New Church Ad Campaign

[semlogo]

The strict oversight would indicate a desire to not have it be too representative...

Well, I can understand why they wouldn't want shut ins posting conspiracy theory rants on there. Heaven knows there are enough of them here! The skateboard guy is pretty representative of a lot of young LDS guys - who are just kind of regular guys, not sweater wearing Matthews.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Again--I like the direction it's emphasizing, even if I'm not sure it's reflective of the majority of current LDS culture.

I clearly have no way of evaluating 'the majority of current LDS culture,' nor do I really understand what that might be, but the videos on mormon.org immediately remind me of people I personally know in the Church. Heaps of them. On two different continents and four different 'islands of the sea.' And what they say sounds like what I might say in similar circumstances.

[selek]

I like the new videos quite a lot. I don't think several of them represent the LDS church I've personally experienced (even though I was born and raised outside of Utah, myself), but I really like the direction the church is headed in.

I, too, very much like the videos, but I found this very interesting Darin.

What "direction" would that be?

We are working to dispel certain myths that have been propogated about the Mormon people- but there's no evidence that our fundamental views about certain issues are changing.

In point of fact, this is less a change of direction than a clearing of the fog that surrounds us.

I think the clear, non-too-subtle message is "Hi... I'm a regular, normal person just like you, with my own individuality, thoughts, feelings, hobbies, and... I'm a Mormon." Very intelligent marketing, especially in the wake of much of the bad PR the church has experienced over the last two years. And great to see the church emphasizing diversity within it's membership.

A diversity that has always been there....

The first thing I thought of was, "Wow... I'm not sure most Mormons are like several that are portrayed in the video messages... but I wish they were! Interesting that the church seems to be portraying itself in a new light that I'm not sure is really reflective of most of it's membership or the most common elements of LDS culture..."

And my next thought was, "Hmmmm..... that isn't necessarily a bad thing... I wonder how much the church might actually be altering itself by promoting itself in this way...? I wonder if the church could actually--perhaps even unknowingly and/or unintentionally...?--affect the course of the attitudes of it's own membership through it's own advertising campaign...? That'd be cool...!"

Meaning, of course, that you're hoping that this ad campaign is either a step towards or an impetus for, a liberalization and abandonment of our traditional values.

This, of course, jives nicely with your comment about "direction" above- but at this point it appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

This ad campaign burst the stereotypes others have created and explioted- there is no evidence to indicate that it heralds a sea-change in Mormon thought or theology.

Yeah. I like the new direction. Cool. Hip. Individual. Diverse. Almost... Unitarian (and I mean that as a compliment).

In fact, the 'community' that I'm hoping to mainstream could learn a lot from sending out that same basic, and very real, message.

I think that you are- once again- conflating appearances with reality.

This ad campaign in know way suggests that the Church is altering its stance towards your particular community. At worst, its simply refusing to allow you and your community to dictate the terms of the discussion.

[DanGB]

I can only speak for myself, not for The Wider Audience.

In any event, much of what he had to say was clearly addressed to what he called "a career paid employee of the Church." Perhaps The Wider Audience all work for the Church. I just don't know.

FWIW, I was speaking to a wider audience. My point about your employer was just a factor of comparing perpesctives of objectivity. Nothing more.

[paulhadik]

Dr. P

I know our theologies are vastly different and you abhor my calvinism yet I find a man who loves doughnuts and rapier wit can't be all bad (and of course, I can never fully repay you for helping me get the part of Sir toby Belch in the 1963 Dik Clark's Bandstand Does Shakespeare in Philly Marathon)

but

is it really ever the role of the Church (whatever church) to concern itself with its image to a lost world? When I study the methods of Christ I see His doing everything "wrong". He got to the meat first, he drove people away, he spoke on issues of sin and didn't frankly seem to care about improving his numbers or correcting misconceptions. He was perceived as a illegitimate child til the end of his days.

He just taught truth.

I suppose my question, coming from way out here in the pacific where i can't even see the ads is, who cares what the world thinks about the church? Until God does a work in a person's heart that person is dead in sin and rebels against truth. What is a commercial going to do? Improving favorable perceptions is hardly "bringing the sword that divides"

I don't ask to be nit-picky...I just wonder, as I see evangelists trumpet their user friendly churches and mega churches, if our striving to be understood and more palatable undermines our true calling to stand for righteousness

or maybe it is just past my bedtime

paul

[Daniel2]

Hmmm.... Although a church spokesperson denies any connection, it appears that I'm not the only one thinking of another presidential run by Mitt Romney with regards to the message and timing of this media campaign:

Good Question: Why Are The Mormons Advertising?

