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

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

Re-read the thread, if you missed it.

M.

Hypocrisy..   Defending someone that accused a person of being Hitler... from be accused of things.  Supporting one persons freedom to express themselves from other peoples freedom to express themselves.

And thus you are a perfect example of how your actions and opinions change based on if you find it politically beneficial

[Maureen]

27 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Hypocrisy..   Defending someone that accused a person of being Hitler... from be accused of things.  Supporting one persons freedom to express themselves from other peoples freedom to express themselves.

And thus you are a perfect example of how your actions and opinions change based on if you find it politically beneficial

You didn't re-read the thread, did you.

M.

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, Maureen said:

You didn't re-read the thread, did you.

M.

Why would I need to...  You are defending a woman that accuses a man "Hitler" from accusation of things she did not do...

I know no one in this thread accused her of attempted Genocide of a race she did not like, I don't need to look back on the thread to know that.

But until you defend Trump from her accusations with equal vigor you are a hypocrite 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

I do not see Chamberlin as a victim, only someone accused of something she didn't do.

The only thing Sister Chamberlin was wrongly accused of was of volunteering for a place in the Choir's inauguration presentation just so that she could quit with more visibility. This was flatly untrue, based on false reports and a bad reading of an ambiguous sentence in a news report. She should not have been accused of it. I and at least one other person who believed this false accusation have publicly withdrawn it and apologized for it.

Other than that, that of which Sister Chamberlin has been accused appears to be absolutely true, by her own account and public actions. She has indeed made a public spectacle of this matter. Had her Facebook posting been merely a slip, she could immediately have said, "Oh, my, I did not realize everyone could see it", made the post private (or nuked it), and not made any more of the matter. Instead she proclaimed her desire to make her opinion known and interviewed at least with the SL Tribune, belying any possible claim that this was all just an accident. She did indeed use her position as a member of the Choir to forward her personal political views. This is what Latter-day Saints view as reprehensible: Using a sacred Church calling to broadcast your politics. She is not the first nor the highest-ranking person to do this, and doubtless she will not be the last. But it's still reprehensible. And that is fundamentally what the stink is about.

If you think she has been falsely accused of other things, please detail them. I can't see anything else she has been wrongly accused of, though I'm perfectly willing to be corrected if wrong. On the other hand, if it's you who is wrong, I hope you're equally willing to admit fault and accept correction.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

@MormonGator also inspired me because he always seems to find something good in people. 

 

 

Have you missed everything @MormonGator says about me!!! 

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Have you missed everything @MormonGator says about me!!! 

 

 

If you think that's bad you should see what he posts on my Facebook wall. 

[Maureen]

@estradling75, read the 1st paragraph of @Vort's latest post. Other than that I look at Chamberlin's passionate opinion as her right to say whatever she believes. If she does it privately or publicly it doesn't matter to me. I don't think her resignation or her opinion make the Motab or LDS Church look bad. She is only one member of many. I don't see her as a victim and I don't believe she sees herself as a victim. I'm not a fan of Trump, so whatever her opinions are about him, they don't hurt my feelings. 

M.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'm not a fan of Trump, so whatever her opinions are about him, they don't hurt my feelings.

That is true for most of us that think her actions were execrable.

Sincere question, Maureen: Can you explain why people are upset about Chamberlin's actions? I mean people who don't particularly love Trump and otherwise have no argument with those who criticize him. Because it looks to me like the reasoning completely escapes you, based on what you have posted. But I might be wrong.

[Maureen]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is true for most of us that think her actions were execrable.

Sincere question, Maureen: Can you explain why people are upset about Chamberlin's actions? I mean people who don't particularly love Trump and otherwise have no argument with those who criticize him. Because it looks to me like the reasoning completely escapes you, based on what you have posted. But I might be wrong.

She believes his principles and morals are equivalent to Hilter's. I would guess this may be the main reason why many are upset with her views. Some LDS, like yourself Vort, are upset with how public her views have become. Do you think her public views make the LDS Church look bad? There could be more reasons but I'm too lazy to guess what they may be.

