Reform Mormonism? The Future Splintering Of The Church?

[stemelbow]

I'm not opposed to him having professionals help craft the message.

You just want only Monson to put a voice when it comes to the Church's message and position? or all the 15? no one else? NOt sure where to stop on this. Any GA? How about other 70 that aren't GA? Eh...who cares who actually says the words? Not sure I do.

[rockpond]

You just want only Monson to put a voice when it comes to the Church's message and position? or all the 15? no one else? NOt sure where to stop on this. Any GA? How about other 70 that aren't GA? Eh...who cares who actually says the words? Not sure I do.

 

I think there are times when statements by public affairs are appropriate.  And I think there are times when things should be said in Gen Con.  I also think there are times when a FP/Q12 signed letter, read from the pulpit is the best method.  Proclamations/Official Declarations definitely have their place as well.

 

In our church, we believe that authority and keys matter.  I start Sacrament meeting each week by acknowledging the presiding officer.  I just think that when the PA dept, or MormonNewsroom.org, or whoever it may be, is speaking on behalf of the Prophet/FP/Q12 it should be clear.

 

I'm sure many feel that OW received a response to their petition of the Prophet.  But I don't think that they feel that they have.  This is not to say that they deserve a response or have a right to a response.  It was just my observation, putting myself in their shoes, when I responded to Calmoriah.

[ksfisher]

I'm sure many feel that OW received a response to their petition of the Prophet.  But I don't think that they feel that they have.  This is not to say that they deserve a response or have a right to a response.  It was just my observation, putting myself in their shoes, when I responded to Calmoriah.

 

Not to argue your point, but do wonder if President Monson were to respond directly to OW with a no, would they believe him?  Or would they bring up mistakes or misstatements by prophets in the past or chuch policies about blacks and the priesthood or the patriarchy protecting itself. 

 

I believe that if a no answer was given that there would be many who would not believe the prophet was speaking for God and fall even further away.

[rockpond]

Not to argue your point, but do wonder if President Monson were to respond directly to OW with a no, would they believe him?  Or would they bring up mistakes or misstatements by prophets in the past or chuch policies about blacks and the priesthood or the patriarchy protecting itself. 

 

I believe that if a no answer was given that there would be many who would not believe the prophet was speaking for God and fall even further away.

 

Entirely possible but I'm not willing to judge them for a hypothetical response to a hypothetical situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe I have missed it, but no one seems to have picked up on your wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I will see your winks and nudges and raise you a lifted eyebrow.

I too have noticed a surprising lack of alertness on this, both here and on the responses over on Dan's blog.

 

Only one respondent that I saw made allusion to it with a brief comment, something along the lines of "I see what you did, Professor."

 

Here's a hint: Dan's fanciful scenario could be regarded as an allegory.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Some people still hold to the antiquated belief that the Prophet should speak for the Church.

Do you really believe, then, that Church Public Affairs ought to be viewed as acting on their own part without direction from the Brethren? That's quite unrealistic and inaccurate.

 

Edited to add:

 

For review and reference, here is the statement from Michael Otterson that I have alluded to. It is from his open letter, "Context Missing from Discussion about Women."

 

  

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.

As managing director of the Public Affairs Department, I work under the direct supervision of two members of the Twelve apostles, two members of the Presidency of the Seventy and the Presiding Bishop, and alongside a remarkable and devoted staff of men and women. This group of senior General Authorities often refers matters of particular importance to other councils of men and women leaders, to the full Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and to the First Presidency for further discussion or decision.

Edited further to add:

 

The PDF I've linked to does not have a date. But the letter was first published May 29 of last year on the "By Common Consent" blog.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Do you really believe, then, that Church Public Affairs ought to be viewed as acting on their own part without direction from the Brethren? That's quite unrealistic and inaccurate.

 

You're the journalist so you certainly have more professional experience than I do in dealing with public affairs.

 

From where I sit as a member of the church, it seems that if Church PA is going to release a statement that comes from the FP, that they should identify it as such.  Same with the Q12 or General RS Presidency, etc.  From my perspective, if it is an ecclesiastical matter, the ecclesiastical authority making the statement should be identified.  To my knowledge, Church PA has no ecclesiastical authority.  They are not sustained in General Conference.  So, when I read something they've written or listen to what they are saying, the base assumption is that they are speaking on behalf of the corporation that employs them unless they indicate otherwise.

 

In your position, you might have more visibility into this but for those of us not living in SLC, not employed by a church owned entity, we have zero knowledge of PA's interaction with the Prophet.  So, I will assume it to be "none" until informed differently.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're the journalist so you certainly have more professional experience than I do in dealing with public affairs.

 

From where I sit as a member of the church, it seems that if Church PA is going to release a statement that comes from the FP, that they should identify it as such.  Same with the Q12 or General RS Presidency, etc.  From my perspective, if it is an ecclesiastical matter, the ecclesiastical authority making the statement should be identified.  To my knowledge, Church PA has no ecclesiastical authority.  They are not sustained in General Conference.  So, when I read something they've written or listen to what they are saying, the base assumption is that they are speaking on behalf of the corporation that employs them unless they indicate otherwise.

 

In your position, you might have more visibility into this but for those of us not living in SLC, not employed by a church owned entity, we have zero knowledge of PA's interaction with the Prophet.  So, I will assume it to be "none" until informed differently.

I came back and added a quote from an open letter from Michael Otterson; perhaps you missed it, because it was a later addition.

 

But now that you have been informed, you no longer have "zero knowledge," and thus have "zero" excuse for the false assumption that the interaction between Public Affairs and the Church leaders  is "none" -- as though that were a reasonable assumption in the first place, which it is not.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I came back and added a quote from an open letter from Michael Otterson; perhaps you missed it, because it was a later addition.

 

But now that you have been informed, you no longer have "zero knowledge," and thus have "zero" excuse for the false assumption that the interaction between Public Affairs and the Church leaders  is "none" -- as though that were a reasonable assumption in the first place, which it is not.

 

You'll note that I said "zero interaction with the Prophet".  Which isn't really stated in the quote you provided.

 

Also, the Otterson quote you provided comes from, interestingly enough, his response to OW.  A response presumably written by him since he takes credit for the words by signing his name at the bottom.  We don't know who approved the response.  We don't know if it is the Prophet responding to OW.  That Otterson works under supervision of two apostles doesn't necessarily mean that the Prophet has approved his words.  It doesn't mean that the Prophet as responded to them.  Can you understand the perspective of OW on this?  I understand yours, especially given your professional credentials and experience in these areas.

 

I concede the point you are making with the quote... Otterson works under the supervision of two Apostles, the Presidency of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishop.  Can you understand the point I am making that as church members we generally expect to hear from our ecclesiastical leaders when it comes to ecclesiastical matters?  Not an employee who is neither called nor sustained to a church position.  If the Church does not want to be seen by people as a corporation, it ought not act like one.

[Stone holm]

How do we determine who the "Brethren" are in the case of a PA release?  I would think that history pretty much attests that the GAs may be united in purpose, but they surely cannot be considered a monolithic group with the same opinion on everything.  Given the flexibility on even doctrinal issues and the different nuances given doctrine by differing authorities -- how do we determine who influenced the wording of the PA release if it isn't signed by the First Presidency?

[Scott Lloyd]

You'll note that I said "zero interaction with the Prophet".  Which isn't really stated in the quote you provided.

 

The quote said that matters of particular importance are "often" referred to other councils, including the First Presidency. The first Presidency includes President Monson. Your statement is thus false.

 

Also, the Otterson quote you provided comes from, interestingly enough, his response to OW.  

 

 

Where did you get that? My understanding is that it is an open letter to  no one in particular.

 

 

A response presumably written by him since he takes credit for the words by signing his name at the bottom.

 

Of course he wrote it. Who is questioning that?

 

We don't know who approved the response.  

 

What difference does that make in this instance? He is writing on his own part, giving inside perspective in the wake of "comments on various blogs" from authors who are obviously speaking out of their own ignorance and false assumptions.

 

 

We don't know if it is the Prophet responding to OW.  

 

Again, this is not a direct response to OW. That assumption by you mystifies me.

 

 

That Otterson works under supervision of two apostles doesn't necessarily mean that the Prophet has approved his words.  It doesn't mean that the Prophet as responded to them.

 

To quote again from the letter: "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 is their professional duty in the capacity in which they work to understand the view of those who preside over the Church and, as a Public Affairs entity, never to utter a public statement that does not comport with the position of those high leaders in the Church.

 

 

 Can you understand the perspective of OW on this?

 

Again, I deem it unreasonable to think Public Affairs would be taking public positions on their own part and making statements that did not have the full backing of the presiding leaders of the Church who employ them.

 

 I understand yours, especially given your professional credentials and experience in these areas.

 

I don't believe it requires professional credentials and experience to form a reasonable conclusion on this.

 

I concede the point you are making with the quote... Otterson works under the supervision of two Apostles, the Presidency of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishop.  Can you understand the point I am making that as church members we generally expect to hear from our ecclesiastical leaders when it comes to ecclesiastical matters?

 

 

 

Surely you must understand that it is not practical or even possible -- even if it were deemed desirable and appropriate -- for the high leadership of the Church to respond personally each and every time this or that contentious person or entity might demand it of them.

 

 

Not an employee who is neither called nor sustained to a church position.  If the Church does not want to be seen by people as a corporation, it ought not act like one.

 

Refusing to accept a statement from their designated agent (in this instance, Public Affairs and its representatives) as being an authentic expression of their position is not acting in good faith. For outsiders to display such cynicism toward the leadership of the Church is less than praiseworthy; for professed believers to do so is downright contemptible and unconscionable.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

How do we determine who the "Brethren" are in the case of a PA release?  I would think that history pretty much attests that the GAs may be united in purpose, but they surely cannot be considered a monolithic group with the same opinion on everything.  Given the flexibility on even doctrinal issues and the different nuances given doctrine by differing authorities -- how do we determine who influenced the wording of the PA release if it isn't signed by the First Presidency?

See my last response to rockpond, particularly the last two sentences.

[rockpond]

The quote said that matters of particular importance are "often" referred to other councils, including the First Presidency. The first Presidency includes President Monson. Your statement is thus false.

 

Where did you get that? My understanding is that it is an open letter to  no one in particular.

 

Of course he wrote it. Who is questioning that?

 

What difference does that make in this instance? He is writing on his own part, giving inside perspective in the wake of "comments on various blogs" from authors who are obviously speaking out of their own ignorance and false assumptions.

 

 

Again, this is not a direct response to OW. That assumption by you mystifies me.

 

To quote again from the letter: "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 is their professional duty in the capacity in which they work to understand the view of those who preside over the Church and, as a Public Affairs entity, never to utter a public statement that does not comport with the position of those high leaders in the Church.

 

Again, I deem it unreasonable to think Public Affairs would be taking public positions on their own part and making statements that did not have the full backing of the presiding leaders of the Church who employ them.

 

I don't believe it requires professional credentials and experience to form a reasonable conclusion on this.

 

Surely you must understand that it is not practical or even possible -- even if it were deemed desirable and appropriate -- for the high leadership of the Church to respond on each and every matter that this or that contentious person or entity might demand of them.

 

Refusing to accept a statement from their designated agent (in this instance, Public Affairs and its representatives) as being an authentic expression of their position is not acting in good faith. For outsiders to display such cynicism toward the leadership of the Church is less than praiseworthy; for professed believers to do so is downright contemptible and unconscionable.

 

No, Scott, it's not contemptible or unconscionable.  Please come back to reality with me.  I had hoped that you could at least understand different perspectives on this but I suppose that's not the case.

 

Saying that an issue is referred to the First Presidency does not mean that the PA department interacted with them.

 

I didn't say that our church leaders should respond to every contentious person or entity.  What I said is that I believe members expect ecclesiastical leaders to respond to ecclesiastical matters.  PA is not an ecclesiastical calling.  They are not called and sustained.  They are employees of the corporation.  The Prophet, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, etc... they all have abundant means at their disposal of communicating with members.  When they choose not to take advantage of those means, that is fine.  But you cannot tell me that I should weight a message authored by Michael Otterson as I would a message from President Monson.  They are simply not the same.  To suggest that a statement from Otterson is equivalent to a statement from President Monson creates a new avenue for "scripture" that I don't think we want to breach.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, Scott, it's not contemptible or unconscionable.  Please come back to reality with me.  I had hoped that you could at least understand different perspectives on this but I suppose that's not the case.

 

Saying that an issue is referred to the First Presidency does not mean that the PA department interacted with them.

 

I didn't say that our church leaders should respond to every contentious person or entity.  What I said is that I believe members expect ecclesiastical leaders to respond to ecclesiastical matters.  PA is not an ecclesiastical calling.  They are not called and sustained.  They are employees of the corporation.  The Prophet, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, etc... they all have abundant means at their disposal of communicating with members.  When they choose not to take advantage of those means, that is fine.  But you cannot tell me that I should weight a message authored by Michael Otterson as I would a message from President Monson.  They are simply not the same.  To suggest that a statement from Otterson is equivalent to a statement from President Monson creates a new avenue for "scripture" that I don't think we want to breach.

I would hardly expect the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to allow critics, complainers and protesters to define for them their agenda on what is or is not an "ecclesiastical matter" requiring what amounts to an ex cathedra pronouncement.

[rockpond]

I would hardly expect the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to allow critics, complainers and protesters to define for them their agenda on what is or is not an "ecclesiastical matter" requiring what amounts to an ex cathedra pronouncement.

 

Of course not.  This is why I argued earlier in the thread that OW did not receive a response from the Prophet to their inquiry.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not.  This is why I argued earlier in the thread that OW did not receive a response from the Prophet to their inquiry.

But they did receive a reliable expression of the Church's position from his designated agent.

[rockpond]

But they did receive a reliable expression of the Church's position from his designated agent.

 

Which expression are you referring to?

[Scott Lloyd]

Which expression are you referring to?

Most any response they received from Church Public Affairs regarding their demands for priesthood ordination and their antics associated therewith (their disallowed entry and media show on Temple Square, among other things).

 

I hesitate to draw an analogy from my professional perspective, because you have inferred incorrectly that I am going by esoteric background that the average person would not be privy to. But if I'm writing a news story and I seek a comment from a company and am referred to public or media relations representative, I rely on expressions from said representative as being a credible expression of the company's position. I don't imply that what I've been given is useless because it didn't come directly from the company president.

 

The same would go for a government agency or a civic organization such as the Kawanis or Rotarians, and, yes, even for a religious organization. Again it is simply acting in good faith to do so.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Most any response they received from Church Public Affairs regarding their demands for priesthood ordination and their antics associated therewith (their disallowed entry and media show on Temple Square, among other things).

 

I hesitate to draw an analogy from my professional perspective, because you have implied incorrectly that I am going by esoteric background that the average person would not be privy to. But if I'm writing a news story and I seek a comment from a company and am referred to public or media relations representative, I rely on expressions from said representative as being a credible expression of the company's position. I don't imply that what I've been given is useless because it didn't come directly from the company president.

 

The same would go for a government agency or a civic organization such as the Kawanis or Rotarians, and, yes, even for a religious organization. Again it is simply acting in good faith to do so.

 

All agreed.  But they didn't ask a question for the company president.  They asked an ecclesiastical question for the Prophet.  Telling them to stay off Temple Square was not an answer to that inquiry.

 

Was there an "expression" that you had in mind that was an answer to their inquiry?

[Scott Lloyd]

All agreed.  But they didn't ask a question for the company president.  They asked an ecclesiastical question for the Prophet.  Telling them to stay off Temple Square was not an answer to that inquiry.

Obviously, not everyone who demands an audience or a personal response from the President of the Church is going to get one. Even I wouldn't expect that, and I'm not complaining, making unreasonable demands or staging media shows.

 

 

Was there an "expression" that you had in mind that was an answer to their inquiry?

 

Asked and answered. That was a generic reference to anything to which it might apply in the Ordain Women episode.

[rockpond]

Obviously, not everyone who demands an audience or a personal response from the President of the Church is going to get one. Even I wouldn't expect that, and I'm not complaining, making unreasonable demands or staging media shows.

 

 

Asked and answered. That was a generic reference to anything to which it might apply in the Ordain Women episode.

 

I certainly agree that not everyone who demands an audience or personal response from the President will get one.  Nor should they.

 

Ordain Women apparently falls into that category as they did not receive one.  That was my point originally.  And it seems that we agree on that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I certainly agree that not everyone who demands an audience or personal response from the President will get one.  Nor should they.

 

Ordain Women apparently falls into that category as they did not receive one.  That was my point originally.  And it seems that we agree on that.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. By "reliable expression," I meant one (or more) that can be counted on as being consistent with the position of the Church and its leadership. Whether it was satisfactory to them or others is, of course, a matter of subjective judgment.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. By "reliable expression," I meant one (or more) that can be counted on as being consistent with the position of the Church and its leadership. Whether it was satisfactory to them or others is, of course, a matter of subjective judgment.

 

Nope, I wasn't even trying to tackle the issue of whether or not it may have been satisfactory.  My point was just that they didn't get an answer to their inquiry.  (Not to be taken as a suggestion that they deserved it.)

[Stone holm]

Not sure everyone signed up to follow "designated agents", and this pretty much bypasses the question, since you don't know who is designating them to say what they are saying.

[Pahoran]

Actually, I find myself (much to my surprise) agreeing with the fringies here. The PAD is not in anyone's ecclesiastical reporting line. Scott is also right, in that it is perfectly reasonable to view their statement as a fair and faithful representation of President Monson's views -- if for no other reason that, if they get it wrong, they'll have to issue a correction or retraction fairly quickly -- but a public statement from Public Affairs is not the way the Church gives official instructions to the membership.

So what does it mean?

I can think of two possibilities:
 

1. The brethren wanted to let the OW people knew where they stood, but without giving them any sort of ultimatum.  After reading that statement, Ms Kelly and friends would know exactly what the brethren thought of their activities, and what they expected them to do -- but they couldn't claim that they were being subjected to any degree of "ecclesiastical pressure" over it.  We all know, after all, that "ecclesiastical abuse" is one of the regularly reiterated accusations from the disaffected.
2. The brethren are signalling that they think the OW group are largely MINO's, or even non-members, and therefore not likely to get the memo if it comes through ecclesiastical channels.  They're saying, "Hey, less-active and non-member friends, you're welcome to come onto our property during one of our sacred and very important meetings; now, here's how we'd like you to do things while you're there, and in the company of our members."

 

What the Public Affairs statement does not do is give anyone who has read it an excuse to claim that they don't know what the Church's leaders want.

 

Regards,
Pahoran