Reporting Jason DeRusha

The commercials are hard to miss, airing in one-minute chunks on Twin Cities television stations.

"I'm a surfer, a woman and a woman's longboard champion," one states. "And I'm a Mormon."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is running a nine-city advertising blitz, which provoked several WCCO viewers to e-mail asking: Why are the Mormons advertising their religion?

"I do think it's weird," said Marilyn, from Burnsville. "Are they trying to convert us to Mormonism?"

Ron Wilson, marketing director for Mormon.org in Salt Lake City, Utah, said it's nothing new.

"The church has been running TV ads since the early '70s," he said. "This is not unusual for us."

The ads, which ran in the 1970s, focused on parenting themes, showing a family moment and then ending with a voice-over: "A message from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

"They did an interesting thing for the church," Wilson said. "They helped people understand we believe strongly in families. They made that connection for us."

These ads are more like a branding or image campaign for the church, featuring a skateboarder who is a father and a Mormon.

Another TV ad begins, "I am an artist and the mother of three beautiful girls."

"I think our effort is really to try to help people understand that Mormons are not as different as you would think," Wilson said.

According to the National Council on Churches, the Mormon Church is now the fourth largest in America with nearly 6 million members.

It's one of the few churches that's growing membership; last year they were up nearly 2 percent.

Wilson wouldn't say how much the church is spending on the ad campaign, only that they've been planning this launch for "two and a half years."

This one is launching in nine cities: Baton Rouge, Colorado Springs, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Tucson and Minneapolis.

Wilson said the TV and radio spots will be complimented in the coming weeks by billboard and bus advertising. The campaign is slated to run through the end of 2010.

"It made sense to us that there were enough misconceptions out there that the church step up and allow its members to say who we really are," Wilson said.

But a WCCO viewer, Anibal Laboy, from Woodbury, wondered, "Aren't you suspicious that it is an early public relations campaign to smooth out Mitt Rodney's presidential candidacy in the republican's primary?"

"Nothing at all to do with politics, politicians, anything like that," Wilson said. "I can definitively say this is not connected to Mitt at all."

The more I've thought about it, the more I see how this ad campagin really is quite a departure for how the LDS Faith is seeking to brand itself. The videos really focus far more on non-Mormon-specific aspects of 'regular' people, rather than anything significantly LDS about the people, themselves. Past LDS campaigns seem emphasize re-enactments of Biblical stories or show specific values the LDS have towards family time. This new commercials actually seem to talk about everything but the church, and then the "and I'm Mormon" is sort of tacked on at the end--like an M. Knight Shamalayn movie... (lol... ok, that part was a joke--but still, it is sort of a 'twist' of sorts... who would have thought the skater dude was going to be representing the Mormon Church at the beginning of the commercial...?)

Again, I think it's a very, very smart and, frankly, worthwhile message--emphasizing the inherent humanity of the LDS people, rather than seeing them as isolationist and insular people who aren't part of a larger community--even if the potential political timing raise some suspicion (after all, everything could be viewed through a political paradigm of some sort). It feels like a radical change from past advertising messages.

Darin

[Bsix]

suppose my question, coming from way out here in the pacific where i can't even see the ads is, who cares what the world thinks about the church? Until God does a work in a person's heart that person is dead in sin and rebels against truth. What is a commercial going to do? Improving favorable perceptions is hardly "bringing the sword that divides"

Paul:

I won't presume to answer for DCP. However, I do think that the answer to your question comes in part from understanding the philosophical divide you made mention of -- Calvinism.

We Mormons believe that conversion to the Gospel includes free agency and personal choice and commitment. I believe that your view is that conversion comes from God. As such, I can see how you might view messaging to the masses has little practical beneifit since those who see the spots are not inclined or capable of choosing the Gospel for themselves. (The 'T, U, and I' of TULIP.)

I see a campaign like this as planting seeds. If our message can open minds enough that when the time is right, a person will consider our Gospel message (free agency on their part) they will then be open to the message and guidance of the Spirit. When so moved...they can then exercise their free agency.

