Panel About The Conference

[Stone holm]

My questions have to do with the validity of social marketing (or similar) campaigns as a valid part of the Church’s decision-making process on doctrine and policy, rather than one way to draw attention. Once that is accomplished, the merits of the issue itself are evaluated in council (per D&C 50 and 88), and decisions are made. The campaign and the council are two very different processes.

 

What you desccibe as a bishopric works at all the other levels. Would a bishopric really encourage members to work through capmaigns rather than councils, or ask members to develop campaigns about things that are important to them for evaluation in leadership councils?

 

The Church may campaign after making decisions in council, but campaigns from any other source have no active role in the councils themselves. This is why the Church works through councils from the local (including stake and area) and into the general levels. It is the more united and edifying way to approach things than dealing with campaigns, especially those that take on a political life of their own and persist long after the question has been raised, usually pitting one against the other.

You aren't suggesting that when the Church starts campaigning for a cause like say stopping ERA or promoting Prop 8 that they ask local council opinions on the subject are you? That has not been true of any such campaign that I have witnessed. It's always top down.

[rockpond]

My questions have to do with the validity of social marketing (or similar) campaigns as a valid part of the Church’s decision-making process on doctrine and policy, rather than one way to draw attention. Once that is accomplished, the merits of the issue itself are evaluated in council (per D&C 50 and 88), and decisions are made. The campaign and the council are two very different processes.

What you desccibe as a bishopric works at all the other levels. Would a bishopric really encourage members to work through capmaigns rather than councils, or ask members to develop campaigns about things that are important to them for evaluation in leadership councils?

The Church may campaign after making decisions in council, but campaigns from any other source have no active role in the councils themselves. This is why the Church works through councils from the local (including stake and area) and into the general levels. It is the more united and edifying way to approach things than dealing with campaigns, especially those that take on a political life of their own and persist long after the question has been raised, usually pitting one against the other.

I agree that councils are better than campaigns. Hands down, 100%. But it would appear that sometimes something more than councils becomes needed. The councils didn't seem to ever get us to follow President Kimball's 34 year old counsel about letting women pray in ALL meetings which try attend.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Church officials" meaning public affairs people or General Authorities?

Public Affairs people don't speak in a vacuum. Rarely, if ever, do they act without some guidance from the leadership of the Church. They are hired to convey the Church's position (or lack of position, as the case may be) to the public.

 

This reminds me of put-downs by some individuals of the priesthood correlation process. Correlation is not a shadow government. It is an instrument of the Church leadership and it carries  out the wishes of the Brethren. So, in effect, those who disparage Correlation disparage the Brethren.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

You aren't suggesting that when the Church starts campaigning for a cause like say stopping ERA or promoting Prop 8 that they ask local council opinions on the subject are you? That has not been true of any such campaign that I have witnessed. It's always top down.

No, I’m observing that the council system allows councils to operate in such a manner as to channel and direct information in a constructive way. In this way, there is a flow of inspired operation and functioning between various levels as the issue requires.

 

The Church’s campaigns (e.g. ERA and Prop 8 ) came out of decisions made in the Church’s highest leadership councils. They were not the result of campaigning the Church by members. I’m also sure that both issues had been discussed in and communicated between councils at various levels, but of course Church-wide decisions (including those to campaign) are made by the First Presidency and Twelve in council.

 

The point is that members of the Church are most constructively involved through the system of councils, not campaigns aimed at its leaders. Proper council participation requires the various personal and group dynamics mentioned in D&C 50 and 88.

Edited October 16, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

Public Affairs people don't speak in a vacuum. Rarely, if ever, do they act, without some guidance from the leadership of the Church. They are hired to convey the Church's position (or lack of position, as the case may be) to the public.

This reminds me of put-downs by some individuals of the priesthood correlation process. Correlation is not a shadow government. It is a an instrument of the Church leadership and its purpose is to carry out the wishes of the Brethren. So, in effect, those who disparage Correlation disparage the Brethren.

Yep, I understand the role of PA. That's why I felt it was not appropriate for them to sit on this panel.

