Mormon Social Justice Warriors up in arms about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

[anatess2]

On 1/9/2017 at 8:37 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

First off, an uninvited smooch from an uncle or a grandparent is light-years away from what Trump was boasting of; and to suggest otherwise would be more than a little disingenuous.

Second off, while I agree with "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law" as a *legal* principle, it isn't a good principle for the selection of one's personal associations (you don't hire an accused pedophile to babysit your kids just because he hasn't been convicted); and as Trump himself conceded by alluding to Hillary Clinton's allegedly-criminal-but-unconvicted behavior:  it's not a good principle on which to choose political leaders.

Re the transcript:  This being a family board, I won't parse the text.  Suffice it to say:  contextually, that exchange was about what Trump had done and what Trump could get away with.

And you know what?  If I am ever dumb enough to say "women will let me kiss and grope them uninvited", you are quite welcome to a) assume that I am telling the truth, b) assume that I speak from personal experience, and c) make judgments about my character based on the conduct I have boasted of.  And any ill fallout from those judgments will be on *my* head, not yours.

See, this is one reason I think Trump is problematic for American decency.  Everything I have written in this post would have gone without saying to both an LDS and a Republican audience just a year ago.  But then we made Trump our nominee; and all of a sudden we're getting thoroughly Clintonesque explanations about why Trump didn't really mean what he said, why that's perfectly acceptible, and why sexual peccadilloes (within certain parameters, maybe) are really irrelevant to what the Presidency is all about.

It's not about Clintonesque explanations.  It is about Clintonesque proportions.  You believe that Trump is as sexually deplorable as Clinton.  There is where I disagree.  Trump is from New York Glitz and the Hollywood Entertainment Industry.  He is not going to be squeaky.  But neither are the Republicans we currently have in office a lot of whom have their own wiff of scandals including sexual - both manufactured and real.  The difference is, other Republicans approach Republican character assassinations with skepticism whereas with Trump, Republicans are the assassins.  John McCain had his sexual allegations, Romney had his assault allegations.  Herman Cain had to withdraw from the primaries for his sexual allegations which he proved after the end of the campaign season as blatantly false.  George W had his substance abuse allegations.  YET, Republicans showed no issues with any of them... only Trump.

As far as the women coming out.  All of them from a NYT carpet bomb routine and debunked by conservative outlets.  The first article NYT shot out from the primaries got debunked by the women themselves.  But, when it comes to any Republican, NYT is automatically questionable.  When it comes to Trump, NYT is all of a sudden credible beyond question and the conservative defense the one questionable.  Kinda like how Republicans treated Assange.

Right now, I'm listening to the left paint Jeff Sessions as a full-fledged racist.  It's brutal beyond belief.  I feel for Session's family including the 5 little grandchildren who attended the hearings.  But yeah, Republicans don't believe it of Sessions, but they will easily believe it of Trump.  Why?  Because Trump don't talk and act like they want him to.  So yeah, it's okay if you have allegations of sexual misconduct like McCain did - because he talked like a politician... even as he did the most sexist thing in the planet by picking Sarah Palin for his VP.

Edited January 11, 2017 by anatess2

[Ironhold]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What is [beep]gate? 

In any case, I don't think Trump would have no problem gutting the natural rights of one over many.  Rather, it's a matter of preserving one's country over another's when the other choice is losing one's country - America First does not imply in any shape, way, or form America only.  But I'm really just shooting blindly as I don't know what beepgate is.

If it's what I think it is? 

Someone over at 4-chan decided to generate a fake news story about Trump paying some "professional" women to trash a hotel room that the Obamas once stayed at, and that the Russian government had footage of everything because the hotel was in fact a front for a Russian intelligence operation and so the room was wired. 

Buzzfeed, by its own admission, chose to run the story despite not being able to confirm it. A few other news outlets - including CNN - have talked about matters as well, and so the story got some pretty good distance before it was finally exposed as fake. 

