Combined Sunday School To Announce “Media Campaign”

[why me]

Except our missionary children become mighty men and women, and our future leaders…I don not see a keyboard replacing that. When I hear from my son, I hardly recognize the "man" he is becoming. Not to mention the skills they learn that help them interact with people which is a great help is business opportunities. I for one am grateful that we still have these young men and women as a visual representation of our faith.

I think that the problem can be in your post. Notice how you equate the missionaries skills that they are now learning with business. This becomes a problem in the real world. The skills that they need for better receptions by the public are not business related but social related. I told my daughter that the successful missionary is to be a good human being, not a good buisness woman. Our missionaries need human-related skills found in empathy, sevice, caring, love, friendship and kindness. Just to name a few.

[why me]

I don't view it that way.

I see it as a benign endeavor to counter and assuage pervasive lies, distortion and bigotry regarding the Latter-day Saints.

This is true. You are correct. The billboard campaign in times square is right on broadway not far from the Musical. Looking at it, one sees various mormons in various shades of color and life skills. The message is basically, mormons are just like you, the public.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think that the problem can be in your post. Notice how you equate the missionaries skills that they are now learning with business.

That was the least of my points...you misread or misunderstand me.

[why me]

That was the least of my points...you misread or misunderstand me.

Maybe I did. But in your post I believe that you mentioned business skills. I think that one problem that missionaries have when they approach people is the numbers game. My daughter and her companion had to keep a record of the number of contacts they made. Of course the business angle is misplaced. Missionaries should not be in the selling or marketing business but in the social business. When missionaries treat people as human beings with all the positives of that their human nature possesses, people will begin to see them in a much more different light as they would the word mormon.

For example, the missionaries of charity of mother theresa. When they go out and help the poor or feed the sick or befriend the lonely, they present themselves as caring and empathetic human beings. And they are. The lds missionary program when it comes to young men and women serving for two years or a year and a half could learn much from them.

[KevinG]

For example, the missionaries of charity of mother theresa. When they go out and help the poor or feed the sick or befriend the lonely, they present themselves as caring and empathetic human beings. And they are.

You mean feeding the poor? Or stripping down to T-shirts and cleaning up after disasters? Or helping build homes for the rural poor? Or teaching english for free regardless of the persons intent to take the missionary lessons? Or providing medical necessities like wheelchairs and glasses? Or running orphanages in former communist countries? Or providing leadership for local congregations? Or teaching young medical students in foreign lands for free?

(All of the above were done by missionaries from my own wards, including my son)

They do this in addition to fulfilling the great commission of Christ to go into the world and teach.

A mission presidents preference to track the work of his charges by asking them to keep appointment books and contact information does nothing to detract from this work. In fact it helps teach important discipline and work skills to young men and women. The fact that when they return they are seen as trustworthy, hard working, well organized and able to approach people doesn't hurt their chances of a good education and work either.

[why me]

You mean feeding the poor? Or stripping down to T-shirts and cleaning up after disasters? Or helping build homes for the rural poor? Or teaching english for free regardless of the persons intent to take the missionary lessons? Or providing medical necessities like wheelchairs and glasses? Or running orphanages in former communist countries? Or providing leadership for local congregations? Or teaching young medical students in foreign lands for free?

(All of the above were done by missionaries from my own wards, including my son)

They do this in addition to fulfilling the great commission of Christ to go into the world and teach.

A mission presidents preference to track the work of his charges by asking them to keep appointment books and contact information does nothing to detract from this work. In fact it helps teach important discipline and work skills to young men and women. The fact that when they return they are seen as trustworthy, hard working, well organized and able to approach people doesn't hurt their chances of a good education and work either.

I can agree with this. But unfortunately it is the street contacting and home contacting that people experience and see. Also, these contacts can be problematic if done in an agressive way. Then, there is the stress of baptism which is the end goal of the missionaries. I think that the point of the campaign is for people to see that mormons are everyday people, the next door neighbor types and not just young men in white shirts and young women in long skirts and dresses with name tags.

The media campaign is addressing a PR problem.