And given that they cannot authoritatively speak without guidance from church leadership, I asked the question you quoted. Basically, I don't know any of the context of the statement that Calmoriah heard about the prayer assignments.

[CV75]

I agree that councils are better than campaigns. Hands down, 100%. But it would appear that sometimes something more than councils becomes needed. The councils didn't seem to ever get us to follow President Kimball's 34 year old counsel about letting women pray in ALL meetings which try attend.

Now you are talking about the best approach to implementing council decisions among the membership. Church initiatives (which might involve a “campaign” such as “Retrenchment” or "Friends of Scouting" but which generally is carried out through various communications, instructions to area/stake/ward leaders, policies, procedures, structures, etc.) intended to align membership behavior and attitudes with those council decisions still arise out of councils. While some changes take a good deal of time, campaigning Church leadership to speed things up is still not as good as harnessing the power of councils and the underlying principles that make either approach “successful.” Not all inspired counsel is operationalized into policy, procedure, structure, etc. because so many things need to be a function of individual and group agency. There is still a lot of room for teaching correct principles with which the members govern themselves with the Gift of the Holy Ghost. So using Church councils is a good use of agency, and campaigning the Church and its councils is a poor use of agency. Of course some will attribute a particular desirable outcome to the latter, but D&C 50 and 88 indicate otherwise.

[Calm]

Basically, I don't know any of the context of the statement that Calmoriah heard about the prayer assignments.

I was sitting at the FairMormon conference at lunchtime, I believe.  Mark Tuttle was sitting behind me.  I can't remember how I opened up the conversation, but since I had noticed him sitting there, I wanted to see if I could get additional information beyond what had been released by PA at the time of the petition...which was that assignments were made ahead of time.  Basically I just came out and asked him if that meant the women had been chosen before the whole media frenzy and he said yes, he said something along the lines that the Brethren don't live in a bubble, they know what is going on in the world, spent a great deal of time getting this information.  I said I was not the least bit surprised given that my interaction on some other things led me to believe they put a lot of effort and time into finding out what works best for members in little things, so it makes sense to me they would in big things and all between.  Conversation got interrupted by the presentation after a little chit chat on that.  Deborah can back me up, she was there and we each wrote down what had happened shortly thereafter so we would not forget.  A bit later I asked him if I could share this info with his name, he said yes.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was sitting at the FairMormon conference at lunchtime, I believe.  Mark Tuttle was sitting behind me.  I can't remember how I opened up the conversation, but since I had noticed him sitting there, I wanted to see if I could get additional information beyond what had been released by PA at the time of the petition...which was that assignments were made ahead of time.  Basically I just came out and asked him if that meant the women had been chosen before the whole media frenzy and he said yes, he said something along the lines that the Brethren don't live in a bubble, they know what is going on in the world, spent a great deal of time getting this information.  I said I was not the least bit surprised given that my interaction on some other things led me to believe they put a lot of effort and time into finding out what works best for members in little things, so it makes sense to me they would in big things and all between.  Conversation got interrupted by the presentation after a little chit chat on that.  Deborah can back me up, she was there and we each wrote down what had happened shortly thereafter so we would not forget.  A bit later I asked him if I could share this info with his name, he said yes.

I was not present for the conversation, but I was at the conference, and I can corroborate that Mark Tuttle (whom I know personally) was there as well.

[Stone holm]

Public Affairs people don't speak in a vacuum. Rarely, if ever, do they act without some guidance from the leadership of the Church. They are hired to convey the Church's position (or lack of position, as the case may be) to the public.

 

This reminds me of put-downs by some individuals of the priesthood correlation process. Correlation is not a shadow government. It is an instrument of the Church leadership and it carries  out the wishes of the Brethren. So, in effect, those who disparage Correlation disparage the Brethren.

 

Well yes and no.  Yes its an instrument, but it is also a form of censorship.

[jkwilliams]

Public Affairs people don't speak in a vacuum. Rarely, if ever, do they act without some guidance from the leadership of the Church. They are hired to convey the Church's position (or lack of position, as the case may be) to the public.