Our message is broadcast to everyone who watches our TV spots. I am sure that only a few are of the heart to be moved by the message.

Regards,

Six

[Daniel2]

I, too, very much like the videos, but I found this very interesting Darin.

What "direction" would that be?

My perception is that these ads seem to place more emphasis on individuality (something that was occasionally spoken of, when I was a youth, but was more often seen as potentially suspect), rather than conformity (which I perceived to be emphasized and valued far more as a virtue than individuality, when I was LDS).

We are working to dispel certain myths that have been propogated about the Mormon people-

What myths do you believe have been propogated that this ad campaign is seeking to dispel...? Who's been doing the propogating you refer to?

but there's no evidence that our fundamental views about certain issues are changing.

I haven't referred to evidence of 'fundamental views about certain issues changing,' and I can see why you'd be sensative to anyone who might even veer close to implying that might be the case. Mormonism takes comfort in it's own place as a stronghold for many 'traditional' and unchangeable values it ascribes to God.

In point of fact, this is less a change of direction than a clearing of the fog that surrounds us.

I agree with this statement. Mormons have certainly been long-misunderstood in some areas, though not necessarily all.

A diversity that has always been there....

I have problems with the truthfulness of this statement. There are some clear examples, for example, of an attitude of comfortableness about racial diversity (a black Mormon doesn't even make any mention of his racial background or past views on racial priviledge) in the ad campaign that have "not always been there." Though, again, I'm glad to see the church continuing to emphasize that race is and should be a total non-issue in both it's public image and doctrines--so that's a very positive thing, in my mind.

Meaning, of course, that you're hoping that this ad campaign is either a step towards or an impetus for, a liberalization and abandonment of our traditional values.

From my perspective, it already is a step towards a liberalization/abandonment of some antiquated 'traditionally-LDS' values (problematic past aspects of racial teachings/attutudes of some LDS members and leaders, for example).

This, of course, jives nicely with your comment about "direction" above- but at this point it appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

Unsurprisingly, it will come as no shock that you and I have vastly different views. What you label 'wishful thinking' in me is, from my perspective, obvious evidence that the church has already undergone a change since 1978--one I affirm and congratulate the LDS church for having made.

This ad campaign burst the stereotypes others have created and explioted-

We can certainly agree that this ad campaign is bursting stereotypes, which I've already emphasized I believe is a very worthwhile and worthy message for the church to 'get out.'

My agreement with your statement above, however, weakens when you suggest that 'others have created' those stereotypes--I would submit that Mormons, themselves, have, in the bare minimum, at least contributed to the creation of some of those stereotypes (there was a lot more emphasis by past LDS leaders on how Mormons are and should take comfort in the fact that the Lord had called them to be 'a peculiar people,' and 'in, but not of, the world.') I'm not saying the fundamental belief of Mormons (that they're a 'peculiar people') has changed--but this ad campaign certainly is NOT emphasizing that aspect of Mormonism.

there is no evidence to indicate that it heralds a sea-change in Mormon thought or theology.

I agree--the ad campaign doesn't necessarily herald a sea-change in Mormon thought or theology--but it does seem to indicate that those responsible for crafting these messages want others to change their view that Mormons are 'a people apart' from the world--that Mormons aren't really so 'peculiar,' after all...

I think that you are- once again- conflating appearances with reality.

You're certainly entitled to offer your criticism of my perspective on the matter.

This ad campaign in know way suggests that the Church is altering its stance towards your particular community. At worst, its simply refusing to allow you and your community to dictate the terms of the discussion.

I agree--this ad campgain doesn't suggest that the LDS church is 'altering its stance towards [my] particular community.' I don't believe anyone in 'my' community has the power to 'dictate the terms of the dicussion' (Heaven knows, I don't personally feel that anyone has that kind of omnipotent power--which is why I hang out on a very pro-LDS message board trying to offer my views on the subjects I usually do comment on).

In sum, I guess I'd re-emphasize: I see positive changes in this new ad campagin from previous ones. I recognize that you may be uncomfortable with any perception that the LDS church or it's members have or could be 'changing too much.' It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, as the campgain gains ongoing exposure.

