On Dec 22, the LDS Newsroom announced that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has agreed to sing at President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. This has drawn fierce criticism from many, and the Deseret News reported that reactions were mixed to the announcement. Many of my friends on Facebook were appalled at the announcement. One friend said that he would not have been surprised if the Mormon Tabernacle Choir would have accepted an invitation from the Third Reich, or Vladimir Putin. That might not be far from the truth. Morgan Deane noted that J Reuben Clark of the First Presidency supported the Nazi regime, and I wrote that Clark refused to help Jews emigrate from Germany. There was even a Deseret News article praising Mormon Missionaries working with the Nazi basketball team in preparation for the Olympics.
Some people are taking a stand against Trump’s bigoted, racist, and sexist comments. The Rockettes announced that they would also perform at the inauguration; one of the dancers balked, posting a message on Instagram: “The women I work with are intelligent and are full of love and the decision of performing for a man that stands for everything we’re against is appalling.” This led to the union who represent the women announcing that the performance is voluntary after dancers complained about being coerced into performing. It seems that the sometimes scantily clad women are making a bigger moral stand than the wholesome Tabernacle Choir.
The LDS Newsroom noted that this is the sixth presidential inauguration the choir has been invited to attend “for both parties”, but the choir hasn’t performed for a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson in 1965 (which was the last time a democrat won the vote in Utah, by the way.) The choir has sung at the inauguration for Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.
What are your thoughts? Is it more important for the church to be patriotic, or make a stand against the horrible remarks that Trump has made?
Wheat & Tares 
Here’s the petition for those who’d like to register their objection: https://www.change.org/p/the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-mormon-tabernacle-choir-should-not-perform-at-trump-inauguration?
I am not privy to the MOTAB’s general objectives, likely they include some vague notion of “missionary work” somewhere in the list. So, I choose not to be overly critical of the church’s decision–ignoring any political bias the Q15 may have. Not that I think the public image damage of appearing at the Inauguration when so many have refused is minor.
On the other hand, I think Trump is a total jerk, joke, embarrassment, etc. And, while I am on that topic, I disagree with the simplistic “I wish the President-Elect success in his presidency.” I would ask any of the politicians, etc. (Mitt) to explain just which of Trump’s intents (policies?) they wish him to be successful in. What they should be saying is, we have to be as respectful of the office of the president as we can, regardless of our grave concerns over the travesty this particular office-holder will be.
Like the Rockettes, the assignment isn’t mandatory. According to the Trib, they are asking for 215 volunteers and there are 360 members in the choir. There is opportunity for singers who feel strongly about the issue to back out. A post-election Mormon Newsroom piece congratulated Trump on his win, also thanking Clinton and all who participate in the election process. The church tries to make clear that it sustains current government leadership, even if that leadership makes decisions the church doesn’t like (when Russia passed the recent rules banning proselyting, the church responded that they will “honor, sustain and obey the law”). Elder Oaks suggested that “loyal opposition” has a place in the democratic process (when he was making the argument that it has no place in the church), but it is not something the church as an institution tends to do. They leave that to individual members among the electorate.
I should amend my comment – the church will act as loyal opposition to express disagreement over specific laws, policies, or positions, but they will never act to undermine the authority of the elected officials themselves. The most recent example I can think of is that October 2016 interfaith letter addressed to Obama, Orrin Hatch, and Paul Ryan registering “deep concern” on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith-coalition-president-congress-biased-religious-liberty-report)
Standing against Trump’s horrible remarks, white supremacy, and unfit cabinet picks IS patriotic, IMO. Honestly, being asked to perform there just shows the irrelevance of the choir. Nobody they wanted agreed to perform. But allowing individual choir members to choose not to perform seems like a workable solution. I wouldn’t want the choir to sing at Caligula’s inauguration either.
MH: First of all, did the MOTAB receive invites from Carter, Clinton, and Obama? I’m not aware of any refusals but could be wrong.