That's why the blunt response surprised me. Usually the church's PR department tries to use a little tact and diplomacy, but not this time, IMO. You find it refreshing, but I find it a little odd coming out of Public Affairs.

 

This reminds me of put-downs by some individuals of the priesthood correlation process. Correlation is not a shadow government. It is an instrument of the Church leadership and it carries  out the wishes of the Brethren. So, in effect, those who disparage Correlation disparage the Brethren.

I don't disparage Correlation, and I recognize that it operates under the direction of the Brethren, as do all church departments and committees, so it clearly reflects their wishes, generally speaking.

My experience working at the COB and with the committee tells me that, just like with every other department, there isn't a huge amount of direct oversight. The brethren are too busy for that. And I also know from personal experience that some people in management up there are terrified of ever bringing anything to the attention of the brethren, no matter what it is, lest they be considered troublemakers or naysayers. So, the committee operates pretty much on its own, unless there's something that must be dealt with by the brethren (my experience was that it didn't happen very often).

I don't think it's disparaging to say that I think the Correlation program has resulted in pretty bland, uninspiring publications and manuals; I thought that when I worked there. That should be expected when you have a committee dedicated to keeping everything within certain doctrinal bounds; pretty soon everything becomes more or less uniform.

Correlation was a needed corrective to semi-autonomous church departments publishing what they wanted with minimal oversight. But that corrective has had predictable results, and saying so is not the same as disparaging.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well yes and no.  Yes its an instrument, but it is also a form of censorship.

A function of correlation is to preserve the purity of the doctrine that is taught in the Church of Jesus Christ, to preclude positions and teachings from being ascribed to the Church that it in fact does not hold.

 

So if, by "censorship" you mean the practice such as I use when I fact-check an article and delete elements that are  false or in any way inaccurate, then yes, it does do that, and I guess I do censorship too, as does every other responsible writer.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

A function of correlation is to preserve the purity of the doctrine that is taught in the Church of Jesus Christ, to preclude positions and teachings from being ascribed to the Church that it in fact does not hold.

 

So if, by "censorship" you mean the practice such as I use when I fact-check an article and delete elements that are  false or in any way inaccurate, then yes, it does do that, and I guess I do censorship too, as does every other responsible writer.

I believe it does more than that.

That's why the blunt response surprised me. Usually the church's PR department tries to use a little tact and diplomacy, but not this time, IMO. You find it refreshing, but I find it a little odd coming out of Public Affairs. I don't disparage Correlation, and I recognize that it operates under the direction of the Brethren, as do all church departments and committees, so it clearly reflects their wishes, generally speaking.My experience working at the COB and with the committee tells me that, just like with every other department, there isn't a huge amount of direct oversight. The brethren are too busy for that. And I also know from personal experience that some people in management up there are terrified of ever bringing anything to the attention of the brethren, no matter what it is, lest they be considered troublemakers or naysayers. So, the committee operates pretty much on its own, unless there's something that must be dealt with by the brethren (my experience was that it didn't happen very often).I don't think it's disparaging to say that I think the Correlation program has resulted in pretty bland, uninspiring publications and manuals; I thought that when I worked there. That should be expected when you have a committee dedicated to keeping everything within certain doctrinal bounds; pretty soon everything becomes more or less uniform.Correlation was a needed corrective to semi-autonomous church departments publishing what they wanted with minimal oversight. But that corrective has had predictable results, and saying so is not the same as disparaging.

I agree it has become a true dairy farm, the days of cowboys rounding up beef are pretty much over.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's why the blunt response surprised me. Usually the church's PR department tries to use a little tact and diplomacy, but not this time, IMO. You find it refreshing, but I find it a little odd coming out of Public Affairs.

 

I don't disparage Correlation, and I recognize that it operates under the direction of the Brethren, as do all church departments and committees, so it clearly reflects their wishes, generally speaking.