M.

 

[Bad Karma]

Any argument that woman had, if it made sense or not became null and void when she used her calling/job to grandstand on it. 

I've served under Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama administrations, I did not make remarks about the POTUS while at work, or in uniform or representing the Army in any way. I did my duty, took my opinions home with me, and I kept them there.

What do I think she should have done? Within the scope of her calling/job, kept her mouth shut, and with due diligence, done her duty, brought her personal opinions home, voiced them there. Professionalism! 

Edited January 7, 2017 by Bad Karma

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

@estradling75, read the 1st paragraph of @Vort's latest post. Other than that I look at Chamberlin's passionate opinion as her right to say whatever she believes. If she does it privately or publicly it doesn't matter to me. I don't think her resignation or her opinion make the Motab or LDS Church look bad. She is only one member of many. I don't see her as a victim and I don't believe she sees herself as a victim. I'm not a fan of Trump, so whatever her opinions are about him, they don't hurt my feelings. 

M.

I did read it... and I total see one accusation and I see the retraction when more information clarifies confusing statement in the new articles.  So when will we see your acknowledgement that one can not both attempt to "Raise Awareness" but not be responsible for that "Awareness being raised"  Or  since you are so concerned about people being falsely accused.. your acknowledgement that comparing anyone to Hitler is over the top (unless they are responsible for millions of deaths)?

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by estradling75

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

She believes his principles and morals are equivalent to Hilter's. I would guess this may be the main reason why many are upset with her views. Some LDS, like yourself Vort, are upset with how public her views have become. Do you think her public views make the LDS Church look bad? There could be more reasons but I'm too lazy to guess what they may be.

As I suspected, you have no conception of why many here are upset at what she has done. It has been explained repeatedly, in great detail. It is discouraging to hear you offer up reasoning like that I'm "upset with how public her views have become." If careful explanation of what we think does not suffice to educate people such as yourself on what we think, I see no hope for dialog. Your side simply is not listening.

(I do not know if her public views make the LDS Church "look bad". I suspect they do, but mainly among those who are predisposed to think badly of the LDS Church. I don't really care very much whether her views make the Church "look bad" in the eyes of the world and the worldly.)

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

mainly among those who are predisposed to think badly of the LDS Church

...who can have difficulty seeing clearly past their deep steeping in smug satisfaction at anything that seems to hurt the LDS Church's optics.

[mordorbund]

On 12/31/2016 at 11:36 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Ok folks.  We are greying, and nobody remembers Hitler firsthand.  It's important to remind/educate everyone about what happened, and where this "roses before Hitler" statement came from.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html

 

 

Several pages later, I think this is worth seeing again.

On a(n un)related note: America hasn't always been leery of fascist associations. You might say the symbolic fasce upheld the throne.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

55 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Several pages later, I think this is worth seeing again.

On a(n un)related note: America hasn't always been leery of fascist associations. You might say the symbolic fasce upheld the throne.

I'm familiar with this (from a favorite author, Richard Maybury), I just can't figure out quite what to make of it (when I read the book or now).  What do you think about this?  

[Guest MormonGator]

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm familiar with this (from a favorite author, Richard Maybury), I just can't figure out quite what to make of it (when I read the book or now).  What do you think about this?  

America loves fascists, as long as the leader is one we agree with. IE-Liberals would cheer if Obama banned guns by fiat. Then they'd cry and weep if Trump banned abortions. If it even need to be said, the opposite is true too. 

[estradling75]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

As I suspected, you have no conception of why many here are upset at what she has done. It has been explained repeatedly, in great detail. It is discouraging to hear you offer up reasoning like that I'm "upset with how public her views have become." If careful explanation of what we think does not suffice to educate people such as yourself on what we think, I see no hope for dialog. Your side simply is not listening.

