2. While serving in the National Guard, on the two or three occasions when I seriously considered naturalizing, when I felt I might be of better service as a linguist (which required naturalizing), I lacked the funds to pay for the citizenship application process. (Kinda steep for young-married college students.) But I'm grateful for that speed bump. And during the few brief time when we actually had the financial option to pay the app process, I was reminded of #1, and of something my mother had taught me while young.

3. What my mother relayed to me as a young man was essentially this: a certain temple retained/preserved the account of a certain prophetic woman, a visitor from another faith, who vividly foretold the need for places of refuge for the saints in the final days, in various locations, prepared harbors before a coming storm. I won't go into detail, and don't need to.  But the very premise of surrendering that citizenship removed a potential path of retreat, should my family or ever ever need such. Seemed strategically unwise...just in case. Too costly a price. 

4. Long after my arrival, a supposed "patriotic" act claimed to legally revoke every alien's supposedly unalienable, God-given rights...the rights that patriots (themselves aliens) had bled and died to establish and preserve.  I simply view as classic bait and switch. And that citizens didn't bat an eye over that saddened and disheartened me. And solidified my decision not to swear allegiance alongside citizens who don't care about laws that protect justice and mercy.  I almost withdrew across the border over that issue a few years back, just as my forefathers withdrew back when other god-given unalienable Constitutional guarantees were supposedly revoked. 

So I'm a Canuck. And a Marmon boy. And an Anabaptist...and a pot stirrer..

If that offends someone's sense of patriotism, I don't quite know what to tell you.

/solo.

Gonna shutup, let the choir do their awesome thing, and retreat back behind the tabernacle. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have already effectively responded to this question when i said in a prior post: If you are going to converse with me, you will refrain from posing questions that have already been answered.

You're free to deem a response effective.  I'm free to respectfully disagree - and to illustrate *how* it is ineffective/unjust.

Respectfully, I will not refrain in a matter this important.  And it is bad form to request someone else shutup (whether veiled in polite words or not)....especially on a matter like this 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...It responds to such invitations to honor the office of the presidency and the peaceful transfer of power.

? Srawman. I'm not arguing against the choir's decision. At all.

And you're shifting the goalposts. You pivot, in unneeded defense, to claim the choir did right because of precedent and because their intent is pure. Balderdash. That's not why it was right.

It's right simply because it's their choice, and this is a free country.

The rest is window dressing.

Which is why it was bizactly right for the 1 to differ and wade in. Even more so when there is more precedent for that, and when her intent was likely just as genuine and pure as that of the choir.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This makes no sense to me. There is no implied endorsement in the choir answering an invitation to appear at a national event. 

I know. Which is exactly why this conversation has drawn out much longer than it normally would. Not because I'm obtuse or you're dense, but,I suggest because your bedrock foundation doesn't accomodate the simple reality that their choice *generates* a perception different from perception you prefer to champion - and that the 1 is as justified in passionately expressing her concerns for the country (which the church encourages) as you are free to express concerns about the supposedly-weakened church. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no implied endorsement...unless it is an implied endorsement of patriotism and public spritedness.

Please hear yourself Scott. Berating the 1 denies the very premise of patriotism and negates the very pretense of public spiritism. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As for the disgruntled soprano, the moment she chose to make her resignation public was the moment she became an anti-Trump activist first and a Latter-day Saint second.

Please refrain from the ad hominem against her. Doesn't do you justice.

 

Time and season for all things. A time to pick up the sword. A time to pick up the trumpet. A time to pickup the trowel. You favored the trowel in that season. She opted for something just as important. We don't have to man/woman the same section of the wall, at the same time, to be on the same team.

And you opting to function as a foot doesn't authorize you to belittle/dismiss her opting to be a hand...or visa versa. She's as important a member as you are, as is her voice.

So simply let her be. Please. Just let the gal sing.

Edited July 17, 2017 by hagoth7