Mormon Tabernacle Choir singer quits because she claims Trump represents tyranny and fascism

[prisonchaplain]

4 minutes ago, ldsister said:

I'm sure some were troubled, but that's okay. I was troubled when they openly voiced their support for Trump, but their right to do so without being accused of grandstanding remained intact, just as the singer's right to quit and openly announce why without being accused of underhanded motives should also remain intact. 

If that happened, then apparently the precedent was already set.  I guess fair's fair in this most unusual season. 

[ldsister]

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If that happened, then apparently the precedent was already set.  I guess fair's fair in this most unusual season. 

Sorry. My antecedent was unclear. By "they" I mean LDS supporters of Trump, not the Motab. 

I was troubled when LDS supporters of Trump made their support publicly known. I was, in fact, DEEPLY troubled when Beck prayed at the Trump rally (shudder), but I didn't accuse her of grandstanding or having underhanded motives. 

In that same vein of respect, Trump supporters should not now turn around and accuse this choir member and other Mormons who are troubled by the choir's participation of grandstanding and whining and having underhanded motives. She's standing up for what she believes in, just like Beck did. We can't call each other names or accuse each other of nastiness for being public about our beliefs. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by ldsister

[prisonchaplain]

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.'

[ldsister]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

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.'

No, it's not a breach of spiritual etiquette, and even if it had been, that door was blown WIDE THE HECK OPEN by one of the church's most prominent women praying at a Trump rally. You wanna talk about taking a public stand--that one was colossal. A choir member quitting is small potatoes compared to that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, ldsister said:

No, it's not a breach of spiritual etiquette, and even if it had been, that door was blown WIDE THE HECK OPEN by one of the church's most prominent women praying at a Trump rally. You wanna talk about taking a public stand--that one was colossal. A choir member quitting is small potatoes compared to that. 

It's tough for LDS liberals because they are in a small minority. My heart goes out to them. 

[ldsister]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's tough for LDS liberals because they are in a small minority. My heart goes out to them. 

Funny thing--I'm not even a liberal. I hate Trump because of his character. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, ldsister said:

Funny thing--I'm not even a liberal. I hate Trump because of his character. 

You and I will get along swimmingly because I'm the same way.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

15 hours ago, ldsister said:

I was troubled when LDS supporters of Trump made their support publicly known. I was, in fact, DEEPLY troubled when Beck prayed at the Trump rally (shudder), but I didn't accuse her of grandstanding or having underhanded motives. 

In that same vein of respect, Trump supporters should not now turn around and accuse this choir member and other Mormons who are troubled by the choir's participation of grandstanding and whining and having underhanded motives. She's standing up for what she believes in, just like Beck did. We can't call each other names or accuse each other of nastiness for being public about our beliefs. 

I was/am troubled by Beck's choice as well. Great point here.

[estradling75]

All this talk of social activism reminds me of a scripture..

Matthew 6

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

 

It seems pretty clear to me that God thinks we can to righteousness without needing a press conference.  In fact most of what the Church does it does without fanfare or pointing it out.  This lady choose to be seen of men... and therefore has the reward of being seen of men, but not of God.  Personally I think that is a poor choice and she will find the reward of men is not all it cracked up to be... Wereas God's rewards are eternal... But it was her choice to make

[yjacket]

On 12/31/2016 at 9:58 PM, Eowyn said:

1941 called. It wants its slur back.

I just love the modern culture (not) . . .simply the shortening of a word is a slur (blah).  Homo (as short for homosexual), Jap (as short for Japanese), etc. etc. etc. Modern crap; if I wanted to use a slur-I'd use a slur as there are plenty of other words that are really offensive that don't shorten the actual word.  That's something I've never quite figured out-simply shortening the word makes it "offensive"-what is the actual word itself offensive? Is saying Japanese offensive? No obviously not, but saying Jap is.  The absolute stupidity of modern culture. If someone tried to shorten American to Amee big deal.  Now I might have an issue if someone calls me a Yankee.  But the real offense comes in the connotation not in the actual word.  I did not mean in the least sense as a slur. 

[yjacket]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, diversity within limits is the "American way".  Certainly America was envisioned as a place that English, Scots, French, Dutch, and Germans; Quakers and Congregationalists and Anabaptists and Anglicans (and Jews, to a limited extent), could freely mingle and participate in American civic life on an equal footing (or, if they so chose, establish autonomous homogenous communities in pursuit of common ideological or religious aims; on the understanding that the larger federal government would not treat them preferentially or impose those aims elsewhere).  Thankfully, later generations expanded this paradigm to include other races.  It also accepted other religions to the extent that those religions were willing to be governed by Judeo-Christian moral codes and accept Enlightenment-type principles.  (Unfortunately, IMHO, the individual right to self-segregate into like-minded communities was eventually eroded.)

