- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
That link doesn’t seem to be working. Can you edit and post again? Or is that article taken down? There’s an interesting piece in today’s SLTrib about it. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4762845-155/singer-resigns-from-mormon-tabernacle-choir Quote:LDS leaders announced the decision to perform last week. Not all 360 singers will make the trip, but church officials have said about 215 are expected to volunteer.
The choir previously sang at swearing-in ceremonies for George H. W. Bush (1989), Richard Nixon (1969) and Lyndon Johnson (1965). It performed in inaugural parades for George W. Bush (2001), George H. W. Bush (1989) and Ronald Reagan (1981).
Other than the fact that they seem to mostly perform for one party (LBJ aside)… it sounds from the figures as if other people are not happy… probably at least fifty or sixty.
The Radio City Rockettes are in a similar situation. mom3 wrote:The Radio City Rockettes are in a similar situation.
But the dress code is a bit different between the 2 groups.SamBee wrote:Other than the fact that they seem to mostly perform for one party (LBJ aside)…
How many asked? I seriously doubt they turn down requests to perform at major Federal events unless there’s an unavoidable scheduling conflict.
NightSG wrote:How many asked? I seriously doubt they turn down requests to perform at major Federal events unless there’s an unavoidable scheduling conflict.
This. As soon as the MoTab was invited to perform they were thrust into a no-win situation. Turn down the invitation? It’s a political move. Accept the invitation? It’s a political move. Personally I’d love to see the church bow out of politics completely but that’s not going to happen. People are involved in politics. The church is people.
I’m not a fan of all the divisiveness though. Members not okay with the MoTab singing for Trump. Members not okay with other members not being okay with the MoTab singing for Trump. Members not being okay with members that are not okay with members that are not okay with the MoTab singing for Trump. etc. Then there’s the jerks that take issue with all the divisiveness and pretend they are above it all.
Here’s how I look at it. Without meaning to offend anyone, I will say that I’m very worried about the upcoming Trump Presidency. (So as to offend equally, I would have been very worried about a Clinton Presidency for different reasons). If Pres Trump asked me to serve on his Cabinet, I would gladly and eagerly accept because I would want to try my feeble best to do my part to bridge the gaps in the country and moderate extremism. There will be a Cabinet, whether I’m on it or not, but at this point, I can only hope we will be OK and try to do what I can to make it that way. Likewise, there will be a Presidential Inauguration, whether the MoTab sings in it or not. I’m neither a Trump or a Clinton fan myself. I think it is dangerous to link the church with something political like this. Ted Nugent is pro-Trump, we know that. But that’s Nugent’s choice. Ask the hundreds of MoTab members, and all the church members (however many there are), plus investigators… and you’ll get numerous answers. We know many Utahns were McMullin supporters or nearly his supporters… like many two-party elections, people are forced into the “less bad” option.
In a way, it’s not even about hating Trump. Could you imagine hardcore Republicans being forced to perform for Clinton?
SamBee wrote:Could you imagine hardcore Republicans being forced to perform for Clinton?
Being forced? Not likely. Putting aside personal opinions for a day to respectfully participate in one of the important ceremonies of our form of government, regardless of who else is there? Sure.
I must admit this is where the monarchical elements of the US presidency come in. They may have got rid of King George but they did not get rid of the king… The president, despite the kingly aspects, is still a political figure who got in there by campaigning for a party… unlike say Queen Elizabeth who just inherited her job as head of state.
An interesting podcast on http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/” class=”bbcode_url”> One point these drive home is that MOST members of the church are outside the US. It can be debated how many people actually like Trump in the US (some voted not so much for him as “I can’t vote for the other candidates”), but you go outside the US and the % of people saying “What the $%@# is the US doing” goes way up. And that carries over into the non-US Mormon population.
This is of course a small group and I am sure there are some non-US members that are not up in arms.
One item that stood out to me was one of the people contributing said something to the effect of “This church really stresses not even giving any appearance of evil – one earing, telling 5 year old girls in “The Friend” to cover their shoulders, but doesn’t see how this looks outside of the US.” And one good “sound bite” from a Sister that served a mission on temple square. “I listened to the Tab every week, maybe it is time for the Tab to listen to us.”
It will be interesting to see the fallout of next Friday.
NightSG wrote:SamBee wrote:Could you imagine hardcore Republicans being forced to perform for Clinton?
Being forced? Not likely. Putting aside personal opinions for a day to respectfully participate in one of the important ceremonies of our form of government, regardless of who else is there? Sure.
I don’t think any members of MoTab are being forced. From what I understand, there is not room for the full choir and members were asked if they wished to participate or not and placed in a “lottery” because more than the allotted number expressed desire to participate. If my understanding is correct, every member that will sing next week has chosen to be there and no member who would rather not perform will be there. It is apparent Sr. Chamberlain knew this at the time she offered her very public resignation, while others who might have chosen not to participate did so quietly, without fanfare, and while retaining their choir membership. And, the choir is almost never actually full anyway – people take vacations or have other conflicts and miss performances and broadcasts all the time. Any member could have chosen to just not be available.
Frankly I think the choir sees this as a non-partisan event, it is a national event. Not wishing or meaning to offend, but it is an honor for someone to be invited to participate in such a national event.
I should also point out that the Clintons are planning to attend. I am not sure of their current friendship status, but prior to this vile election the Clintons and Trumps were rather close friends.
Fallout? Negligible for the choir (or the Clintons). It remains to be seen what will happen after next Friday. I do trust the framers of our Constitution and the foresight of checks and balances built into the government. I frankly think Mr. Trump will be checked and balanced more than Mr. Obama has been.
And just to be perfectly clear, I am not a Trump fan or supporter and I did not vote for for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.
I understand why people are upset, but I don’t care. I read a blog post by a black member of the choir who hates Trump but sees her role in the choir as being a good-will ambassador to the world – so she chose to sing at the inauguration.
The members had the choice. Some chose to sing; others chose to stay home. Cool by me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.