And, for every comment from Trump that gets thrown into the all-purpose BRSH file, I can name similar comments from Liberals against sincere Christians, the Working -Class, or ANYONE who doesn’t espouse Liberal ideology. Witness the “First Lady ” making the moronic comments of being proud to be an American only after her husband got elected; and now saying that Americans have no hope.
Angela, I thought you made a good point over at BCC comparing the choir to Mitt Romney – Romney acquiesced to Trump’s request to meet out of patriotic duty. It was incredibly embarassing and painful to see him “kiss the ring,” but it matches an old school style of patriotism that Trump is more than willing to exploit. The church will receive a black eye for participating, but they adhere to the same old school style of patriotism that Romney did.
I always assumed the Choir represented the Church as a whole. If that is true, they should have some sort of standard. Would they have played for king Noah.? How come Abinidi didnt do a dance and song for him? Trump has shown over and over he is thin skinned, sexual misogynist, who sees the world through a selfish prism. The Choir should not be associated with that.
markag:
For the record, it was well before the presidential election–during the primaries in February to be exact—when Michelle Obama stated ” “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
I voted “indifferent” simply because the church has often failed at certain junctures to do what is “right.” For example, the priesthood ban existed
long after passage of the Civil Rights Act. The church involvement in the dishonest and fear-mongering Prop 8 campaign is another. The white-washed history is another. I guess I no longer expect or look to the church as the ultimate example on moral issues. I’m sure there would’ve been a huge outcry if Hillary (or any Democrat for that matter) had won and the MOTAB had participated in the inauguration. Let’s face it, the most important disqualifying issues for many/most LDS Republicans are abortion and same-sex marriage. Adultery, sexual harassment, attacking minorities, shady business dealings can all be overlooked.
But it is also true that outside the U.S. the MOTAB participation will be looked at negatively. So much for it being a “missionary tool.”
On the other hand, if it is true that individual MOTAB members are not required to participate that is good.
The church-owned Deseret News covered Romney non-stop during his campaign, which kind of blurred the line between not endorsing a
particular candidate vs focusing on issues.
Trump won the election. He was voted “for” by people likely to join the church. He was voted “against” by people more likely to not join the church.
The church world not gain converts from people who vaguely believe in a distant God and think the church is heavily or moderately sexist and racist of only the choir refused (and said nothing publicly so it would be a secret refusal).
This doesn’t mean the church accepted the offer as a form of missionary real politik among interested converts, but all the complainers seem to forget that millions of people did support the guy (oppose Hilary), even though they disagree with his sexual banter and adulterous history.
He’s the President now (soon) and he needs to be surrounded by good people. Not people so principled that they’d cut off the nation’s nose to spite it’s face.
Likewise, the choir can be a reasonable force for uplifting music on a stage watched by millions.
The people publicly opposed to this are only going to interject more polarizing forces into society and the church. Chess is played several moves a head and they are playing in a reactionary way that’s guaranteed to compound problems.
I refuse to throw up my hands in defeat/protest and allow the country to go to hell over the next four years. If someone like Trump will be directing our affairs, you can bet I will be doing my part to dilute him with goodness. There should be an army of us dedicated to doing (and publicizing) works of kindness and tolerance. So, I consider the MoTab performance to be something like “equal time.” If he gets to spout off his hateful rhetoric, I’m glad some goodness will also be represented.
Dilute him, everyone. However you can.
It may be that the MoTab will inject some “goodness” into the event. However, I think many people will see it as like going with like. In other words many will believe that Trump represents the “impolite” branch of the same racist, misogynistic, homophobic tree.
I was appalled, but unsurprised. All will be forgiven if they sing “I Have Two Little Hands”.
The good news about all this is I have more faith in my own moral judgement than the collective wisdom of the “Church.” The Choir will perform for a man who opposes everything fair and decent and yet the leadership thinks this is actually a good think and has defended it’s position. I will put my faith in my own God given conscience over some elderly men in Salt Lake.
Fact No. 1 — Trump won in a fair and honest election.
Fact No. 2 — The election is over. Clinton lost.