I don't think the American ideal of "diversity" ever suggested that you should be able to toss any two kids in a sandbox and force them to play nice in perpetuity.  Not one of the framers would have suggested that the Barbary Pirates--whose idea of "diversity" was that a Christian woman was just as rapeable as a Jew--should be allowed to establish a colony on Nantucket.  It would strike me as remarkably cavalier to suggest that America has no foundational cultural elements worth preserving and that tolerant liberal democracies will and must work wherever they are tried.

Thank you.  Yes, I don't care what color, race, ethnicity, etc. as long as you subscribe to American values; i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This used to happen plenty, it's called assimilation. It doesn't happen quite as much anymore.  Instead of an immigrant coming to the US and accepting my values, I'm now expected to accept and applaud their values.  I don't think so-that's not how it works.

I'm supposed to accept people like the following into my country:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/23/twin-falls-idaho-family-five-year-old-victim-rape-refugee-boys-refused-personally-accept-donation-given-local-city-councilman-publicly-insulted-th/

Refugees (whether they are Syrian, Iraq, or Sudan is irrelevant) that have a completely different culture (a culture that in general treats women like crap-but not always) come into my country, sexually assault a 5 year old autistic girl, and now this American family life is ruined. I'm supposed to be okay with that?  When my government provided the federal funds to settle them? When the federal government provides them a stipend to live?

That kind of "diversity" is absolutely stupid.  You don't have a country or a cohesive culture anymore if you import a foreign culture and it doesn't assimilate to your values.

[Guest]

Jap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

For other uses, see JAP (disambiguation).

 

Headlines announcing Japan's surrender in World War II

Jap is an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is generally regarded as an ethnic slur among Japanese minority populations in other countries, although English-speaking countries differ in the degree to which they consider the term offensive. In the United States, Japanese Americans have come to find the term controversial or offensive, even when used as an abbreviation.^[1] In the past, Jap was not considered primarily offensive; however, during and after the events of World War II, the term became derogatory.^[2]

[ldsister]

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

All this talk of social activism reminds me of a scripture..

Matthew 6

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

 

It seems pretty clear to me that God thinks we can to righteousness without needing a press conference.  In fact most of what the Church does it does without fanfare or pointing it out.  This lady choose to be seen of men... and therefore has the reward of being seen of men, but not of God.  Personally I think that is a poor choice and she will find the reward of men is not all it cracked up to be... Wereas God's rewards are eternal... But it was her choice to make

This is a good comparison. It raises the question, "How public must I be to achieve the good I am trying to achieve?" In some spheres, individuals can accomplish their goals very privately, as with their alms. In other spheres, individuals must take a public stand in order to achieve the good they aim for, not because they're seeking the praise, but because making people aware of something is the good they're hoping for. I believe that's the case here.

[Vort]

When you are representing the Church in an official capacity, you are not required to turn your brain off and submit to whatever decisions are made. But it looks obvious enough to me that you don't use that position (or the quitting of that position) to shout your sociopolitical agenda. That is disloyal to the body of Saints and to the Church, and in my opinion to him whose the Church is. It's a shameful thing, and I am ashamed of her for prostituting her position in the choir just to score some social points.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Vort

[ldsister]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

When you are representing the Church in an official capacity, you are not required to turn your brain off and submit to whatever decisions are made. But it looks obvious enough to me that you don't use that position (or the quitting of that position) to shout your sociopolitical agenda. That is disloyal to the body of Saints and to the Church, and in my opinion to him whose the Church is. It's a shameful thing, and I am ashamed of her for prostituting her position in the choir just to score some social points.

I'm intrigued by the fact that her decision has been seen in such widely disparate ways: some view it as grandstanding in order to gain social points. Others view it as giving public voice to those who have no say in their church's apparent endorsement of a morally reprehensible man. May I ask your reason for feeling so strongly that this was not a moral stand on her part, but rather a social pandering? 

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, ldsister said:

This is a good comparison. It raises the question, "How public must I be to achieve the good I am trying to achieve?" In some spheres, individuals can accomplish their goals very privately, as with their alms. In other spheres, individuals must take a public stand in order to achieve the good they aim for, not because they're seeking the praise, but because making people aware of something is the good they're hoping for. I believe that's the case here.