[dahlia]

On 12/22/2016 at 4:11 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Trump is a schmoozer.  A deal maker.  He doesn't make enemies unless he needs to, and he doesn't keep them unless he needs to.  And he made enemies of a lot of Mormons, basically insulted us during the campaign to get a bit more christian votes.   So now he won, he's smoothing over ruffled feathers by doing us the honor of having MoTab do their thing at his inauguration. Nothing more, nothing less.  

Trump wasn't my first choice, but I have enjoyed watching the show. As an east coaster, a lawyer, a corporate stooge before going into academe, I know Trump types. He doesn't bother me because I know that's how those people act. It's like Chris Christie. I liked him fine because I don't have a problem with his brashness, etc. On the other hand, I know people who get their knickers in a twist because they think these guys aren't 'nice people.'  So what? You don't have to be a nice person to get the job done. That said, I've certainly learned more about Trump's niceness and generosity than I have about Hillary's (non-existent). 

I found the term 'Mormon Social Justice Warrior' to be interesting. My son has been asking me about a church to join that would support his family. Obviously, I would like him to be Mormon, but he thinks that the Church is too 'feminine,' too willing to roll over in the name of being nice (or diversity, or immigrants, or women, you name it). I wouldn't have used the term 'Mormon social justice warrior,' but yeah, it fits. We have to deal with SJW garbage almost daily being academics and he doesn't want to have anything to do with people who think that way. He's looking at the Orthodox Church because it is has stayed true to its conservative beliefs (and he is Greek on his grandfather's side, with an ethnically Greek name, so it's not as odd as it may seem.). 

Most people here can probably separate their religion from their politics. I have a difficult time doing so (hence my being attracted to the LDS because of its history in America and its generally conservative nature). Personally, I was shocked when many of my RS sisters said they would vote for Hillary, who was in favor of 3rd term abortion and other matters that are so anti-LDS. I don't know how they could do that. Politics and religion are interlocked, but maybe that's just me. I'm going to do some thinking about Mormon SJWs and what that means.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@dahlia if it helps your son at all, Mormon Social Justice Warrior was not meant to be a compliment...at least thats how I took it. And most people here were totally against this. I would guess there are not that many Mormon SJWs.  

On the other hand, I'm thinking of changing my avatar to a snowflake with a big MSJW.  But I'm in the minority here. (No I didn't vote for Hillary, she's a danger to families. But I think Trump is deplorable.) 

[wenglund]

9 hours ago, dahlia said:

I found the term 'Mormon Social Justice Warrior' to be interesting. My son has been asking me about a church to join that would support his family. Obviously, I would like him to be Mormon, but he thinks that the Church is too 'feminine,' too willing to roll over in the name of being nice (or diversity, or immigrants, or women, you name it). I wouldn't have used the term 'Mormon social justice warrior,' but yeah, it fits. We have to deal with SJW garbage almost daily being academics and he doesn't want to have anything to do with people who think that way. He's looking at the Orthodox Church because it is has stayed true to its conservative beliefs (and he is Greek on his grandfather's side, with an ethnically Greek name, so it's not as odd as it may seem.). 

The Greek Orthodox church isn't a bad way to go even for non-Greeks. There is a surprising amount of overlap with LDS in fundamental beliefs.

However, while political fit may be desirable with one's religious faith, I am not sure it makes sense as a primary decision-making strategy in choosing between religions. I would think letting God be the guide would be more suitable--that, and finding a church that would best advance the welfare of one's family, particularly spiritually.

Either way, I wish your son the best in the choices he will make.

And, following the good-natured musings of LiterateParakeet, I am considering changing my avatar to a basket of deplorables with a CTR ribbon tied around the base.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2017 by wenglund

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/11/2017 at 9:04 AM, anatess2 said:

What is [beep]gate? 

"[beep]" in this context refers to that part of feminine anatomy Trump wanted his hearers to believe women--even those unknown to him--were willing to have him touch for his own sexual gratification.  I happen to believe that people have a natural right not to be assaulted, and especially not to be assaulted in a sexual way.

