Church Pr: Open Letter On Women Issues

[Nofear]

The Church has pushed out a statement from signed by Michael Otterson
 
Open Letter: Context missing from discussion about women
 
It was given to several Mormon blogs including (but likely not limited to) Mormon Women Stand, By Comment Consent, and Feminist Mormon Housewives. The latter site has deferred posting it until they could formulate a response (hence not linked).

 

I personally found a great deal in the letter which was encouraging and true. Though, not every one will feel the same way. Just making sure everybody knows about it.

[bluebell]

I also thought the letter was interesting, and i especially liked how he made if very clear that the PA department does not do anything or say anything that is not approved by the leadership of the church.

 

I know there have been threads in the past where that had been an issue of debate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I also thought the letter was interesting, and i especially liked how he made if very clear that the PA department does not do anything or say anything that is not approved by the leadership of the church.

I know there have been threads in the past where that had been an issue of debate.

I was about to make the same point.

I haven't read through the whole letter yet, but I wanted to highlight this paragraph:

First, it’s important to understand that the Public Affairs Department of the Church does not freelance. For Public Affairs to initiate or take a position inconsistent with the views of those who preside over the Church is simply unthinkable, as anyone who has ever worked for the Church will attest.

It's a point I've made more than once here when I've seen somebody lambasting Public Affairs for this or that policy statement when all they are doing is reflecting the stance of the Church leaders whom they serve.

It's as though the critics dare not openly oppose the Brethren, so they go after the functionaries. It's really rather craven, when you think about it.

Maybe I'll keep Otterson's statement on file so I can quote this when necessary.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

No, no ... Budweiser employs PR-savvy people ... Philip Morris employs PR-savvy people ... Nabisco employs PR-savvy people ... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  It employs hacks and bumpkins who occasionally shoot off their mouths/keyboards half-cocked without checking with the higher-ups regarding content that should (but, inexplicably, apparently does not) embarrass their employer.  The Church of Jesus Christ often puts out ill-conceived, ill-considered, poorly-coordinated content.

 

It's embarrassing for a fifteen-million-member, worldwide Church, really.

 

 

P.S.:  Yet, on the other hand, people complain about correlation.  So, when the Church puts out curriculum, it's too careful, but when it puts out other (allegedly-"official") content, it's not careful enough.

 

It's puzzling, really.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Bikeemikey]

That was a good piece.

[mormonnewb]

1401416094"]

It's as though the critics dare not openly oppose the Brethren, so they go after the functionaries. It's really rather craven, when you think about it.

Maybe I'll keep Otterson's statement on file so I can quote this when necessary.

Huh? I can't count the number of times that I've openly (and possibly, cravenly) opposed a Church action only to have a "faithful" member explain that the Brethren are not "responsible" for this or that.

I'm so very glad that this has been cleared up. ALL statements on behalf of the Church reflect the Church's actual position on the topic.

[Bikeemikey]

All PR departments get it wrong sometimes... That's nothing new. In general ours does a better than average job considering the challenges they face.

That said... God has prophets to speak for him. We have conference for doctrine. The PR department, by its own admission is a relationship bridge, not a source of doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh? I can't count the number of times that I've openly (and possibly, cravenly) opposed a Church action only to have a "faithful" member explain that the Brethren are not "responsible" for this or that.

I'm so very glad that this has been cleared up. ALL statements on behalf of the Church reflect the Church's actual position on the topic.

When expressed by Public Affairs, they do.

As Otterson said, Public Affairs does not free lance.

Shouldn't be so hard to grasp, really.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

All PR departments get it wrong sometimes... That's nothing new. In general ours does a better than average job considering the challenges they face.

That said... God has prophets to speak for him. We have conference for doctrine. The PR department, by its own admission is a relationship bridge, not a source of doctrine.

An "relationship bridge" that expresses the position of the organization.

Some folks won't like hearing that, but it's true nonetheless.

As Otterson said, a typical Church employee would know this.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

An "information bridge" that expresses the position of the organization.

Some folks won't like hearing that, but it's true nonetheless.

As Ottersen said, a typical Church employee would know this.

I don't disagree with what he said.

The PR department certainly expresses the "position" of the church.

I fully agree with that.

[cdowis]

I'm so very glad that this has been cleared up. ALL statements on behalf of the Church reflect the Church's actual position on the topic.

Whatever floats your boat, my friend

 

It is clear to me that the key phrase is "In behalf of the church", and this is specifically applied to the church's PR dept..  Their statements are carefully vetted by the church before they are released.  

[stemelbow]

Thoughts on this:

"I suppose we do not know all the reasons why Christ did not ordain women as apostles, either in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, or when the Church was restored in modern times. We only know that he did not, that his leaders today regard this as a doctrinal issue that cannot be compromised, and that agitation from a few Church members is hindering the broader and more productive conversation about the voice, value and visibility of women in the Church that has been going on for years and will certainly continue (the lowering of the age requirement for female missionary service was consistent with this conversation)."

I'm not sure we know that Christ did not so ordain, unless we use the term "know" in a rather unknowable sense. But the real question I'm eager to discuss, if anyone is interested is how is the "broader and more productive conversation about the voice, value and visibility of women in the church" been hindered?

Any ideas? Or has it actually been added to?

[readstoomuch]

I think it is hindered in that it polarizes women and those who disagree with the OW.  OW cannot seem to compromise or take no for an answer.  They hurt the efforts of the Church in spreading the message of the gospel to the world.  It can spread discontent where none was meant.  It does not acknowledge the efforts the Church is going to.  OW trespassed onto Church property after being asked not to.  Even after that the Church was over the top polite about their trespassing, they still have to push the issue.  Women receiving the priesthood is given precedence over the gospel itself.  The great majority of women who think that the Church would be damaged by the change have their work diluted in dealing with the sisters who disagree.  Working outside Church channels is seen as the only way for change.  OW is not a positive influence, will not take no for an answer and do not act as disciples ought to (IMO).

[changed]

Another attempt to defend and stand up for who our leaders really are - not uneducated ignorant bumpkins, but people who have more experience and knowledge than some would like to admit. 

"a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"

it must be so frustrating for them to be constantly misrepresented and slandered, after a life of service, this is the thanks they get?  We need more members standing up and defending our leaders - we need to stop saying things like "they are only human, they make mistakes" and isntead say "listen to your bishop, they know better than you, their criticism is correct, you need to change." 

It's not about the nail?

Let's stop allowing people to wallow in their imagined realities, and somehow get them to wake up - not push them away of coarse, which is the trick... How do you convince someone their problems are not the fault of the messanger? 

[frank_jessop]

We need more members standing up and defending our leaders - we need to ... say "listen to your bishop, they know better than you, their criticism is correct, you need to change. ...

How do you convince someone their problems are not the fault of the messanger?

We should probably start by not assuming that a person voicing a complaint is the one who in "need to change".

[Kenngo1969]

We should probably start by not assuming that a person voicing a complaint is the one who in "need to change".

Complaining is easy; genuinely changing is hard.  There are all sorts of things I would change, if only I were in charge.  (This Church, this world, and myriad institutions and conditions herein would be much better off, if only the utter brilliance of my viewpoints were recognized! )  For example, I might completely disagree with how Microsoft is being run: what should (or can) I do about it?  I don't even own any Microsoft stock: one share of Microsoft stock costs more than I pay in rent each month.   As much as I might be concerned about such lofty issues, my trying to change them is the rough equivalent of spitting (or, as my good friend Blue Dreams once put it, farting) into the wind. Alas, my circle of influence is much smaller than my circle of concern.  There is only so much I can do, about so much.  And perhaps I need to recognize that I don't see the things I believe need to change as they are; I see them as I am.  If I had a different perspective, my beliefs about what needs to change and how would be different.  As difficult as I think it might be to improve on perfection, and as unfair as I think this might be, since, surely (given my state of perfection) I don't need to change, I am the one thing I have the most power to change.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

All PR departments get it wrong sometimes... That's nothing new. In general ours does a better than average job considering the challenges they face.

That said... God has prophets to speak for him. We have conference for doctrine. The PR department, by its own admission is a relationship bridge, not a source of doctrine.

You darn the PR arm of the Church of Jesus Christ with truly faint praise, Bikeemikey.

 

P.S.: Change an unpopular doctrine here and an unpopular doctrine there, and the job of the Church's PR arm would be much easier!  I can't fathom why the powers-that-be don't seem to get that. It's baffling, really.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Bikeemikey]

You darn the PR arm of the Church of Jesus Christ with truly faint praise, Bikeemikey.

P.S.: Change an unpopular doctrine here and an unpopular doctrine there, and the job of the Church's PR arm would be much easier! I can't fathom why the powers-that-be don't seem to get that. It's baffling, really.

Sure changing some doctrines would improve things a little, however, we are still a religion.

A religion that has a PR department and a prophetic is still ironic, though necessary to be sure.

[smac97]

Here is what I find to be the money quote from the letter.
 

Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion.

 
I may be going out on a limb here, but I suspect that "non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes" = "I (Kate Kelly) want women to be given the mantle of God ... and nothing less will suffice."  (Source)

And this: Kate Kelly: "Mormon women I know have a very difficult time being assertive and directly asking for what we want and need (passive aggression aside). With this background and culture I understand how directly asking (*gasp* demanding) for what we want to see happen can seem intimidating and selfish." (Source)
 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

[smac97]

Sure changing some doctrines would improve things a little, however, we are still a religion.

A religion that has a PR department and a prophetic is still ironic, though necessary to be sure.

 

The irony about having a Public Affairs Department (I don't think the Church has a "PR (Public Relations) department") eludes me.  Here's a good synopsis of the origins of the LDS Public Affairs Department:

 

The Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized in 1972 in response to a long-felt need for channeling and coordinating information about the growing Church throughout the world. In 1983 the department's name was expanded to Public Communications/Special Affairs after the original department merged with Special Affairs, the Church's government and community relations office. The department is responsible to, and counsels with, the Church's Special Affairs Committee, comprised of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and members of the Quorums of the Seventy. It maintains ongoing contacts with news media at local, national, and international levels. The staff prepares and distributes information about the Church, its programs, events, and activities; produces and distributes Public Affairs radio and television programs for the use of the media and community organizations; answers queries from the media and the public; and hosts news media representatives. Designated spokespersons convey Church policy statements on pertinent issues to the public via the media. In addition, designated members join with representatives of other churches and national organizations committed to combat pornography, alcohol abuse, gambling, and various other social problems.

 

Are you suggesting that there is not a need for "channeling and coordinating information about" the LDS Church "throughout the world?"

 

Are you suggesting that there is no need for for the Church to assign responsibility for maintaining "ongoing contacts with news media?"  Do such contacts not exist?  Or do they exist and take care of themselves?  Or would the Church be better off by insulating itself from the media altogether?  Or should the Church refer media inquiries to any random Mormon whose name is picked out of a hat?

 

Are you suggesting that the Church should not produce and distribute information about itself and its programs, events and activities?

 

Are you suggesting that the Church should not have designated spokespersons?

 

The need for a Public Affairs Department in this day and age is, to me, strongly self-evident.  I think it would be absurd for the Church to not have such an organ in place.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

You darn the PR arm of the Church of Jesus Christ with truly faint praise, Bikeemikey.

 

P.S.: Change an unpopular doctrine here and an unpopular doctrine there, and the job of the Church's PR arm would be much easier!  I can't fathom why the powers-that-be don't seem to get that. It's baffling, really.

Uh, Beep-beep-beep!  Irony alert!  Irony alert!  Beep-beep-beep!

[Scott Lloyd]

The irony about having a Public Affairs Department (I don't think the Church has a "PR (Public Relations) department") eludes me.  Here's a good synopsis of the origins of the LDS Public Affairs Department:

 

The Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized in 1972 in response to a long-felt need for channeling and coordinating information about the growing Church throughout the world. In 1983 the department's name was expanded to Public Communications/Special Affairs after the original department merged with Special Affairs, the Church's government and community relations office. The department is responsible to, and counsels with, the Church's Special Affairs Committee, comprised of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and members of the Quorums of the Seventy. It maintains ongoing contacts with news media at local, national, and international levels. The staff prepares and distributes information about the Church, its programs, events, and activities; produces and distributes Public Affairs radio and television programs for the use of the media and community organizations; answers queries from the media and the public; and hosts news media representatives. Designated spokespersons convey Church policy statements on pertinent issues to the public via the media. In addition, designated members join with representatives of other churches and national organizations committed to combat pornography, alcohol abuse, gambling, and various other social problems.

 

Are you suggesting that there is not a need for "channeling and coordinating information about" the LDS Church "throughout the world?"

 

Are you suggesting that there is no need for for the Church to assign responsibility for maintaining "ongoing contacts with news media?"  Do such contacts not exist?  Or do they exist and take care of themselves?  Or would the Church be better off by insulating itself from the media altogether?  Or should the Church refer media inquiries to any random Mormon whose name is picked out of a hat?

 

Are you suggesting that the Church should not produce and distribute information about itself and its programs, events and activities?

 

Are you suggesting that the Church should not have designated spokespersons?

 

The need for a Public Affairs Department in this day and age is, to me, strongly self-evident.  I think it would be absurd for the Church to not have such an organ in place.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I like everything about this quoted synopsis except for the term "spokespersons." Yuck!

 

I've rejected that contrived and awkward construction ever since it was imposed upon society by radical feminism back in the 1970s. I always look for any way I can find to avoid using it: representatives, agents, even spokesmen or spokeswomen, as the case may be.

 

For what it's worth, the Associated Press in its style guide has never allowed  -person constructions such as spokesperson, chairperson or businessperson.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Michael Otterson and the Public Affairs Department, but their continual use of "spokesperson" annoys me.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[frank_jessop]

Complaining is easy; genuinely changing is hard.  There are all sorts of things I would change, if only I were in charge.  (This Church, this world, and myriad institutions and conditions herein would be much better off, if only the utter brilliance of my viewpoints were recognized! )  For example, I might completely disagree with how Microsoft is being run: what should (or can) I do about it?  I don't even own any Microsoft stock: one share of Microsoft stock costs more than I pay in rent each month.   As much as I might be concerned about such lofty issues, my trying to change them is the rough equivalent of spitting (or, as my good friend Blue Dreams once put it, farting) into the wind. Alas, my circle of influence is much smaller than my circle of concern.  There is only so much I can do, about so much.  And perhaps I need to recognize that I don't see the things I believe need to change as they are; I see them as I am.  If I had a different perspective, my beliefs about what needs to change and how would be different.  As difficult as I think it might be to improve on perfection, and as unfair as I think this might be, since, surely (given my state of perfection) I don't need to change, I am the one thing I have the most power to change.

I do not see this as a good comparison to someone saying "Your Priesthood Leaders know better than you, you are the one who is wrong".

Pushing an attitude of infallibility is not going to help someone who understands that there is fallibility.

[smac97]

The OW Group has apparently responded to the article being discussed in this thread: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58008349-180/women-church-ordain-otterson.html.csp

 

 

Top Mormon officials are listening to many members — including feminists — on women’s issues but are not willing to engage with "more extreme groups," which "make nonnegotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the church can’t possibly accept," LDS public affairs director Michael Otterson said Thursday in a five-page open letter sent to several Mormon blogs.

 

"No matter what the intent," Otterson wrote, "such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion."

 

Otterson didn’t name any group in particular, but many inferred he was talking about Ordain Women, an LDS movement pushing for women to be admitted into the church’s all-male priesthood.

 

On Friday, Ordain Women responded to Otterson’s letter, saying in a statement posted on its website, "we are encouraged that there is continued sincere interest in more deeply discussing women’s opportunities and service in our church."

 

It praised the Utah-based faith’s Public Affairs Department for "interacting with LDS blogs" and lauded "the women and male allies of Ordain Women who have courageously moved this conversation on gender equality in the church forward."

 

The group also pointed out that most supporters of Ordain Women "are faithful, active members of the church, [who] look forward to the day when we can sit down with our leaders and discuss these issues with those we sustain to do God’s work."

Here's the link to the actual blog posting by OW: http://ordainwomen.org/ow-response-to-public-affairs-statement/

At a time when many are leaving organized religion, we are encouraged that there is continued sincere interest in more deeply discussing women’s opportunities and service in our church. We are glad that Michael Otterson took the time to specifically respond to questions many LDS women have. We also appreciate that the Public Affairs Department is interacting with LDS blogs. We are proud of the women and male allies of Ordain Women who have courageously moved this conversation on gender equality in the Church forward. As the majority of Ordain Women supporters are faithful, active members of the Church, we look forward to the day when we can sit down with our leaders and discuss these issues with those we sustain to do God’s work.

Here is also a link to a Times & Seasons response to the article: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/05/a-partial-response-to-brother-otterson/

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 30, 2014 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

I do not see this as a good comparison to someone saying "Your Priesthood Leaders know better than you, you are the one who is wrong".

Pushing an attitude of infallibility is not going to help someone who understands that there is fallibility.

Fine.  To each, his own.  I wish you well.