• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Trump's Inauguration

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In this case, though, we aren't talking about individual Mormons giving political support; we're talking about the LDS Church itself giving the support. I think that crosses a line.
Why do you think it crosses the line? What line? Does it matter that they would have gone to support the office regardless of who asked?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This issue is very simple and very clear to me. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir would sing at the inauguration of any U.S. President from any party. It's the patriotic thing to do and in no way endorses a party, a candidate, or policies.
It endorses Domald Trump, who was the Republican candidate for President.

On the other hand, a refusal to participate would absolutely signal a political view.
How so?
Participation is politically neutral. Refusal to participate is not neutral.
Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with a religious organization endorsing the government (or being "patriotic", as you put it) even in a non-partisan way. The problem's more apparent when it's a religious minister giving an invocation or the like during a government ceremony, but there's still a problem when a religiously-affiliated group performs in a government ceremony, IMO.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
What are your thoughts about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performing at Trump's inauguration? I suspect those who supported trump will support the choir and those who do not like Trump will question the Mormon Church's decision to send what is, perhaps, its best ambassador (the choir) to the inauguration. The choir also performed for Reagan and both H.W. Bush and W. Bush.

Could not possibly care less........
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Why do you think it crosses the line? What line?
It's a church supporting a political candidate and party. It's a church inserting itself into the affairs of government.

Does it matter that they would have gone to support the office regardless of who asked?
Even if this were the the case (and since, AFAIK, they've never performed for the inauguration of a Democrat President, I see no reason to believe it is the case), I wouldn't see it as not supporting a party as I'd see it as supporting whichever party happens to be in power.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's a church supporting a political candidate and party. It's a church inserting itself into the affairs of government.


Even if this were the the case (and since, AFAIK, they've never performed for the inauguration of a Democrat President, I see no reason to believe it is the case), I wouldn't see it as not supporting a party as I'd see it as supporting whichever party happens to be in power.
They've never been asked by the other side, to my knowledge.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
How could declining an invitation to sing at Trump's inauguration when they've sung at so many other inaugurations in the past possibly NOT be seen as a political statement.

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with a religious organization endorsing the government (or being "patriotic", as you put it) even in a non-partisan way. The problem's more apparent when it's a religious minister giving an invocation or the like during a government ceremony, but there's still a problem when a religiously-affiliated group performs in a government ceremony, IMO.
So it's not that they're going to participate in Trump's inauguration. It's that the idea of them participating in any government-related ceremony? Hypothetically speaking, had a candidate you thought was spectacular won, would you still be opposed to a religious group participating in the inauguration? Would it matter at all if they only songs performed were of a patriotic nature and not in any way religion?

I'm finding your take on this whole thing really interesting. The LDS Church strongly encourages its members to be actively involved in the political process and in the organizations governing them, from the local to the national levels. I don't think (maybe I'm wrong, though) that you'd have a problem with this, as long as they didn't come right out and tell its members how to vote, etc. You just don't like the idea of the organization itself setting an example. See, here's where this strikes me as odd... The Church tells its members to show love, compassion and nondiscrimination towards the LGBT community. But I suspect that you'd be critical of the fact that it doesn't seem to be leading by example in this case. So what's the difference? Should the Church as an organization say, "Do what I say and not what I do" or what?
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
How could declining an invitation to sing at Trump's inauguration when they've sung at so many other inaugurations in the past possibly NOT be seen as a political statement.
I think it's bizarre to say that their refusal to make a political statement would be a political statement.

So it's not that they're going to participate in Trump's inauguration. It's that the idea of them participating in any government-related ceremony?
That's right.

Religious individuals should have every right to participate in politics and government, but churches shouldn't, IMO. This goes for everything from having church choirs perform at state functions to having polling places in churches.

Hypothetically speaking, had a candidate you thought was spectacular won, would you still be opposed to a religious group participating in the inauguration?
Yes.
Would it matter at all if they only songs performed were of a patriotic nature and not in any way religion?
No, it wouldn't. I don't want churches participating in government at all.