A faithful Latter-day Saint should know that the Church is a Kingdom run by God.  The power of the Church comes from God, and that any correction and course changes comes from the Top down... not the bottom up.

Any one that understands Government knows that the power of the Government comes from the people and therefore changes and corrections come from the bottom up.

Thus two wildly different organizations with two wildly different set of acceptable behaviors

The problem here is that this lady as a choir member was acting and using her position in the Kingdom of God to promote her own political agenda, and not the agenda of for which she was empowered by the church to represent.

 

[ldsister]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

A faithful Latter-day Saint should know that the Church is a Kingdom run by God.  The power of the Church comes from God, and that any correction and course changes comes from the Top down... not the bottom up.

Any one that understands Government knows that the power of the Government comes from the people and therefore changes and corrections come from the bottom up.

Thus two wildly different organizations with two wildly different set of acceptable behaviors

The problem here is that this lady as a choir member was acting and using her position in the Kingdom of God to promote her own political agenda, and not the agenda of for which she was empowered by the church to represent.

 

Out of curiosity, what are your feelings about Julie B. Beck's endorsement of Trump? Do you consider her, as one of the most recognizable and prominent women in the church, as having used "her position in the Kingdom of God to promote her own political agenda"?

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, ldsister said:

I'm intrigued by the fact that her decision has been seen in such widely disparate ways: some view it as grandstanding in order to gain social points. Others view it as giving public voice to those who have no say in their church's apparent endorsement of a morally reprehensible man. May I ask your reason for feeling so strongly that this was not a moral stand on her part, but rather a social pandering? 

Because a moral stand never involved coming out in opposition to the Church. That is the very definition of disloyalty.

The decision for the Choir to perform or not WAS NOT HERS. Of course she "had no say". Why should she? Her only decision was whether she would participate or not. She chose not to. Fine. I can respect that. Heck, I might even have admired it, had I learned that she privately gave up a position she loved because she couldn't sanction the performance for a man she abhorred. I would not have agreed, since I don't see it as honoring Donald Trump, but I still might have admired such a difficult private decision.

But hers was not a private decision. She broadcast it for all to hear. She prostituted herself. She has her reward, the plaudits of those who hate Donald Trump more than they love the Church. That reward is hers, and no one takes it from her (except perhaps those who bestowed it). She is welcome to it. She most certainly does not have my admiration, or even my respect.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Out of curiosity, what are your feelings about Julie B. Beck's endorsement of Trump? Do you consider her, as one of the most recognizable and prominent women in the church, as having used "her position in the Kingdom of God to promote her own political agenda"?

So you're saying that people who hold Church leadership positions at any point in their lives are no longer permitted to have political opinions?

Let's see if I understand ldsister's opinions correctly. If you have ever at any time held a general leadership position in the Church, you should no longer participate publicly in any political activities -- or at least in those that ldsister disapproves of. But if you are currently serving as a representative of the Church, then it's a brave and wonderful thing if you publicly disassociate yourself with that position and proclaim the political reasons you do so.

Do I have it right?

[ldsister]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

So you're saying that people who hold Church leadership positions at any point in their lives are no longer permitted to have political opinions?

Let's see if I understand ldsister's opinions correctly. If you have ever at any time held a general leadership position in the Church, you should no longer participate publicly in any political activities -- or at least in those that ldsister disapproves of. But if you are currently serving as a representative of the Church, then it's a brave and wonderful thing if you publicly disassociate yourself with that position and proclaim the political reasons you do so.

Do I have it right?

I'm not asserting an opinion about Beck. I'm solely asking questions to more thoroughly understand your perspective. I'm still not sure I do. Did you ever explain what your feeling on Beck's PUBLIC endorsement of Trump was? You seem to make a very great distinction between private opinion and public statement as regards the choir member. Do you make the same distinction between between private opinion and public statement as regards Beck, or is that different in some way? 

Edited January 2, 2017 by ldsister

[Vort]

1 hour ago, ldsister said:

I'm not asserting an opinion about Beck. I'm solely asking questions to more thoroughly understand your perspective. I'm still not sure I do. Did you ever explain what your feeling on Beck's PUBLIC endorsement of Trump was? You seem to make a very great distinction between private opinion and public statement as regards the choir member. Do you make the same distinction between between private opinion and public statement as regards Beck, or is that different in some way? 

ldsister, I honestly don't understand how you can fail to see such an obvious distinction. Let me lay it out.

Did Sister Beck publicly leave her position as General RS President and announce she was doing so because the Church's actions didn't agree with her personal political agenda? In fact, did Sister Beck IN ANY WAY tie her personal political beliefs to the Church and its actions, either pro or con?

