Vort

And then there's Jesus Christ (the "I" in the verses below) taking credit for destroying entire cities (men, women, children, animals, insects, and perfectly good property) (see also 3 Nephi 8) (bold, red emphasis mine):
...and, upon reading the method of destruction of these places, imagine yourself a poor little 6 year old and what it would have been like for you.  While I respect Dr. Who's1 right to "deny this reality", I don't think it's a wise course for the rest of us.
IMO, in abstract, this is no different from those who pick and choose which commandments they'll obey, because some are distasteful - either way, it's picking and choosing what to believe, and thereby limiting one's own progression.
1 The one played by Tom Baker.  Sorry, not geeky enough to provide an episode reference.

Did any of the choir members publicly say, "Oh I'm so proud to be able sing for President Trump. I supported him?"  If so--even once--and there was no push-back, then I'd give the abstainer a pass. Otherwise, as I said, it depends on what church members perceive.  If, like you, they figure it's no big deal to abstain and vocalize why, the so be it. However, if it was a breach of spiritual etiquette to broadcast the why of abstaining, then my outsider eyebrow-raising stands.  :-)   If I had to guess, I'd figure that the lady knows that what she's done isn't so nice, but figures her reasons for opposing Mr. Trump are more important than being polite and 'respectful.'

I assume she's referring to Judges 19.  Her description of events is not accurate (IMO, if you're gonna cite scripture stories, go find them and cite the source).

If I may throw a bit of a bombshell:
I think that in our heart of hearts, a lot of Mormons don't really reconcile the god they worship to the god of the old testament.  I think we often look to the OT for proof-texting prophecies of Christ or to contextualize the Book of Mormon and otherwise tend to deploy a sort of "different god, different rules" sort of cognitive dissonance.

If she were an individual, invited to sing a solo at the inauguration, her public refusal would be fine. Many will assume that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is reticent to do this, and that this lady represents the views of many.

I approve this course of action.

Same to you.

I approve this course of action.

Same to you.

You obviously do not live around Seattle. Trust me, there are many hardcore Hillary fans.

Proverbs 16:31
"Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life."

Proverbs 16:9:  9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.
I've devised to be rich, a lawyer, a politician, a teacher, a missionary, a pastor, and a prison chaplain. I've majored in Elementary Education, History/Political Studies, and Divinity. Every decision and every step, God has directed. What looks haphazard to many is a perfect design to God. 

"And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud ;"

In modern history, I think Mao and Stalin can reasonably be compared to Hitler. And Pol Pot. And Abimael Guzmán (Shining Path) and Che Guevara, in moral turpitude and blood lust if not in actual numbers. Kim Jong-il and his son Kim Jong-un also lack the body count of the first three, but in moral and ethical terms can certainly be compared. No, I take it back; I would have preferred to have been a German in World War II than to be a North Korean at any time under the Kims.
Hitler may have been a megalomaniacal monster, but he did not intentionally pursue an end that he knew would be destructive to those he considered his own people, as the Kims (and Mao, and Stalin) did. When all is said and done, I bet we find out there are any number of people, famous and unknown, who were much more horrible than Adolph Hitler.

None of us disagree with her right to quit if she doesn't like the venue. What many of us object to is the public way she has done it. Just like the vomitous SL Tribulation likes.

Shame on her for being public. Good riddance.

"And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud ;"

Hi @DesertLily and welcome to the forums!  And more importantly welcome to Christ's Church!!!
Yes or no is fine.
Your testimony is your own.  If you are a person of pithy powerful words, then let that be.  Speak as your heart and the Spirit dictate, and don't feel like you have to be anything else.

Because store security has your photograph because of all the stuff you shoplifted last week.

I agree with these sentiments. What I don't understand is those who were championing the horrific Hillary Clinton as a great choice for president, and who now are decrying Donald Trump over his obvious (though certainly no worse) flaws.

And the reverse is also true... many supported Trump not because the liked or wanted Trump but because they wanted to stop HRC... But that doesn't seem to matter... Because even you held your nose while voting for Trump you are a sexist, racist, homophobe that clearly endorsed his every act as the New Gospel Truth
The hypocrisy of such is a stance is quite apparent to everyone, but those that are actually doing it.
 

Here's a good article showing how the restoration of the doctrine of the degrees of glory is consistent with the earliest Christian doctrines available for analysis:
 http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Three_degrees_of_glory/Not_biblical

My sister accepted an apology. That's one I know personally.
Girl said she didn't recognize what she was doing as wrong.  Explanation, not excuse. She was imitating her sisters and had the clout to get things to the extreme. 

None of us disagree with her right to quit if she doesn't like the venue. What many of us object to is the public way she has done it. Just like the vomitous SL Tribulation likes.

Shame on her for being public. Good riddance.

One thing I will agree with @Rob Osborn about, and which I think is a source of confusion here, is that many Church leaders have taught that the ordinance of baptism is a celestial ordinance that does not apply to "lower" kingdoms. While I agree that baptism is necessary for celestial glory, I believe it is equally necessary for any other kingdom of glory. We can receive a kingdom of glory only by being cleansed from sin, which is what baptism does. I know of no other way to be cleansed. Even suffering as Christ suffered does not cleanse us.
If you accept that (a) baptism is a celestial-only ordinance and (b) baptism is required to enter into any kingdom of glory, the the only conclusion is that any kingdom of glory is (eventually) a celestial kingdom. Ergo, progression "between" (or "of") kingdoms. Needless to say, I disagree with this, but not because the logic is bad. I disagree with the first premise, that baptism applies to or otherwise benefits only those who inherit the celestial kingdom in the resurrection.

Ron, other than a very brief overview in Section 76, the scriptures do not detail "telestial salvation", or in fact anything other than exaltation. That is all we are supposed to focus on. We aren't supposed to say, "Well, you know, terrestrial glory sounds pretty good, so I will not worry about anything past that." But it is obvious that accepting the atonement is required for any degree of salvation. And as far as I know, the only covenant available to accept the atonement is baptism.