My experience working at the COB and with the committee tells me that, just like with every other department, there isn't a huge amount of direct oversight. The brethren are too busy for that. And I also know from personal experience that some people in management up there are terrified of ever bringing anything to the attention of the brethren, no matter what it is, lest they be considered troublemakers or naysayers. So, the committee operates pretty much on its own, unless there's something that must be dealt with by the brethren (my experience was that it didn't happen very often).

I don't think it's disparaging to say that I think the Correlation program has resulted in pretty bland, uninspiring publications and manuals; I thought that when I worked there. That should be expected when you have a committee dedicated to keeping everything within certain doctrinal bounds; pretty soon everything becomes more or less uniform.

Correlation was a needed corrective to semi-autonomous church departments publishing what they wanted with minimal oversight. But that corrective has had predictable results, and saying so is not the same as disparaging.

You or your immediate supervisor may not have had much direct oversight, but I can tell you from personal experience that manuals, articles, videos, website content, etc. that come out with the imprimatur of the Church are funneled through a cadre of two or three individuals who are indeed subject to direct oversight from the Brethren. I know this because the short lag time of what I produce for publication requires that I be in more immediate contact with those individuals than, say, a member of a writing committee for one of the lesson manuals.

 

As far as the blandness, there is hardly value in the new or the sensational if it cannot be quality-controlled for truth or authoritativeness. Consider the now-discredited notion that the entire membership of the Church will one day be called to put their belongings into handcarts and trek en masse to Jackson County, Mo., One effect of Correlation has been to debunk -- or at least inhibit the perpetuation of --  such folkloric fantasy.

 

But I didn't mean for this thread to devolve into a discussion about priesthood correlation. I was only drawing an analogy with the false belief that Church Public Affairs acts under its own authority and autonomy.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe it does more than that.

I agree it has become a true dairy farm, the days of cowboys rounding up beef are pretty much over.

Colorful imagery does not endow your opinion with any greater authority or validity.

[Stone holm]

Colorful imagery does not endow your opinion with any greater authority or validity.

Yeah but it does get the point across, don't get me wrong, I don't think correlation is all bad, offsetting the boring teaching manuals which interesting the teachers normally ignore anyway, it has cut down somewhat GAs going off the rails

Edited October 16, 2013 by Stone holm

[jkwilliams]

You or your immediate supervisor may not have had much direct oversight, but I can tell you from personal experience that manuals, articles, videos, website content, etc. that comes out under the imprimatr of the Church is funneled through a cadre of two or three individuals who are indeed subject to direct oversight from the Brethren.

All I'm saying is that I know a lot of stuff goes out without going past the Brethren, and I'm not talking about me or my supervisor. Because of my position, I worked with a lot of different departments on their publications (including videos and online content), and I can recall only three occasions when the approval process involved the brethren, and two of the three times that was because there was a dispute between different departments involved in the publication process. The third was the "For the Strength of Youth" materials, in which the brethren were quite involved.

As far as the blandness, there is hardly value in the new or the sensational if it cannot be quality-controlled for truth or authoritativeness.

No, but I would say that it's much harder to communicate truth when it's delivered in bland and boring materials. It's a trade-off, obviously, and the church wants to err on the side of doctrinal purity. There's nothing wrong with that, but the results are predictable.

 

But I didn't mean for this thread to devolve into a discussion about priesthood correlation. I was only drawing an analogy with the false belief that Church Public Affairs acts under its own authority and autonomy.

I sincerely doubt that an email to Doug Fabrizio was considered significant enough to run past the brethren.

[rockpond]

While some changes take a good deal of time, campaigning Church leadership to speed things up is still not as good as harnessing the power of councils and the underlying principles that make either approach “successful.”

 

The Let Women Pray organization might disagree with you.  