Edited September 28, 2011 by why me

[sjdawg]

But if you have ideas that would not be "Church approved," they would better be left unsaid in communicating with non-members, don't you think?

I would hope that that peoples understanding of doctrine and their experiences in mormonism are communicated whether or not they are "church approved". To do otherwise reduces the impact of this common man approach to PR. The LDS church is trying to convey the ever day experience of modern day mormonism. Sanitizing our comments to non-mormons is part of the reason people feel misled when their post-baptism experience is much different than what they experience as investigators.

[Ariarates]

People may be prejudiced against Mormonism but in my experience, almost never against Mormons (provided they know one). If you want to correct the public image of the church, address the public image of the church. This campaign is trying to fix what ain't broke. Why do we let marketing people run the church anyway?

[why me]

I would hope that that peoples understanding of doctrine and their experiences in mormonism are communicated whether or not they are "church approved". To do otherwise reduces the impact of this common man approach to PR. The LDS church is trying to convey the ever day experience of modern day mormonism. Sanitizing our comments to non-mormons is part of the reason people feel misled when their post-baptism experience is much different than what they experience as investigators.

Most church members who are attending the meetings have had good experiences within mormonism. And the comments would then be somewhat sanitizing. I think that to get a more fuller picture of mormon experiences, one would need to have lds who do not attend church on a regular basis for various of reasons or members who were once inactive who have now become active.

[why me]

People may be prejudiced against Mormonism but in my experience, almost never against Mormons (provided they know one). If you want to correct the public image of the church, address the public image of the church. This campaign is trying to fix what ain't broke. Why do we let marketing people run the church anyway?

But perhaps somethings are broken. Not many people want their doorbells rung or be approached on the street or in buses. Mormon missionaries have been known to approach people on sidewalks, in buses, on trains etc. For many people this is the image of the mormons: young men and women being aggressive in speaking about their church. And if that is the impression of mormons, well, something is broken. Thus, the campaign.

[sjdawg]

Most church members who are attending the meetings have had good experiences within mormonism. And the comments would then be somewhat sanitizing. I think that to get a more fuller picture of mormon experiences, one would need to have lds who do not attend church on a regular basis for various of reasons or members who were once inactive who have now become active.

I'm not sure about that. Active LDS members are much more open with what they will discuss amongst each other than they are when a non-member is present (I realize that is a generalization based only on my experience). I'm not necessarily talking about SM talks but about personal interactions between members.

Edited September 28, 2011 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

But perhaps somethings are broken. Not many people want their doorbells rung or be approached on the street or in buses. Mormon missionaries have been known to approach people on sidewalks, in buses, on trains etc. For many people this is the image of the mormons: young men and women being aggressive in speaking about their church. And if that is the impression of mormons, well, something is broken. Thus, the campaign.

I agree with this. I don't want anyone (even my friends) dropping in on me without calling first. I also don't think it is good form to approach people in an area where they may feel trapped (bus) in the conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would hope that that peoples understanding of doctrine and their experiences in mormonism are communicated whether or not they are "church approved". To do otherwise reduces the impact of this common man approach to PR. The LDS church is trying to convey the ever day experience of modern day mormonism. Sanitizing our comments to non-mormons is part of the reason people feel misled when their post-baptism experience is much different than what they experience as investigators.

When I hear the descriptor "not Church-approved," what comes to my mind is material that falls within one of two broad categories, as follows:

-- Distortions and half-truths intended to convey a false impression, the stock-in-trade of typical anti-Mormons.

-- Non-doctrinal, non-authoritative , non-orthodox speculation, conjecture or folklore.

Neither category, as I see it, conveys an accurate impression to someone otherwise unacquainted with Mormonism. There may be some who are chiefly interested in the sensational or speculative. But when I undertake to learn about a religious faith — say, Catholicism or Islam — I want my information unadulterated by such stuff.

And if I'm conveying information about the Church , which I love, I want to ensure the information I'm dispensing is accurate.

I cited the quotation from Bushman because I think it is an excellent approach and a good model. He is upfront about the fact that some Church members have entertained notions about the "making your own planet" business, but he very clearly explains that such a thing has never been authoritatively taught in the Church. He touches on the doctrine of theosis and briefly explain s what it is and what it isn't in an LDS context.