 

Sad isn't... the people who make the biggest fuss about how other need to listen, understand, and have empathy... utter fail to practice what they scold others for not doing

Edited January 7, 2017 by estradling75

[Guest MormonGator]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

 Your side simply is not listening.

 

No one is listening. And this isn't just an LDS thing or a this thread thing. It's a human nature thing. We listen to those we agree with and we just shout at people we disagree with. 

[estradling75]

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

America loves fascists, as long as the leader is one we agree with. IE-Liberals would cheer if Obama banned guns by fiat. Then they'd cry and weep if Trump banned abortions. If it even need to be said, the opposite is true too. 

Indeed...

The simple fact that people forget is the the Government/President only has the power the people let it have.  The people who publicly fear that Trump will bring the jack-booted foot of government down on them and there lifestyle pretty much acknowledge by that act that they have all ready surrendered such power to the government.  (See christian bakers and florist and anyone else in hot water because of against gay marriage) The weapon they were ok with before is now the weapon they fear.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No one is listening. And this isn't just an LDS thing or a this thread thing. It's a human nature thing. We listen to those we agree with and we just shout at people we disagree with. 

So true. It reminds me of the old cliche about when you point at someone there are three fingers pointing back at you. We're all guilty of this, its just harder to see in ourselves.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So true. It reminds me of the old cliche about when you point at someone there are three fingers pointing back at you. We're all guilty of this, its just harder to see in ourselves.

It's because people lack the ability to look inward. You have to make a concentrated effort to do so, and no one wants to do that because they might not like what they see. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's because people lack the ability to look inward. You have to make a concentrated effort to do so, and no one wants to do that because they might not like what they see. 

Like in the movie, Neverending Story. One of the tests the hero has to pass through is to look in a mirror that shows your true self. The hero thought it would be easy, but his mentor told him that few can stand to see who they really are. I've always found that thought-provoking.  Could I survive that mirror?  I think I've found a way to find out...simply ask the Lord "what lack I yet?" That is sure to send one on a journey of self-exploration. Maybe that fear is why more people don't ask. 

[zil]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's because people lack the ability to look inward.

I'm pretty sure you'd have to remove at least one eyeball to do this.  Otherwise, it's mechanically impossible.

[Vort]

11 hours ago, MormonGator said:

No one is listening.

Not so. Those on this forum who disapprove of Sister Chamberlin's actions seem to understand the opinions of those who laud her. We simply disagree with those opinions. I bet you could ask any one of us to voice the supporters' reasons, and we could do a creditable job of explaining them to you.

In contrast, Maureen has demonstrated no real understanding of the reasons held by those who disapprove of how Sister Chamberlin has pursued this issue; the best she could do was to posit (wrongly) that I was "unhappy with how public her [Chamberlin's] views had become." This is not a matter of disagreeing with an opinion; it is a matter of completely misunderstanding that opinion. From what I've seen, it's not just Maureen.

I am not looking for a fight, but I'm not willing to accept a false equivalency. It's easy to say "Both sides are at fault here." But when one side is overwhelmingly more at fault in some point than the other, it is disingenuous to pose the false equivalency that "both sides are wrong." In the present case, it is a false equivalency to say that "no one is listening." One side appears to be doing a pretty good amount of listening, while the other appears to have their collective fingers in their ears.

[estradling75]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

I am not looking for a fight, but I'm not willing to accept a false equivalency. It's easy to say "Both sides are at fault here." But when one side is overwhelmingly more at fault in some point than the other, it is disingenuous to pose the false equivalency that "both sides are wrong." In the present case, it is a false equivalency to say that "no one is listening." One side appears to be doing a pretty good amount of listening, while the other appears to have their collective fingers in their ears.

Indeed... sad thing... One side has been not only listening but fully willing to acknowledge when they were in error about a statement, idea or comment, when the other side points it out.  That shows not only listening but understanding.  Where as the other side fails to acknowledge their errors, the closest they come is "well everyone does it" showing a total lack of personal accountably for their actions.  And it is also the same side that screams the loudest demands that everyone should listen and empathize with people with different view points.