Darin

[LDSToronto]

Again, I think it's a very, very smart and, frankly, worthwhile message--emphasizing the inherent humanity of the LDS people, rather than seeing them as isolationist and insular people who aren't part of a larger community--even if the potential political timing raise some suspicion (after all, everything could be viewed through a political paradigm of some sort). It feels like a radical change from past advertising messages.

I love these new messages, and it would be wonderful if we could play these in Priesthood/RS meetings around the world (or at least in my neck of the woods). Like Darin, I agree that they show the LDS people as human, as participants in regular life, as less 'peculiar', as multi-dimensional. In my experience, in most all wards I've attended, the skateboarder, the motorcycle enthusiast, and the mom of four (or five?) who works for a global health organization, would all be frowned upon as non-conforming Mormons; they don't fit the mold of how a Mormon should act or how a Mormon should look, even if they have faith in Jesus Christ.

For me, these vignettes let me peer into the lives of those who are more like me, and I felt a little less alone, and a little more encouraged, that the Church is serious about giving a place to those of us who aren't neatly trimmed to fit a stereotype. This is truly the step needed to move to a more global organization.

H.

[cinepro]

In my experience, in most all wards I've attended, the skateboarder, the motorcycle enthusiast, and the mom of four (or five?) who works for a global health organization, would all be frowned upon as non-conforming Mormons;

In browsing the site, there seemed to be a preponderance of well educated stay-at-home moms, and few if any working mothers or single professionals. While this probably reflects the experiences and choices of many LDS women and families, I wonder how narrowly defined the criteria for the poster-families are.

[Calm]

In my experience, in most all wards I've attended, the skateboarder, the motorcycle enthusiast, and the mom of four (or five?) who works for a global health organization, would all be frowned upon as non-conforming Mormons; they don't fit the mold of how a Mormon should act or how a Mormon should look, even if they have faith in Jesus Christ.

In the wards I've lived in, in Canada, California, Kansas, Russia and even rural Utah, these have been the EQ leaders, the bishopric, the RS president, the HP leaders, etc. etc. I don't remember even one ward where there hasn't been someone who fits this so-called "non-conforming" stereotype in a major leadership capacity.

[selek]

My perception is that these ads seem to place more emphasis on individuality (something that was occasionally spoken of, when I was a youth, but was more often seen as potentially suspect), rather than conformity (which I perceived to be emphasized and valued far more as a virtue than individuality, when I was LDS).

In your opinion.

My experience with the Church- one echoed by others posting here- is that individuality has ALWAYS been a part of the Mormon mindset.

I, for one, have been a member for twenty years now and never once encountered the overweening push for conformity to which you refer so ostentatiously.

I suspect that our different narratives and experiences have colored our experiences and our recollections- and that in crafting an identity of yourself as an outsider, you have emphasized the experiences (in your own mind) which reinforce that identity.

What myths do you believe have been propogated that this ad campaign is seeking to dispel...?

Among others, the very ones you cited above.

Who's been doing the propogating you refer to?

In this thread and in others, you have.

I haven't referred to evidence of 'fundamental views about certain issues changing,' and I can see why you'd be sensative to anyone who might even veer close to implying that might be the case. Mormonism takes comfort in it's own place as a stronghold for many 'traditional' and unchangeable values it ascribes to God.

I agree with this statement. Mormons have certainly been long-misunderstood in some areas, though not necessarily all.

I have problems with the truthfulness of this statement. There are some clear examples, for example, of an attitude of comfortableness about racial diversity (a black Mormon doesn't even make any mention of his racial background or past views on racial priviledge) in the ad campaign that have "not always been there." Though, again, I'm glad to see the church continuing to emphasize that race is and should be a total non-issue in both it's public image and doctrines--so that's a very positive thing, in my mind.

From my perspective, it already is a step towards a liberalization/abandonment of some antiquated 'traditionally-LDS' values (problematic past aspects of racial teachings/attutudes of some LDS members and leaders, for example).

Unsurprisingly, it will come as no shock that you and I have vastly different views. What you label 'wishful thinking' in me is, from my perspective, obvious evidence that the church has already undergone a change since 1978--one I affirm and congratulate the LDS church for having made.

We can certainly agree that this ad campaign is bursting stereotypes, which I've already emphasized I believe is a very worthwhile and worthy message for the church to 'get out.'