On 1/11/2017 at 11:21 AM, wenglund said:

You again completely misread my comments. I spoke about prioritizing issues, not natural rights. No one's natural rights are being subjugated by the Trump phenomena--at least not in the way you are suggesting. No one's personal liberties are being infringed--again, not in the way you are suggesting. No one is saying that someone else's daughter "is not my problem," nor do we wish to see the ruling class exempt from the general standards of law and decency. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?

I am all for giving the complainants their day in court. In fact I welcome it--in part because they aren't the only individuals who have natural rights. The accused do as well. And, we shall see whether the accusations are false or true, and let the chips fall where they may.

Please understand that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. As such, it is not physically possible to cover individually each and every one of them as a part of national or presidential campaign, though they can be handled by local jurisdictions as the Constitution provides. That they are not  each made an issue in presidential elections, is not a subjugation of their rights or an infringement on personal liberty, but a rational prioritization of issues and relegating to jurisdiction where rights have the greatest Constitution chance of being protected, To not get this is to not grasp the fundamentals of republic governmental reality.

While I am against "collectivism," particularly as mapped out by socialism of any sort, I am not so naive as to think that there aren't any morals that prioritize the many over the one. In fact, when our soldiers put their lives on the line, they are subjugating their individual lives to preserve the lives and liberty of many others. The same is true of policemen and firefighters and everyday heroes, Traditional conservatism honors such morals and bravery, and would be sickened to have them considered as "collectivist bull-poogey."

Furthermore, the very notion of majority rule, even under a republic form of government, unavoidably subjugates the will, and to some extent the rights, of individuals to that of the people as a whole.

Many laws unavoidably restrict individual freedom in favor of protecting the rights of the whole. One cannot legally drink and drive. One cannot legally practice medicine without a license. One cannot legally take the law into one's own hand. One cannot legally dump their sewage into rivers and streams, One cannot legally drive as fast as they want. They must legally stop at red lights and occupied crosswalks. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the point.

In short, prioritizing issues, and even the subjugation of individual rights and liberties, isn't necessarily a function of "collectivism," but a recognition of basic elements of society.

As I said to Anatess:  Not being assaulted is a natural right.  Furthermore, a president who is willing to subjugate the natural rights of others for his own sexual gratification is an issue--a big one.  I'd go so far as to call it a "basic element of society"--at least, a free society.  Your discourse about millions of crimes per year, or what-have-you, is a red herring; because the bottom line is that when it comes to crimes (or even otherwise-legal injustices) allegedly perpetrated by one particular individual--you are willing to look the other way, so long as the perpetrator is politically useful. 

If we get so starry-eyed about "draining the swamp" that we downplay what Trump has said about himself and ignore what his (self-described) victims say about him, then there is little moral difference between us and the Imperial Japanese who accepted the plight of Chinese, Korean, and Filipino "comfort women" as being necessary for the ultimate good of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.  And so far as I can determine, there is no threshold of Trumpian misbehavior or depredation at which Trump's avowed supporters would say "okay, this crosses the line". 

Quote

This principle holds true in some Christian communities. Christ, himself, suffered for all, and advised his followers to become like him and lose themselves in the service to others. The law of sacrifice is the very embodiment of this divine principle.

Please, get a clue.

You draw the same pernicious lesson from Christianity that progressives do:  That our religion's emphasis on the virtues of voluntary self-sacrifice, excuses the State (or privileged citizens thereof) in demanding involuntary self-sacrifices of its subjects/citizens regardless of the cost. 

There is nothing "divine" about telling a head of state that he is entitled to victimize x number of women per year so long as he also advances a sufficiently palatable political agenda.  And like I said--before Trump, no self-respecting Latter-day Saint would have made such an argument; let alone implied that those who rejected such an argument needed to "get a clue".

