Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
Religious Music and Entertainment
Mr. Trump’s Inauguration and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

Mr. Trump’s Inauguration and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

Last updated on: July 8, 2025 at 12:25 pm by Dan Peterson

Mr. Trump’s Inauguration and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir 2025-07-08T12:25:22-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Orchestra at Temple Square, in the Salt Lake Tabernacle (LDS.org)

I have no privileged access to the reasoning of leaders of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to the Choir’s acceptance of an offer to sing at the inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence. But I think that I can imagine pretty well, at least in part, what it must have been.

When the invitation arrived, these leaders must immediately have realized that it placed them in a dilemma. To have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir prominently featured at Mr. Trump’s inauguration would seem to be making a political statement. On the other hand, to have refused the invitation would not only have seemed to be a political statement, it would actually have been one.

But the Church doesn’t make partisan political statements. As far as I’m aware, the Choir has now been invited to participate in six American presidential inaugurations — those of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush. It has accepted every single one of them. It has performed for both Democrats and Republicans. The First Presidency has welcomed John F. Kennedy and Dick Cheney and Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama and many others to Church headquarters in Salt Lake City. Members of the First Presidency and/or the Twelve have represented the Church at presidential inaugurations for both Democrats and Republicans (and have met with the leaders of a host of countries, from Indonesia to Bolivia, from China to Israel). It’s wholly unreasonable and unjust to construe such events as partisan endorsements.

To sing at Mr. Trump’s inaugural will no doubt seem, to some, to be an endorsement of Mr. Trump. However, to refuse would, unmistakably and unambiguously, be to repudiate not just him but, in a sense, his legitimacy as president. It would be an unprecedented political declaration by the Church.

But, some will say, various prominent stars have declined to perform at the ceremonies. That is, of course, their right. They have absolutely no obligation to be or to seem nonpartisan. But the Church does have such an obligation, both legally and ethically.

Consider the precedent that a refusal would set: If the Church and the Choir were to decide that Mr. Trump’s character and policies put him beyond the pale of legitimacy in this case, Church and Choir leadership would need to enter into a similar calculus in all subsequent cases, as well. Does President-Elect X’s position on immigration render him unworthy of the Choir’s singing? Is President-Elect Y’s stance on Russian adventurism too accepting (or too rigidly opposed) for the Choir to be permitted to sing at his inaugural ceremonies? Do President-Elect Z’s personal acts and habits render him or her ineligible for Choir participation at the presidential swearing-in?

The controversies would recur every time an invitation was extended. They would be loud and bitter. Partisans would have a field day. The internet would light up. It would be unspeakably ugly.

Now, obviously, there’s a line beyond which the Church and the Choir could not go. Presumably, for instance, if the nation decided to elect the clear contemporary equivalent of Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, they would have to say No. And some may imagine that we’re in precisely that situation right now.

I, however, do not.

Please understand: If you’re unaware of how early, consistently, and vocally I opposed Donald Trump, you haven’t paid any attention to my blog. I disapprove of him on just about every possible level. I didn’t vote for him. I’m crossing my fingers that he won’t be a major national disaster.

But I think that the Church and the Choir reacted to the invitation for the Choir to participate in his inauguration in the best way that they could, under the circumstances.

I also didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. As I’ve explained many times here, I’m a serious political conservative, trending libertarian (with a small “L”) on economic and several other matters. But, had Mrs. Clinton been elected and had the Choir been invited to sing at her swearing-in, I would have supported their going.

The fact is that the American electorate and the Electoral College have spoken. Donald J. Trump has been legitimately elected president of the United States of America. I deeply wish somebody else had been — I can think of many men and women that I would have preferred — but there you have it. To coin a phrase, It is what it is.

Some have said that having the Mormon Tabernacle Choir perform at Mr. Trump’s inauguration “feels bad,” that it gives off a “bad vibe.” I understand that. Believe me, I do. But that’s because, for many of us who regard him as (to list just a few of our objections) an ignorant, unprincipled, unconservative, bigoted, intellectually uncurious, amoral, self-obsessed, xenophobic, insecure, authoritarian demagogue — I’ve probably left a great many important things out — his inauguration as such “feels bad” and gives off a “bad vibe.” The fact remains, though, that America’s voters and our system have delivered the White House into his very small hands, and that we’re going to have to live with it for the next while and to hope for the best.

Since I was a fairly young teenager, I’ve been fond of a Latin phrase that goes back to Cicero’s On Friendship (De Amicitia): Esse quam videri (“To be, rather than to seem”). It is, or has been, the motto of a very great number of organizations, ranging from the BYU Men’s Chorus to the State of North Carolina. I didn’t know that when I was young, and I can’t recall how or where I came across it. But I’ve even used it, from time to time, as a personal motto. As I see this situation, the Church might have preferred not to have had the Choir invited to participate in the 2017 presidential inauguration. I can easily envision that. Once the invitation arrived, however, Church and Choir leaders had the choice of seeming to be political neutral or actually being politically neutral. I believe that their choice of the latter was right and proper.

Your mileage may differ. But in that case, of course, you’ll be wrong.

P.S. I’ve posted two prior comments on this topic:

“Mormon Tabernacle Choir to Sing at US Presidential Inauguration”

“Another thought on the Trump inauguration and the Tabernacle Choir”

Religious Music and Entertainment

Politics and Religion

Uncategorized

The Tabernacle Choir

Previous Post

December 23, 2016

Democracy is a mess, but the alternatives are worse.

Next Post

December 23, 2016 Keeping Christ in Christmas

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is a "cubit's" approximate length according to the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

12 inches 24 inches 18 inches 36 inches