I'm finding your take on this whole thing really interesting. The LDS Church strongly encourages its members to be actively involved in the political process and in the organizations governing them, from the local to the national levels. I don't think (maybe I'm wrong, though) that you'd have a problem with this, as long as they didn't come right out and tell its members how to vote, etc. You just don't like the idea of the organization itself setting an example. See, here's where this strikes me as odd... The Church tells its members to show love, compassion and nondiscrimination towards the LGBT community. But I suspect that you'd be critical of the fact that it doesn't seem to be leading by example in this case. So what's the difference? Should the Church as an organization say, "Do what I say and not what I do" or what?
I don't see it as "do as I say, not as I do", just that there are limits to the proper behaviour of a church, and they're different from the limits of an individual.

If a singing group made up of Mormons wanted to perform at the inauguration, fine... but I see it as crossing a line when the church itself inserts itself into the ceremony... just as I saw it as crossing a line when the church inserted itself into the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If they've never been asked, how do you know how they would respond?
Because I know the Church. It supports the office. Mormon prophets have gone to the White House and visited republicans and democrats alike. One of the highest ranking politicians in Washington is a democrat (Harry Reid). The Church's history suggests the choir would attend whether it was Trump or Clinton.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I see it as crossing a line when the church itself inserts itself into the ceremony... just as I saw it as crossing a line when the church inserted itself into the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage.

You really don't see the difference???
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
@Katzpur and @Watchmen - keep in mind that this endorsement flows both ways: not only is an arm of the LDS Church endorsing a political candidate, but a government office-holder is endorsing an arm of the LDS Church and giving them a place of privilege, literally showing both of them to the world together.

The message that this sends out is that the LDS Church is in Trump's "circle" in a way that the religious groups that aren't featured in the inauguration aren't.

This would bother me with any president, but it's especially worrying with Trump, considering his tendency to favour people and groups he approves of and act vindictively to people and groups he feels slighted by. The appearance is bad with any president, but I feel like Trump's more likely than most other presidents to back up the appearance of favouritism with action.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You really don't see the difference???
Of course there are differences. For instance, singing at an inauguration is much less likely to cause physical harm to people.

The LDS Church's actions on Prop 8 were WAY over the line, but both are over the line.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Because I know the Church. It supports the office.
BTW: I did some Googling. They performed for a Democratic inauguration: Lyndon Johnson.

Mormon prophets have gone to the White House and visited republicans and democrats alike.
Telling me that your church lobbies all parties doesn't make me okay with the practice.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
It endorses Domald Trump, who was the Republican candidate for President.

I'm walking down the street and the U.S. President approaches me and extends his hand for me to shake. I shake hands and greet him politely. Or, I refuse to shake his hand and walk the other way. Which made a political statement and which did not?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm walking down the street and the U.S. President approaches me and extends his hand for me to shake. I shake hands and greet him politely. Or, I refuse to shake his hand and walk the other way. Which made a political statement and which did not?
Do you want me to list off all the things that are wrong with your analogy?
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
BTW: I did some Googling. They performed for a Democratic inauguration: Lyndon Johnson.


Telling me that your church lobbies all parties doesn't make me okay with the practice.
Rick Warren gave the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Does that concern you? Was it over the line?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
What are your thoughts about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performing at Trump's inauguration? I suspect those who supported trump will support the choir and those who do not like Trump will question the Mormon Church's decision to send what is, perhaps, its best ambassador (the choir) to the inauguration. The choir also performed for Reagan and both H.W. Bush and W. Bush.

I think they are the absolute best at what they do.Good decision for Trump and the Choir.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Of course there are differences. For instance, singing at an inauguration is much less likely to cause physical harm to people.

The LDS Church's actions on Prop 8 were WAY over the line, but both are over the line.
You know, I am 100% in favor of the separation of Church and State, but I apparently see that in a completely different way than you do. I don't believe the Church should get involved in political debates and the decision-making process, but I think you are taking this to a ridiculous extreme. Are churches themselves not to involve themselves in any aspect of life outside the circle of their own congregations?
 
Top