Fact No . 3 — The choir has sung at every inauguration to which it was invited.
Fact No. 4 — We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Given these facts, I’m okay with the choir singing at the inauguration. There really is no other reasonable choice. Participating in a civic event need not be seen as an endorsement of a political party or person. If Clinton had won (she didn’t), I’m rather confident the choir would have sung for her inauguration if invited (but I’m not at all confident that she would have invited the choir).
“He was voted “for” by people likely to join the church. He was voted “against” by people more likely to not join the church.”
What an ugly stereotype. You might actually be surprised. Any actual data that converts are more likely to be Republican? Where there are more Democrats, converts are more likely to be Democrats. Or college grads or whatever.
While i was at BYU, I ran into a former colleague who was shocked to see me there. He had not shared the gospel with me because he had decided that I was not likely to accept it. Which is not a call for any of us to make.
I do understand that some good people voted for current president elect. And 37% of Germans voted for Hitler.
We need to respect the office, but not any one person holding it. Sending the choir is entirely voluntary.
Singer resigns from Mormon Tabernacle Choir, says she ‘could never look myself in the mirror again’ if she performed for Trump
See http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4762845-155/singer-resigns-from-mormon-tabernacle-choir
Just curious ji, if Hitler or Putin invited the choir, do you think the church should send them?
To be fair (and having lived in Germany), I do not think that Germans actually knew as much about Hitler prior to that election as USAmericans did about Trump prior to his election, thanks to Twitter.
Also, while I want very much to agree with ji that it was a fair election, I think it has a huge asterisk next to it thanks to Director Comey and the Russians. The post-election polling is suggesting that many Trump voters made up their minds in the last two weeks, and the Comey letter had a huge hit on willingness to support Clinton (Not that she was that great of a candidate….I’m for Tammy Duckworth in 2020!).
I think there is a huge gap between being subject to our rulers (I actually pay taxes, unlike our President Elect) and speaking out in protest. The latter is our duty as citizens. I am very grateful to Lindsey Graham and John McCain for their excellent leadership in this area, of being respectful of the office, but speaking truth and not bowing to the White House.
And this election certainly presents an intriguing outcome from a Book of Mormon point of view (Mosiah 29:25-27). We have been warned that, “it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right,” but because of our electoral system, the minority view prevailed in this election.
“He was voted “for” by people likely to join the church.” Evangelicals? Not bloody likely!
“He was voted “against” by people more likely to not join the church.” People with a conscience? Perhaps you are right, but I hope not.
MH,
Yes, I think the choir would go to Russia for in the near future if an opportunity arose. I don’t know if the choir traveled overseas in the old days, but yes, I think the choir would have sung in Germany in the early- or mid-thirties. For example, I could easily imagine the choir singing at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.
I think it would be unwise for the choir to accept an invitation from Hitler or Putin, and would damage the church’s reputation.
MH,
We may have differing ideas about the choir. To me, the choir singing in the world can soften hearts, open doors, and facilitate dialogue. I think we unnecessarily limit ourselves by seeing a choir engagement as a reward for previous righteousness. As an example, the Savior visited and even ate meals in the homes of acknowledged sinners. If the choir’s singing in Russia could be helpful to people living there, I would be okay with the choir singing there even while Mr. Putin is still president.
When the choir sings in the inauguration, it might sing My Country, ‘Tis of Thee. Or America the Beautiful. Or The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Republicans and Democrats alike enjoy these songs. I am pretty sure the choir will perform in a non-partisan manner. Even so, I know nothing about the choir’s internal workings.
I’m not advocating for the choir’s mandatory inclusion in the event. However, I support the choir’s acceptance of the invitation. Snubbing or spurning the invitation would be unseemly. Let’s make a joyful noise and beg the blessings of heaven on our country. If necessary, let’s forgive and move forward. This is how I see it.
May God bless our current president and our future presidents.