On 1/11/2017 at 0:32 PM, anatess2 said:

It's not about Clintonesque explanations.  It is about Clintonesque proportions.  You believe that Trump is as sexually deplorable as Clinton.  There is where I disagree.  Trump is from New York Glitz and the Hollywood Entertainment Industry.  He is not going to be squeaky.  But neither are the Republicans we currently have in office a lot of whom have their own wiff of scandals including sexual - both manufactured and real.  The difference is, other Republicans approach Republican character assassinations with skepticism whereas with Trump, Republicans are the assassins.  John McCain had his sexual allegations, Romney had his assault allegations.  Herman Cain had to withdraw from the primaries for his sexual allegations which he proved after the end of the campaign season as blatantly false.  George W had his substance abuse allegations.  YET, Republicans showed no issues with any of them... only Trump.

Clinton's accusers were also subjected to "debunkings" in the progressive press; but we tend to believe the bulk of them while conceding that there may have been a couple of outliers who made things up for publicity.  So it's not enough to merely trot out a partisan article saying that yes, we can rest assured that those bimbos are all liars.  

Look at your Gatewaypundit article's treatment of Jessica Leeds, for example.  Does it point out that her "debunker", Anthony Gilberthorpe, is a British activist who in the past has apparently taken five-figure sums of money to entrap political rivals in sex stings?  Does it point out that for his story to be true he would have to have been flying first class, as an eighteen-year-old, and then perfectly remember the face of a woman who he had otherwise never met or seen, some thirty years later?  Does it point out that the armrests in Braniff's 727s have been confirmed, by Braniff historians, to be capable of lifting just as Leeds said hers in fact was lifted?  

No.  Gatewaypundit does not say any of those things.  Gatewaypundit just wants you to know that there is a man who says that Leeds is a liar; and Gatewaypundit wants you to (erroneously) think that those armrests weren't even capable of lifting up as Leeds described.  And because we have already bought our ticket on the Trump Train, and because Gilberthorpe says Leeds "wanted it", and because Trump has taught us to believe that when it comes to him all women "want it"--we quite naturally believe Gatewaypundit and dismiss Leeds.

As for Romney and McCain--you and I have already discussed Romney's teenaged hazing of a fellow student, my concern about the incident, and my satisfaction that he is both penitent for what he did and is no longer the type of person who would do that sort of thing.  Re McCain--I didn't vote for him; in part because of his past and in part because I had social/professional connections who had worked with him fairly recently and who affirmed that military service aside, he was still as much a heck-raising narcissistic sociopath in 2008 as he had been during his Annapolis days. 

If Republicans are too gullible on matters of character, it's because they (or at least, many of them) sincerely believe that character still matters.  The cure, both for Republican gullibility and for long-term social stability, is not to adopt the international/Democrat approach of openly celebrating vice or elevating vicious characters.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

were willing to have him touch

Even worse, I believe the word he used was "grab".

[Vort]

On 1/14/2017 at 10:22 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

@dahlia if it helps your son at all, Mormon Social Justice Warrior was not meant to be a compliment...at least thats how I took it.

LiterateParakeet is correct. I meant the terms as a humorous criticism.

[wenglund]

It was inspiring to see the choir sing today!!! They were wonderful. All good. I am grateful they didn't cave to a relatively few misguided souls.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

On 1/20/2017 at 2:45 PM, wenglund said:

It was inspiring to see the choir sing today!!! They were wonderful. All good. I am grateful they didn't cave to a relatively few misguided souls.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes they were!

The other choir (from that college, can't remember the name) were good too.  But I wasn't too fond of the descants.

[Larry Cotrell]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes they were!

The other choir (from that college, can't remember the name) were good too.  But I wasn't too fond of the descants.

Agreed, I haven't heard MTC preform before, but they did really well. 

[zil]

15 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I haven't heard MTC preform before

 Are you sure you live in Utah?

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes they were!

The other choir (from that college, can't remember the name) were good too.  But I wasn't too fond of the descants.

What did you think about the lyrics?

[dahlia]

On 1/14/2017 at 9:16 PM, wenglund said:

The Greek Orthodox church isn't a bad way to go even for non-Greeks. There is a surprising amount of overlap with LDS in fundamental beliefs.