My agreement with your statement above, however, weakens when you suggest that 'others have created' those stereotypes--I would submit that Mormons, themselves, have, in the bare minimum, at least contributed to the creation of some of those stereotypes (there was a lot more emphasis by past LDS leaders on how Mormons are and should take comfort in the fact that the Lord had called them to be 'a peculiar people,' and 'in, but not of, the world.') I'm not saying the fundamental belief of Mormons (that they're a 'peculiar people') has changed--but this ad campaign certainly is NOT emphasizing that aspect of Mormonism.

I agree--the ad campaign doesn't necessarily herald a sea-change in Mormon thought or theology--but it does seem to indicate that those responsible for crafting these messages want others to change their view that Mormons are 'a people apart' from the world--that Mormons aren't really so 'peculiar,' after all...

You're certainly entitled to offer your criticism of my perspective on the matter.

I agree--this ad campgain doesn't suggest that the LDS church is 'altering its stance towards [my] particular community.' I don't believe anyone in 'my' community has the power to 'dictate the terms of the dicussion' (Heaven knows, I don't personally feel that anyone has that kind of omnipotent power--which is why I hang out on a very pro-LDS message board trying to offer my views on the subjects I usually do comment on).

In sum, I guess I'd re-emphasize: I see positive changes in this new ad campagin from previous ones. I recognize that you may be uncomfortable with any perception that the LDS church or it's members have or could be 'changing too much.' It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, as the campgain gains ongoing exposure.

Darin

You refer above to my supposed "discomfort" at the changes, and attempt to paint me as some sort of insecure reactionary. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The only change I perceive in these ads is that the Church is no longer allowing others to define us or to control the terms of the debate.

The individuality on display in these ads is not new- however much you might wish to pretend otherwise.

[Daniel2]

In your opinion.

My experience with the Church- one echoed by others posting here- is that individuality has ALWAYS been a part of the Mormon mindset.

I, for one, have been a member for twenty years now and never once encountered the overweening push for conformity to which you refer so ostentatiously.

Yes. In my opinion, exactly as I explicitly said it was. I'm not sure why you assert that my opinion is "ostentatious." I've tried to avoid being pretentious, and have explicitly and intentionally emphasized that my views are based on my own perceptions and experiences. Your milage, of course, may vary--but the 20 years of your experience as a Mormon to the contrary don't disprove my perceptions any more than my 31 years of experience as a Mormon disprove yours. Our perceptions--our opinions--are our own, and I made it very clear that I was only speaking for myself.

I suspect that our different narratives and experiences have colored our experiences and our recollections-

There's certainly truth to this statement--I think that phenemonenon is accurate for all human beings, to a certain extent.

and that in crafting an identity of yourself as an outsider, you have emphasized the experiences (in your own mind) which reinforce that identity.

I haven't crafted an identity of myself as 'an outsider,' nor would I consider myself one.

Although I personally chose to lay my LDS membership by the wayside, I don't feel or consider myself to be an 'outsider' to Mormonism. On the contrary, I still strive to live by the philosophy of Edwin Markham's poem (oft-quoted by Thomas Monson):

"He drew a circle that shut me out-Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But love and I had the wit to win: We drew a circle and took him In."

Among others, the very ones you cited above.

In this thread and in others, you have.

I'm afraid you'd need to be more specific. You mention "myths about Mormons that have been promoted," and claim that I, among others, have promoted them, but then you do not specify what it is your talking about. I suppose can't really comment on it further until you're a little more clear about things.

You refer above to my supposed "discomfort" at the changes, and attempt to paint me as some sort of insecure reactionary. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I did not intend to paint you as an 'insecure reactionary.' My apologies if my choice of words seemed poor.

The only change I perceive in these ads is that the Church is no longer allowing others to define us or to control the terms of the debate.

I'm glad you find the church's campaign to be self-empowering. That's a positive thing.

The individuality on display in these ads is not new- however much you might wish to pretend otherwise.

I don't believe I'm pretending anything, and have attempted to honestly and candidly share and specifically own the fact that they are my perceptions and experiences. I hope you aren't presuming to be able to assert to know or defy my own perceptions of my experiences.

As I've said before, oftentimes, Selek, I wonder if, when you (and a few others) interact with me on this board, you're really interacting with who you think I am, rather than who I really am, or what I'm actually saying. Which further enforces the concept that perception, it seems, really is our own reality. Clearly, the LDS church understands how important perception is, given public ad campaigns it's promoted, such as the one which generated this very thread.

Darin

[LDSToronto]

In the wards I've lived in, in Canada, California, Kansas, Russia and even rural Utah, these have been the EQ leaders, the bishopric, the RS president, the HP leaders, etc. etc. I don't remember even one ward where there hasn't been someone who fits this so-called "non-conforming" stereotype in a major leadership capacity.

Wow, I really wish this was my experience... I have a lot of visibility into the wards/stakes in all of southern Ontario, and from what I've seen, colourful characters are truly the exception, not the rule, in leadership positions. Most are straight-laced professional types. And it's not because there is lack of characters here, either.

H.

[LDSToronto]

In your opinion.

My experience with the Church- one echoed by others posting here- is that individuality has ALWAYS been a part of the Mormon mindset.

I, for one, have been a member for twenty years now and never once encountered the overweening push for conformity to which you refer so ostentatiously.

Selek, respectfully, my experience differs, in roughly the same number of years. I sat in a training meeting with Elder Ross H.McEachran, about 5 years ago, and he, on behalf of the Brethren, gave our stake presidency a lesson on 'conformity'. Among other things, he said:

- men who hold the priesthood wear dark suits, white shirts, conservative ties, short hair, no facial hair, and have polished shoes. Deviation from this means you are not spiritually prepared

- the wearing of a pastel coloured shirt meant that you were less of a man; he said, I quote verbatim (because I wrote it down), "What kind of man wears a purple or pink dress shirt? I'll tell you what kind of man, I think we all know what kind of man, brethren."

- Women working outside the home are not supportive of their husbands

To my way of thinking, this is something close to preaching conformity, and it is something refreshingly different that the new Church vignettes portray.

H.

[selek]

Selek, respectfully, my experience differs, in roughly the same number of years. I sat in a training meeting with Elder Ross H.McEachran, about 5 years ago, and he, on behalf of the Brethren, gave our stake presidency a lesson on 'conformity'. Among other things, he said:

- men who hold the priesthood wear dark suits, white shirts, conservative ties, short hair, no facial hair, and have polished shoes. Deviation from this means you are not spiritually prepared

- the wearing of a pastel coloured shirt meant that you were less of a man; he said, I quote verbatim (because I wrote it down), "What kind of man wears a purple or pink dress shirt? I'll tell you what kind of man, I think we all know what kind of man, brethren."

- Women working outside the home are not supportive of their husbands

To my way of thinking, this is something close to preaching conformity, and it is something refreshingly different that the new Church vignettes portray.

H.

Yeah, but you're one of those pinko-Commie-liberal Canucks from the land north of civilization, so- other than two polar bears and a lonely Mountie- who cares what you think, anyway!

Yeesh! Some people......

Okay- all teasing aside, I cheerfully accept that your experiences were different than my own or Calmoriahs, or of others here- that's precisely the point that I was trying to make with Darin.

Our experiences- and our self-determined identities- color our perceptions- and the only change I perceive in this new ad is that we're no longer allowing others to brand us as "The Morg".

Your mileage may vary- but I have a AAA card, so neener-neener-neener.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

I hope you spoke up.

[LeSellers]

I wonder if, when you interact with me on this board, you're really interacting with who you think I am, rather than who I really am, or what I'm actually saying.

This is a given, and applies as much to you v. us (or anyone else) as it does to us v you (or anyone else).

However, it is also true that who you think you are is not who you actually are.

O, wad some Power the giftie gie us.

To see oursels as others see us!

It wad frae monie a blunder free us,

An' foolish notion.

Robert Burns

Lehi

[Hamba Tuhan]

In the wards I've lived in, in Canada, California, Kansas, Russia and even rural Utah, these have been the EQ leaders, the bishopric, the RS president, the HP leaders, etc. etc. I don't remember even one ward where there hasn't been someone who fits this so-called "non-conforming" stereotype in a major leadership capacity.

This has overwhelmingly been my experience as well. My skateboarding/snowboarding housemate was just released as our EQ president and called to serve in YM.

I sat in a training meeting with Elder Ross H.McEachran, about 5 years ago, and he, on behalf of the Brethren, gave our stake presidency a lesson on 'conformity'. Among other things, he said:

- men who hold the priesthood wear dark suits, white shirts, conservative ties, short hair, no facial hair, and have polished shoes. Deviation from this means you are not spiritually prepared

- the wearing of a pastel coloured shirt meant that you were less of a man; he said, I quote verbatim (because I wrote it down), "What kind of man wears a purple or pink dress shirt? I'll tell you what kind of man, I think we all know what kind of man, brethren."

- Women working outside the home are not supportive of their husbands

To my way of thinking, this is something close to preaching conformity, and it is something refreshingly different that the new Church vignettes portray.

<shudder> I have never had this experience, but we have a member of our stake presidency currently who, if he were ever called to be an Area Authority, would probably provide precisely this kind of training 'on behalf of the Brethren.' The problem, of course, is that I'm not so sure this is on behalf of the Brethren at all. I seem to remember an apostle speaking in one of the last two General Conferences on this very issue--urging us to accept people and not impose conformity on them. You have my sympathy, Toronto.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Here it is, from Pres Uchtdorf:

Unfortunately, from time to time we also hear of Church members who become discouraged and subsequently quit coming to and participating in our Church meetings because they think they don

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto:

I hope you spoke up.

I wish I could tell a tale of how I courageously leaped to my feet and denounced the heresy; alas, it was a small meeting - just the stake presidency - and I was in the midst of men I held (and still hold) in high esteem, and did not want to embarrass them, so I held my tongue. Though, I have had other opportunities to refute this now-released GA (I have attended his ward several times) and have not been as generous.

H.

[LDSToronto]

This has overwhelmingly been my experience as well. My skateboarding/snowboarding housemate was just released as our EQ president and called to serve in YM.

<shudder> I have never had this experience, but we have a member of our stake presidency currently who, if he were ever called to be an Area Authority, would probably provide precisely this kind of training 'on behalf of the Brethren.' The problem, of course, is that I'm not so sure this is on behalf of the Brethren at all. I seem to remember an apostle speaking in one of the last two General Conferences on this very issue--urging us to accept people and not impose conformity on them. You have my sympathy, Toronto.

Well, based on yours, Cal's, and Selek's experiences, I have some hope. Perhaps I'm further from the mothership, who knows, or maybe it's my own lenses (or maybe I just need to get out more).

But, thanks for the encouraging posts.

H.

[paulhadik]

Six:

Apologies...I shouldn't have mentioned the "C" word as I didn't mean it to be a distraction to my concern. I am talking to myself I suppose but where in the ministry of Christ did he seek to be more appealing. There were times when he got huge crowds and purposely seemed to drive them away. He warned his followers that they would be hated because He was hated. There is never anything appealing in truth while we live in a world of darkness.

I see the very early church, before the LDS would argue that apostasy came in, being martyred for their faith willingly. They never tried to become more appealing. In fact the LDS church seems to argue that the Apostasy became solid when the church became "appealing" and accepted by the world.

Of course, I don't believe the LDS church to be true, but I see Evangelical churches doing the same thing, trying to appeal with our music and our styles in the hopes of catching a few more fish on the hooks

I just don't think that's how it works though

[Bsix]

Paul:

I understand that you see the 'C' word as a distraction...but I think it is part of your worldview and does come through in how you might view how evanglism is properly conducted.

Personally, I don't think the current LDS attempt to show that we are fairly normal and accessable as being in any way a compromise of our religious, doctrinal, or moral standards as a way of gaining converts. I think it is very much in the missionary spirit of Paul:

1 Cor. 9:19-23 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

I don't see the Church's outreach marketing compromising any core value or principle we profess. We are not trading truths or devotion to become popular.

I don't think that exploding negative stereotypes as a means of building trust to be a bad thing. Paul understood relational missionary work. I believe tthat the current program is very 'Paulilian.' (There, I just invented a word for the occasion.)

Six

[Calm]

Wow, I really wish this was my experience... I have a lot of visibility into the wards/stakes in all of southern Ontario, and from what I've seen, colourful characters are truly the exception, not the rule, in leadership positions. Most are straight-laced professional types. And it's not because there is lack of characters here, either.

H.

Perhaps it's an attribute of the local culture. Most of the places I've lived in have had a relatively good turnover of members in that there has always been a significant though sometimes small segment of the ward that is coming and going...sometimes it is a majority of the ward/branch as it was in Russia and some high density of student wards we were in, maybe that makes a difference as well.