JI,
With all due respect, I have a few problems with your answer. Your answer is very pollyanna-ish. You magnify the good ramifications and completely ignore the bad. I posted the photo from the Deseret News showing Mormon Missionaries doing the Hitler salute for a reason. It’s bad optics. If Hitler required the same from the choir, do you think this would be a black eye for the church? Do you think anti-Mormons would be spreading this photo today, saying the church supported Hitler? Of course!
In a sense you are correct that the choir could have influenced German people for the good. That’s what the church was doing with the missionaries–opening up the German genealogy programs–AT THE COST OF JEWISH LIVES!!! J. Reuben Clark was anti-semitic. He didn’t help Jews escape Hitler, because he was soooo focused on good relations with Hitler. The Church supported Hitler at the expense of the Jews. This is a HUUUUGE downside risk. The church may have made some short terms gains with Hitler, but the message they sent was “who really cares about those stupid, Christ-killing Jews anyway? Todays Jews deserved to die for what they did to Christ 2000 years ago,” Mormons of the 1930s-40s said. And, supposing the choir put its stamp of approval on Hitler’s inauguration, the Church indirectly approved of Hitler’s killing machine. THAT’S UNCHRISTIAN! It sends the wrong message. It sends the message that the church approves Hitler, and hates Jews, and damages relations with the (future) nation of Israel, and gives Jewish critics further ammo to raise up issues with genealogy and work for the dead. It DAMAGES relations with the Jews.
The same applies to Putin.
So I ask you to examine the bad sides of the choir accepting such an invitation.
By accepting the President Trump’s invitation, essentially the Church doesn’t care about a pussy-grabbing president (Chastity and rape–who cares if the President-elect does it? Only the prophet Nathan who ripped King David for his similar treatment of women.) The Church endorses a president who insults Mexicans, Muslims, and Mormons. The Church doesn’t seek Blacks converts, but is just a-ok getting racist converts like Cliven Bundy (whom they have never disavowed) and the KKK. The Church approves of a president who is soooo inflammatory and racist or they would refuse to send the choir. I guess if you want to attract racist, sexist converts, that’s a good thing. But if you want truly CHRIST-LIKE and CHRISTIAN converts, sending the choir sends the wrong message. It says Mormons are hypocrites who care more about POWER than Christ. Christ was inclusive, except in the case of hypocrites like Trump. He ripped hypocrites constantly.
What would Jesus do? He refused to speak to the Hitler of his day, Herod. Christ wouldn’t give ammo to a political killer. That’s completely different than associating with a sinning Samaritan, so don’t conflate the two. It shows you don’t understand the context of your own Bible, and are wresting the scriptures.
“Snubbing or spurning the invitation would be unseemly.” I totally agree with this. But if the choir had simply chosen to politely decline the invitation, it probably would not have been public and of course there are other demands on the time and effort of the choir members–the choir need not say why they are declining.
Saying no is not the same thing as”snubbing” or “spurning.” I am not advocating that they perform at the alternative concert. And of course I will be praying for President Trump.
“To be fair (and having lived in Germany), I do not think that Germans actually knew as much about Hitler prior to that election…”
Naismith, while I don’t think Germans had a complete idea of what Hitler would be like, I think they knew more than you’re giving them credit. Hitler gained power in 1933. Prior to that, an LDS mission president wrote a letter in which he said he was not sure if the Communists or the Nazis would take power in Germany, but either option would be bad. According to David Conley Nelson’s book Moroni and the Swastika, (which I reviewed in 2015) page 88:
I think there is plenty of evidence that many knew Hitler and the Nazis were awful, even though they hadn’t started killing Jews just yet. Germans who say otherwise are like the Confederates today who claim the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery, but states rights. It’s a misdirection and flat out wrong. Hitler’s Nazis promised peace and order–by killing anyone who opposed them. Germans agreed it was the right tactic, and that’s why they voted him into office. Nazis were doing far worse than Trump supporters–we haven’t had machine gun killings here in the U.S. like they did before Hitler was elected, but the Germans were well aware of the violent nature of the Nazis.