However, while political fit may be desirable with one's religious faith, I am not sure it makes sense as a primary decision-making strategy in choosing between religions. I would think letting God be the guide would be more suitable--that, and finding a church that would best advance the welfare of one's family, particularly spiritually.

Either way, I wish your son the best in the choices he will make.

And, following the good-natured musings of LiterateParakeet, I am considering changing my avatar to a basket of deplorables with a CTR ribbon tied around the base.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think my politics and religion have to mesh because I'd hate to be in church every week and have the priest/minister/rabbi tell me it's OK to abort babies, that gay marriage is OK (I can live with it, but don't tell me it's religiously correct), etc. I had to stop going to some public events and even swim aerobics because every darned time libs would start going off about Bush, even when the conversation wasn't about him. It was like you couldn't get away from their hysteria. And now, if they know who you are, God help you, because if you say something in response, you're liable to get your car keyed. 

So, yeah it would be nice to separate politics and religion, but it's increasingly difficult to do so. 

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, dahlia said:

I think my politics and religion have to mesh because I'd hate to be in church every week and have the priest/minister/rabbi tell me it's OK to abort babies, that gay marriage is OK (I can live with it, but don't tell me it's religiously correct), etc. I had to stop going to some public events and even swim aerobics because every darned time libs would start going off about Bush, even when the conversation wasn't about him. It was like you couldn't get away from their hysteria. And now, if they know who you are, God help you, because if you say something in response, you're liable to get your car keyed. 

So, yeah it would be nice to separate politics and religion, but it's increasingly difficult to do so. 

To me, if I am letting God direct me where He deems best for me to go, and where the welfare (particularly spiritual) is best served, I could easily handle the political differences, However, It is just that I highly doubt that God would direct me to a church that openly advocates violation of the 6th commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") and practices unchristian behavior like keying cars over differing political views. So, I believe my point still stands. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

By the way, given the appalling behavior of many so-called SJW's, I think their title should be changed to AIW (Anti-social Injustice Warriors).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

On 1/21/2017 at 8:22 PM, mordorbund said:

What did you think about the lyrics?

I didn't pay attention to the lyrics. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 1/19/2017 at 10:23 AM, Vort said:

LiterateParakeet is correct. I meant the terms as a humorous criticism.

 

You even found a picture for us, awww, thanks.  I think I'd prefer a snowflake though or maybe this guy.  

Edited January 23, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[mordorbund]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I didn't pay attention to the lyrics. 

 

 

“Now We Belong”

Here are the voices of every creature,
Here are the calls of every heart;
Here is the place of strangers’ welcome,
We who once walked in strangers’ shoes.
Once we were strangers,
We were welcomed,
Now we belong and believe in this land.

Here are the rivers of many echoes,
Here are the leaves of every tree;
Within us live the long horizons,
Winds that stir the sacred stones.
Once we were strangers,
We were welcomed,
Now we belong and believe in this land.

KEEP FAITH, KEEP WATCH, 
TAKE HEART, TAKE COURAGE, 
GUARD MIND, GUARD SPIRIT. 
FEED LOVE, FEED LONGING.

Here are the cities where we have gathered,
Here are the barns where hope is stored;
We are the gleams of every being,
Filled with the dreams that build the day.
Once we were strangers,
We were welcomed,
Now we belong and believe in this land.

KEEP FAITH, 
GUARD MIND, 
TAKE HEART, 
GUARD SPIRIT, 
TAKE COURAGE, 
KEEP WATCH. 
FEED LONGING, 
FEED LOVE.

— Words by Michael Dennis Browne

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

 

 

“Now We Belong”

Here are the voices of every creature,
Here are the calls of every heart;
Here is the place of strangers’ welcome,
We who once walked in strangers’ shoes.
Once we were strangers,
We were welcomed,
Now we belong and believe in this land.