By the way, this is why I appreciate the much-maligned priesthood correlation effort in the Church. It tends to filter out the spurious or the conjectural and thus keep the doctrine pure.

[cdowis]

I'm not sure about that. Active LDS members are much more open with what they will discuss amongst each other than they are when a non-member is present (I realize that is a generalization based only on my experience). I'm not necessarily talking about SM talks but about personal interactions between members.

I think that we have such a difference in concepts. Take the priesthood, we have a very different concept of the lay priest while nonLDS will think of Catholic priests. So, if I use that word with a nonmember, I have to spend some time trying to explain it. That then takes me to priesthood authority, not from the Pope but from a prophet. He then asks, "Do you believe that Christ and Satan are brothers" , etc.

You can say one sentence, and that leads to confusion or a long explanation where the other person simply looks at me in incomprehending astonishment.

Edited September 29, 2011 by cdowis

[Maidservant]

I guess so. I have never been able to figure out why the truth requires such a carefully cultured public image.

Or . . . . I don't know . . . it really IS as simple as sharing ourselves with everyone? Why can't this be the explanation?

As a long-time member, I LOVE the mormon.org profiles for myself, as I love seeing various experiences of life and faith. It helps me.

I also remember for a short time when going to mormon.org, the index tab at the top of the web page said simply something along the lines of "Your Heavenly Father Loves You" or something like that. I think it's gone now, also, I think. But I can't tell you how powerful that was for me, to find my Father on the TAB of a WEBPAGE, the voice of God THERE!

Every thing the Church is doing nowadays excites me.

In any case: Matthew 10:16.

I agree with this. I don't want anyone (even my friends) dropping in on me without calling first. I also don't think it is good form to approach people in an area where they may feel trapped (bus) in the conversation.

This may be a cultural thing. My son is serving in Colombia at the moment. And in his letters home, my overriding perception of these people is how welcoming they are. Even if they aren't fully interested in the gospel, they are fully comfortable in being interested in my son as a person, and vice versa of course. You DO talk to people in the park, on the bus, invite them in, etc. It's normal. One of my favorite stories he's told me so far is when he and his companion stopped and had a conversation with a group of young men who were sitting about on the sidewalk, basically getting drunk. The young men said that, out of respect, they didn't want to talk about Jesus Christ while they were drunk. But it didn't stop them all from connecting on a personal level (they and the other young men i.e. missionaries). I don't think it's necessarily a good reflection on us if we can't feel comfortable having more flexible human contacts (and I'm talking about my own problems with this too).

[sjdawg]

Or . . . . I don't know . . . it really IS as simple as sharing ourselves with everyone? Why can't this be the explanation?

As a long-time member, I LOVE the mormon.org profiles for myself, as I love seeing various experiences of life and faith. It helps me.

I also remember for a short time when going to mormon.org, the index tab at the top of the web page said simply something along the lines of "Your Heavenly Father Loves You" or something like that. I think it's gone now, also, I think. But I can't tell you how powerful that was for me, to find my Father on the TAB of a WEBPAGE, the voice of God THERE!

Every thing the Church is doing nowadays excites me.

In any case: Matthew 10:16.

This may be a cultural thing. My son is serving in Colombia at the moment. And in his letters home, my overriding perception of these people is how welcoming they are. Even if they aren't fully interested in the gospel, they are fully comfortable in being interested in my son as a person, and vice versa of course. You DO talk to people in the park, on the bus, invite them in, etc. It's normal. One of my favorite stories he's told me so far is when he and his companion stopped and had a conversation with a group of young men who were sitting about on the sidewalk, basically getting drunk. The young men said that, out of respect, they didn't want to talk about Jesus Christ while they were drunk. But it didn't stop them all from connecting on a personal level (they and the other young men i.e. missionaries). I don't think it's necessarily a good reflection on us if we can't feel comfortable having more flexible human contacts (and I'm talking about my own problems with this too).

I don't really consider it a problem to want a few minutes of quiet time while sitting on a bus. To each their own I suppose.