I’m not saying the Communists were any better–both the Communists and Nazis were responsible for dumping the democratic Weimar Republic of Germany and causing genocide, but the markings were all there before Hitler took power, and lots of people could see it.
On this I just feel very tired. I put I was resigned to them singing, but I really really wish that they wouldn’t. Yep, one more reason I cannot feel good about suggesting to any non-member friends that the church might be for them…
I don’t think attending the inauguration needs to be an endorsement of Mr. Trump’s past. An inauguration is a really great occasion — one person voluntarily walks away from power, and another one assumes power, having been legally selected by the states in our union — a peaceful transition of power. Such is very rare in the history of the world, and is worthy of celebration. I don’t support Mr. Trump’s past, but I do support “truth, justice, and the American way” (to borrow from the Superman show).
The election is over. Mr. Trump won in a free and fair election. I’m glad we have free and fair elections. To me, the process is more important than the outcome. The people in the states were aware of Mr. Trump’s past and elected him anyway — maybe they have forgiven him? Forgiveness is good. Nothing good is gained by continued enmity towards Mr. Trump. Pollyanna-ish? Maybe. But I have enough confidence in our American way of life and way of government (constitution, checks and balances, and so forth) to still be hopeful for the future. We’ll have another election in four years. And, nothing good is gained by continued enmity towards the church or the choir for accepting the invitation. For all these reasons, I’m okay with the choir’s acceptance of the invitation.
I heard somewhere that the MTC would also form a choir for the inauguration. Is that true? If so, I want to sustain those who made the decision, but I feel no eagerness for that outcome. But we’re talking about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, not the Missionary Training Center. You know, as I think about it, they both form M-T-C — maybe the rumor about missionaries is an error?
If the moderators haven’t figured it out already, it’s pretty obvious somebody is gaming both the weekend poll results as well as the thumbs up/down voting for individual posts. It requires no technical skill to change the results at will, but I won’t mention how it’s done so as not to make matters worse. Based on the pattern of thumbs up/down voting, you can probably figure out who’s responsible. I can say with confidence that the weekend poll results and the thumbs up/down voting are compromised and we should not trust the results.
“I don’t think attending the inauguration needs to be an endorsement of Mr. Trump’s past.”
I totally agree. I did not become leery about accepting the invitation until after I saw some “news” outlets interpreting the choir’s participation as a church endorsement of Trump himself, not merely the office.
“Mr. Trump won in a free and fair election. I’m glad we have free and fair elections. To me, the process is more important than the outcome.”
Exactly. Protecting the process is important, This is exactly why Senators McCain and Graham are so concerned about involvement of the Russians. And why many are alarmed at Trump’s dismissal of the consensus report from the nation’s intelligence agencies.
“The people in the states were aware of Mr. Trump’s past and elected him anyway ….”
They elected him only after a last-minute bombshell from the FBI, fake news, and Russian leaks that embarrassed the Democratic party. Post-election polling has shown that a lot of folks, more than enough to make up that thin margin of victory he enjoyed, made up their minds in the last two weeks. This brings the fairness of the election into some question. Not enough to delegitimize Tump’s election, but certainly enough to raise much concern among those of us who hold our election process to be sacred.
“Nothing good is gained by continued enmity towards Mr. Trump.”
I am not arguing for enmity towards President Trump. I am arguing for concern, due diligence, and skepticism about his blithe disregard for the US Constitution (as evidenced in many of his tweets). And for clear recognition of his character.
“I think there is plenty of evidence that many knew Hitler and the Nazis were awful, even though they hadn’t started killing Jews just yet. Germans who say otherwise are like the Confederates today who claim the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery, but states rights. It’s a misdirection and flat out wrong. ”
I am not so sure about that,. I know it is hard to imagine a time before the Internet, but news was not as easily disseminated back then. When I lived in Germany in the 70s, I knew people who were young adults in the 1930s. I did not think they were lying when they told me about their gradual understanding of the horror, and the series of incremental changes in policy that ultimately allowed such evil to prevail.