Here are the rivers of many echoes,
Here are the leaves of every tree;
Within us live the long horizons,
Winds that stir the sacred stones.
Once we were strangers,
We were welcomed,
Now we belong and believe in this land.

KEEP FAITH, KEEP WATCH, 
TAKE HEART, TAKE COURAGE, 
GUARD MIND, GUARD SPIRIT. 
FEED LOVE, FEED LONGING.

Here are the cities where we have gathered,
Here are the barns where hope is stored;
We are the gleams of every being,
Filled with the dreams that build the day.
Once we were strangers,
We were welcomed,
Now we belong and believe in this land.

KEEP FAITH, 
GUARD MIND, 
TAKE HEART, 
GUARD SPIRIT, 
TAKE COURAGE, 
KEEP WATCH. 
FEED LONGING, 
FEED LOVE.

— Words by Michael Dennis Browne

Awesome song.

I know what you're gonna say... but but but, Trump is anti-immigrant!  Sigh.  Melania... hello...

[Mike]

@anatess2 At the risk of being impudent (which I don't intend to be) I don't think a man's decision to marry a woman who immigrated to our country is a very reliable indicator of his pro- or anti- sentiments with regard to immigrants in general. But don't get me wrong. I feel some compassion toward our new First Lady. Sometimes I look at her and my imagination takes flight wondering what she must be thinking about all this. 

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, Mike said:

@anatess2 At the risk of being impudent (which I don't intend to be) I don't think a man's decision to marry a woman who immigrated to our country is a very reliable indicator of his pro- or anti- sentiments with regard to immigrants in general. But don't get me wrong. I feel some compassion toward our new First Lady. Sometimes I look at her and my imagination takes flight wondering what she must be thinking about all this. 

Sure.  But that plain fact gives the first indication of what Trump thinks about immigrants.  You're going to have to come up with something that goes against that first indication to reverse it.  So, what would you think goes against that first indication?  That he wants to build a wall?  You think building a wall is anti-immigrant?  If that's not it, then what is it?

In the interest of full disclosure:  I'm an immigrant to the US.  Nothing about Trump has given me any indication that he is against "my peeps".

Edited January 24, 2017 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

21 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Awesome song.

I know what you're gonna say... but but but, Trump is anti-immigrant!  Sigh.  Melania... hello...

I wasn't going to say that at all. I know he has a reputation (warranted or not) and was curious if anyone saw that selection as passive-aggressive ("fine, we'll sing at your inauguration, but you might not like what we choose to sing.")

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I wasn't going to say that at all. I know he has a reputation (warranted or not) and was curious if anyone saw that selection as passive-aggressive ("fine, we'll sing at your inauguration, but you might not like what we choose to sing.")

Well, I guess you can make that conclusion.  I prefer the conclusion that the song was chosen to tell the audience that this new Administration has no beef against "strangers".

Edited January 24, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  But that plain fact gives the first indication of what Trump thinks about immigrants.  You're going to have to come up with something that goes against that first indication to reverse it.  So, what would you think goes against that first indication?  That he wants to build a wall?  You think building a wall is anti-immigrant?  If that's not it, then what is it?

In the interest of full disclosure:  I'm an immigrant to the US.  Nothing about Trump has given me any indication that he is against "my peeps".

No, I don't think it gives any indication at all. I think it's not reasonable for either of us to draw conclusions about his feelings one way or another from (this particular) isolated fact. The plain fact alone that he married an immigrant (two actually) tells me practically nothing. I could speculate since they both hail from "Eastern Europe" and they were both models that he is attracted to beautiful exotic women. But then what man isn't attracted to beautiful exotic women? The fact that they are immigrants is little more than a coincidence but not surprising giving Mr. Trump's lifestyle. I submit that it has nothing to do with his feelings about *illegal* immigration (which I think was the fish you were trying to draw across my path, hahaha). It's a small thing, but it interested me as a thing that doesn't give offer much (pro or con) with regard to President Trump.

And in reciprocal interest of full disclosure, I married an immigrant. But don't draw too many conclusions just yet.