Did Sister Chamberlin?

There's your difference.

EDIT: I have no opinion about Sister Beck praying at Trump's whatever-it-was. As long as she didn't (ab)use her Church service to call attention to her actions, she can pray for whatever group she wants to pray for.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Vort

[ldsister]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

ldsister, I honestly don't understand how you can fail to see such an obvious distinction. Let me lay it out.

Did Sister Beck publicly leave her position as General RS President and announce she was doing so because the Church's actions didn't agree with her personal political agenda? In fact, did Sister Beck IN ANY WAY tie her personal political beliefs to the Church and its actions, either pro or con?

Did Sister Chamberlin?

There's your difference.

EDIT: I have no opinion about Sister Beck praying at Trump's whatever-it-was. As long as she didn't (ab)use her Church service to call attention to her actions, she can pray for whatever group she wants to pray for.

So your dislike of the choir member's choice stems not from her having an opinion, or even having a public opinion, but that that public opinion goes against a decision made by the church?

Edited January 3, 2017 by ldsister

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

ldsister, I honestly don't understand how you can fail to see such an obvious distinction. Let me lay it out.

Did Sister Beck publicly leave her position as General RS President and announce she was doing so because the Church's actions didn't agree with her personal political agenda? In fact, did Sister Beck IN ANY WAY tie her personal political beliefs to the Church and its actions, either pro or con?

Did Sister Chamberlin?

There's your difference.

EDIT: I have no opinion about Sister Beck praying at Trump's whatever-it-was. As long as she didn't (ab)use her Church service to call attention to her actions, she can pray for whatever group she wants to pray for.

IMHO, it boils down to whether the individual is using their church service--be it past or present--to amplify their own voice on a non-church-related issue.

Would the Trump campaign still have reached out to Beck had she not served as general RS president?  I sincerely don't know--maybe she has the academic/professional/community service/political credentials to have gotten the invite on her own merits . .  . or maybe not.  But I'm pretty sure that Sister Chamberlain's melodramatic Trump-as-Hitler rant would be but one of a billion footnotes in the annals of petty Facebook melodrama were it not for her particular church calling, which she seems to have leveraged to gain herself a national audience.

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, ldsister said:

So your dislike of the choir member's choice stems not from her having an opinion, or even having a public opinion, but that that public opinion goes against a decision made by the church?

Not sure how else to explain it to you, ldsister. I thought I was careful and thorough, but perhaps I have done a poor job of explaining. You know, the reader has some responsibility to take care in reading and parsing what is written. Perhaps it is you that has done a poor job of actually reading what was written. In any case, I will try once more.

I object to Sister Chamberlin using her position in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as a pulpit for declaring her political opinion. She disgraces herself by publicly quitting the Choir and specifying it's because she doesn't like the president-elect. Had she quietly left the Choir because of her political opinion, I would have respected and even admired that. But, of course, I would not have, because I would not have known about it. And THAT was her whole point -- she wanted everyone to know about it. Despicable.

I would have felt the same way had Sister Beck trotted around proclaiming her previous status as General Relief Society president and pretending that had some bearing on her prayer at Trump's function. But of course, Sister Beck did no such thing. Unlike Sister Chamberlin, Sister Beck would not do any such thing.

Is that clear? Or do you still think this has something to do with my perception of public opinion?

[ldsister]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure how else to explain it to you, ldsister. I thought I was careful and thorough, but perhaps I have done a poor job of explaining. You know, the reader has some responsibility to take care in reading and parsing what is written. Perhaps it is you that has done a poor job of actually reading what was written. In any case, I will try once more.

I object to Sister Chamberlin using her position in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as a pulpit for declaring her political opinion. She disgraces herself by publicly quitting the Choir and specifying it's because she doesn't like the president-elect. Had she quietly left the Choir because of her political opinion, I would have respected and even admired that. But, of course, I would not have, because I would not have known about it. And THAT was her whole point -- she wanted everyone to know about it. Despicable.

I would have felt the same way had Sister Beck trotted around proclaiming her previous status as General Relief Society president and pretending that had some bearing on her prayer at Trump's function. But of course, Sister Beck did no such thing. Unlike Sister Chamberlin, Sister Beck would not do any such thing.

Is that clear? Or do you still think this has something to do with my perception of public opinion?

Your responses have contained a variety of concerns, and I've been asking follow-up questions to make sure I completely understand your perspective. With this final response, I believe I thoroughly understand your position. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

Edited January 3, 2017 by ldsister