[rockpond]

I was sitting at the FairMormon conference at lunchtime, I believe.  Mark Tuttle was sitting behind me.  I can't remember how I opened up the conversation, but since I had noticed him sitting there, I wanted to see if I could get additional information beyond what had been released by PA at the time of the petition...which was that assignments were made ahead of time.  Basically I just came out and asked him if that meant the women had been chosen before the whole media frenzy and he said yes, he said something along the lines that the Brethren don't live in a bubble, they know what is going on in the world, spent a great deal of time getting this information.  I said I was not the least bit surprised given that my interaction on some other things led me to believe they put a lot of effort and time into finding out what works best for members in little things, so it makes sense to me they would in big things and all between.  Conversation got interrupted by the presentation after a little chit chat on that.  Deborah can back me up, she was there and we each wrote down what had happened shortly thereafter so we would not forget.  A bit later I asked him if I could share this info with his name, he said yes.

 

I agree.  The Brethren were likely listening (and apparently responding) but not to the media frenzy.

 

Thanks for sharing your interaction with him.

[Scott Lloyd]

All I'm saying is that I know a lot of stuff goes out without going past the Brethren, and I'm not talking about me or my supervisor. Because of my position, I worked with a lot of different departments on their publications (including videos and online content), and I can recall only three occasions when the approval process involved the brethren, and two of the three times that was because there was a dispute between different departments involved in the publication process.

Don't know how to respond to that except to say my own experience (and my understanding from people who know) does not square with yours. And I can say at the least that my experience is more recent than yours (I'll be seeing the Correlation guys face to face today, as I do every week).

 

No, but I would say that it's much harder to communicate truth when it's delivered in bland and boring materials. It's a trade-off, obviously, and the church wants to err on the side of doctrinal purity. There's nothing wrong with that, but the results are predictable.

Often, "bland and boring" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I sincerely doubt that an email to Doug Fabrizio was considered significant enough to run past the brethren.

 

And I, on the other hand, believe it is not at all unreasonable to suspect that it was. Or at least, that it communicated the sense of the response that was received after the invitation was conveyed to them.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

The Let Women Pray organization might disagree with you.  

That's fer-sher, as I acknowledged in the rest of my post... (not that they are at all correct in their assessmen)t! In politics it's encumbent to take credit for positive changes made by others!

[rockpond]

That's fer-sher, as I acknowledged in the rest of my post... (not that they are at all correct in their assessmen)t! In politics it's encumbent to take credit for positive changes made by others!

 

Sorry, I didn't realize this was politics.

 

Is your assessment then that "councils" are responsible for women praying in conference?

[jkwilliams]

Don't know how to respond to that except to say my own experience (and my understanding from people who know) does not square with yours. And I can say at the least that my experience is more recent than yours (I'll be seeing the Correlation guys face to face today, as I do every week).

Then we disagree. No worries.

Often, "bland and boring" is in the eye of the beholder.

Judging by the number of people I see sleeping or surfing the net during church meetings, I'd say a lot of eyes behold it that way.

And I, on the other hand, believe it is not at all unreasonable to suspect that it was. Or at least, that it communicated the sense of the response that was received after the invitation was conveyed to them.

Again, we disagree. I doubt either of us will be losing any sleep over our disagreement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Judging by the number of people I see sleeping or surfing the net during church meetings, I'd say a lot of eyes behold it that way.

 

Maybe those are largely the disengaged "new-order Mormons" I keep hearing about who attend meetings just to keep up appearances.

[rockpond]

Maybe those are largely the disengaged "new-order Mormons" I keep hearing about who attend meetings just to keep up appearances.

 

Based on the time I spent over on the NOM board, I'd say that there are some who are disengaged.  But there are some some who are very much engaged and involved but just no longer subscribe to the "all true or all false" mindset.

[Scott Lloyd]

Based on the time I spent over on the NOM board, I'd say that there are some who are disengaged.  But there are some some who are very much engaged and involved but just no longer subscribe to the "all true or all false" mindset.

Any of which might be expected to be surfing the net or sleeping during meetings.

 

Which goes to what I was saying: Bland or boring might be in the mind of the beholder.

 

Or it might be a matter of the speaker or teacher not being very engaging. Not everyone has well-developed talents in that respect. I tolerate imperfections in others among my brothers and sisters, so long as it is evident they are trying, just as I hope they will do for me. It's what we do in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd