BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 Interesting article from an LDS women concerning the latest ad blitz from LDS Public Relations...http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51357520-82/mormon-ads-hair-less.html.csp
Jeff K. Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 It isn't that the ads portray a typical LDS individual, rather the ads typify that almost any individual can be LDS.
bluebell Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 The only thing she said that didn't make any sense to me was when she said "But really, is there much difference between people joining my religious ranks because of these well-crafted advertisements and those who join because they had a little crush on the cute and kind missionary who taught them."It seems obvious to me that NO ONE thinks it would be a good idea for anyone to join the church because of an advertisement. These commercials are meant to get people to want to know more, they aren't meant to produce a testimony of the Gospel or to get people into the baptismal font.I agree that the church is using typical marketing tools to get people interesting in learning about the LDS church, but I don't agree that the church is using smoke and mirrors to get people to gain a testimony. The statement i have quoted above makes it seem as if that's exactly what the church is doing and it's not the case.
Pahoran Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Interesting article from an LDS women concerning the latest ad blitz from LDS Public Relations...Yes, it is interesting. In a "Groundhog day" sort of way.It keeps getting demonstrated time and time again: If you've got no talent, no originality and nothing whatever to say, you can always impress the ignorant with your wit and wisdom by poking fun at the Mormons. And when we don't find it particularly funny, why, that just proves what a humourless lot we are.Regards,Pahoran
frankenstein Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Yes, it is interesting. In a "Groundhog day" sort of way.It keeps getting demonstrated time and time again: If you've got no talent, no originality and nothing whatever to say, you can always impress the ignorant with your wit and wisdom by poking fun at the Mormons. And when we don't find it particularly funny, why, that just proves what a humourless lot we are.Regards,Pahoranhow about addressing the substance of the article, rather than going into insulting the author - who is not here to defend herself, and I question whether you have sufficient knowledge of her writings to make such insulting remarks. So she didn't portray the LDS Church as Gods gift to humanity that is without flaws, is that any to insult someone who is not here to defend themself? What she mentions is what has been discussed on these boards, so she can't be a no-talent-clown who got an article published.In a recent televised behind-the-scenes interview with one of the couples featured in the “I’m a Mormon” spots, the wife mentioned that one of the reasons she and her spouse were chosen to be in an ad was her husband’s penchant for growing unusual facial hair. Well, that’s nifty; I’m all for hairstyle freedom of expression. But imagine my confusion at hearing that this man’s facial hair was one reason he was chosen to be a global representative of my religion when the young men in my area are being told by local leadership that they must cut their hair to a short, conservative style or they can’t administer the sacrament or receive the Melchizedek priesthood. Why is funky hair being lauded in one arena and frowned upon in another? The disparity between the image my church is trying so hard to convey to the world and the image local members are being told they must adhere to within their small ward boundaries is a bit unnerving.I have personal experience with a Stake President who would not allow Temple Recommends for males with facial hair. So there is a disconnect with the image the CHURCH Official is trying to convey and what really happens.We might try to mix it up — sometimes serving ethnic fare at our ward dinners or altering the tempo of a hymn, but for the most part, as a group, we are steadfast, obedient, charitable, fertile and a bit dull.My biggest complaint is that white people general can not sign. If I had my way, I would have a polynesian choir sign every hymn; and no I don't sign because I know I can not sing well, so I do not contribute to an already dull experience by trying to sing. Edited April 13, 2011 by frankenstein
Recommended Posts