I agree with you that yes, there were some people who knew early on, but depending on where you were and what your social circle was, maybe not. There can be a fine line between patriotism and oppression of Other. If you lived in a village without a newspaper, you only heard what was on the radio and what your neighbors said. Some of them had voluntarily joined the Army to be able to learn new skills or send money home, etc.
In Erik Larson’s book “In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin,” it reveals this gradual process. He served as US Ambassador to Berlin from 1933 to 1937. His daughter’s experiences are particularly revealing as she was very pro-Nazi before moving there.
Oops, the subject of the book was an ambassador, not the author….
I find myself loving every single one of Naismith’s comments. Highest of fives, Naismith.
Not sure I accept all of the premises of the question under discussion … “What are your thoughts? Is it more important for the church to be patriotic, or make a stand against the horrible remarks that Trump has made?”
– is accepting or refusing a request to sing a matter of ‘patriotism’ per se ie love of country – is it actual patriotism or the appearance of patriotism or merely a part of the system of governance?
– horrible in this context would seem to be a matter of perception – many people feel that his comments were perfectly acceptable / appropriate, others consider they were necessary to jolt the conversation out of its previous rut, others that he is careless / uncouth and others that he is the epitome of ultimate evil and what he says is nothing compared to what he will do/say in the future.
The questions is presented as a binary … but the issue is not a binary one and the choices presented are not the only options …
Politics is always the art of the possible and Christ Himself will not be running His kingdom based on people voting Him in or regular elections – it will be a conquest / reconquest and run as a theocracy not any form of democracy but we will still be supporting it based on our trust in Him etc. Aligning Trump to Hitler/Herod/Nero etc based on the reports of his enemies (or Hillary to Satan on the basis of her’s) when those reports do not match his past actions or his presently presented policies would seem an unwise pre-judgement.
————————–
ok read a bit further into the comments and get the feeling I may be wasting my keystrokes but hey I have gotten this far so ….
————————–
“By accepting the President Trump’s invitation, essentially the Church doesn’t care about a pussy-grabbing president (Chastity and rape–who cares if the President-elect does it? Only the prophet Nathan who ripped King David for his similar treatment of women.) ” I believe that Nathan also had an issue with murdering the husband, conspiracy to murder the husband, selfishness, oh and Mrs Beth wasn’t raped iirc – if you want to go after someone who used state apparatus to murder people for political and personal gain then you are focusing your attention on the wrong candidate (Bengahzi etc). Is this Trump’s current activity – no. Would he still agree that when you are powerful/rich that there are women who will let you do anything you want to them – of course he would as it is a true statement. Is he going to institute pussy grabbing lessons – no. Does he treat the women he lives with and works with with respect and honour – yes. Was he always that good – no.
“The Church endorses a president who insults Mexicans” – illegal Mexican immigrants – the current President of Mexico and record numbers of legal hispanic voters seem to be fine with his comments…
“, Muslims” exploding ones that are actively working against the constituted government.
“, and Mormons”- had to look this one up – do you mean the bit about it being an alien faith (which is true – most of Christendom considers the LDS to be a cult along with JWs, Scientologists etc) and that there is precedence of closing down mosques the same was Mormon churches had been shut down for breaking the law after DOJ investigation – which was not a blast against Mormons but a referral…
” The Church doesn’t seek Blacks converts, but is just a-ok getting racist converts like Cliven Bundy (whom they have never disavowed) and the KKK.” Apart from repeated disavowals of the KKK etc (none of which were requested from the other side despite much closer ties (cf beloved mentor Robert Byrd) – if you mean that supporting Trump will anger blacks then it depends which blacks you mean … the BLM crew are working hand in glove with the Islamists and no friends to the Church and more blacks supported Trump than any republican for a long time…
Better leave it there for now and see how it goes (first comment here – got to your blog via reading 2008 posts in MormonSkeptic and your link across to your post on Montanus) – all of which is a result of my current investigation of LDS as a possible future home.