No Daylight Between The Brethren And Church's Public Affairs Department

[rockpond]

The committee includes Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Maybe they're frustrated as Mormon stated because of the evolution of their audience:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/9.4?lang=eng#3

4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.

 

Frustration with the audience doesn't make sense in the context of what Otterson said.

[cinepro]

There's been quite a bit of sneering antipathy towards the church PR department from some on this board in the past. Hopefully this article will clear up the wrong perspectives those critics have

 

 

I certainly don't speak for all "critics", but as one who considers himself quite "critical" of many things in the current Church, I am mystified where this perception is coming from.  It doesn't even make any sense.

 

As I see it, critics want the PR department to be speaking officially, "on the record" , with their words representing Church leadership and written in stone.  It's better to have more, authoritative statements out there on many different issues.

 

It is the apologists and defenders who continually need to separate and marginalize statements from PR persons (and even Church leaders themselves) when such statements cut too close to positions that are uncomfortable to defend.  It's great that we can all agree that the PR department speaks "as one" with the Church leadership.  

 

Now if we could just agree that Apostles speaking in Conference are also speaking "as one" for Church leadership, things would get really interesting.

[jwhitlock]

 

I certainly don't speak for all "critics", but as one who considers himself quite "critical" of many things in the current Church, I am mystified where this perception is coming from.  It doesn't even make any sense.

 

As I see it, critics want the PR department to be speaking officially, "on the record" , with their words representing Church leadership and written in stone.  It's better to have more, authoritative statements out there on many different issues.

 

It is the apologists and defenders who continually need to separate and marginalize statements from PR persons (and even Church leaders themselves) when such statements cut too close to positions that are uncomfortable to defend.  It's great that we can all agree that the PR department speaks "as one" with the Church leadership.  

 

Now if we could just agree that Apostles speaking in Conference are also speaking "as one" for Church leadership, things would get really interesting.

 

Mystified?  Perhaps this post or this post will help.

[Judd]

It is the apologists and defenders who continually need to separate and marginalize statements from PR persons (and even Church leaders themselves) when such statements cut too close to positions that are uncomfortable to defend. It's great that we can all agree that the PR department speaks "as one" with the Church leadership.

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this, but would you be willing to share a couple general examples/issues so we're on the same page?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I certainly don't speak for all "critics", but as one who considers himself quite "critical" of many things in the current Church, I am mystified where this perception is coming from.  It doesn't even make any sense.

 

As I see it, critics want the PR department to be speaking officially, "on the record" , with their words representing Church leadership and written in stone.  It's better to have more, authoritative statements out there on many different issues.

 

It is the apologists and defenders who continually need to separate and marginalize statements from PR persons (and even Church leaders themselves) when such statements cut too close to positions that are uncomfortable to defend.  It's great that we can all agree that the PR department speaks "as one" with the Church leadership.  

 

Now if we could just agree that Apostles speaking in Conference are also speaking "as one" for Church leadership, things would get really interesting.

At the risk of sounding "intemperate" or "harsh," if not "unkind," I'll say that the above post is pure bull.

 

It is the Church's critics who with great frequency state or insinuate that Public Affairs acts on its own part without input from the Church leadership, just as Otterson observes.

 

Here is a recent example from this board:

 

 

Scott Lloyd, on 28 Jul 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

 

What you call the Church's "PR Department" doesn't freelance. It functions under the direction of Church leaders at the highest level. So you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

To which rockpond responded:

 

I'd love to hear which church leaders you think are going to claim responsibility for that disaster of a press release.

 

 

The subject under discussion was the Church's response on "Mormon Newsroom" to the recent BSA policy change.

 

And my remark was in response to this from Stone holm:

 

 

Yeah, I thought this would be how they would react. The Church needs to make some changes in its PR Department it's embarrassing that the Catholics made a more dignified and thoughtful response.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Edited to add:

 

This is not the first time Otterson has made this point publicly. He said essentially the same  thing in a blog post published about a year ago. My "Public Affairs doesn't freelance" phrasing was drawn from that blog post by Otterson.

 

Maybe the message will get through this time. I plan to keep the link to the verbatim transcript of his FairMormon address at the ready just in case it does not.

 

I said in my response to the above post from rockpond:

 

You are fooling yourself if you think this statement is merely the work of some inept or maverick PR flack off in some musty cubicle. How many times do you have to be told? The Public Affairs Department of the Church does not freelance.

 

I thought it deliciously ironic that two or three weeks later, Otterson would reiterate that in his definitive and pointed address at the FairMormon Conference.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Mystified?  Perhaps this post or this post will help.

 

Yes, that second post really illustrates what appears to be contempt for the Public Affairs Department.

 

Cinepro's sneer at the point made, that the Washington Post should have contacted the PA Department for an authoritative statement from the Church rather than attributing as the Church's position the personal opinion of a single BYU professor, is rather odd.

 

On the one hand, Cinepro claims that critics of the Church of Jesus Christ, such as himself, "want the PR department to be speaking officially, 'on the record.'"  

 

But on the other hand, when A) a newspaper quotes a BYU professor making controversial and speculative remarks about a tremendously sensitive topic (the origins of the priesthood ban, which the Church has since publicly said are largely unknown), and B) when that newspaper attributes those remarks as being binding on the LDS Church (because Prof. Bott is employed at BYU and teaches religion there), and C) when that newspaper fails to contact the LDS Church's PA Department regarding the Church's official/authoritative position (which, as I think we all know, would have yielded a response which would have largely taken the air out of the controversy caused by Prof. Bott's comments, but which would have also made for less interesting copy), then Cinepro's response is to . . . wait for it . . . sneer at the notion that the LDS Church should be given the opportunity to speak for itself.

 

So which is it?  Do critics like Cinepro think the LDS Church's PA Department should speak "officially" to outside audiences (such as newspapers)?  Or should such newspapers instead go with controversial remarks/opinions given by individuals affiliated with the Church?

 

I also note that in that other thread a poster observed and reported that Prof. Bott had taken down a controversial blog post pertaining to his thoughts on this subject.  It's probably a fair - but still speculative - surmise to say that he removed this post because it was controversial and because of the negative and embarrassing attention it was garnering to himself and to his church.  And Cinepro's response to this observation was . . . wait for it again . . . to locate an archived copy of this blog and post a link to it.  And Cinepro did this only minutes after saying this: "In reading the Church's hot-potato press release, the only thing I could think of is that this has to be a very, very bad day for Brother Bott."

 

I concurred with this assessment.  It probably was a very, very bad day for Brother Bott.  And I suspect it was not a day made better by a critic (and, IIRC, a member) of the LDS Church, with apparent relish and schadenfreude, re-posting comments Brother Bott was attempting to retract.

 

I hope and pray I will never become an open and avowed critic of my faith.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited August 12, 2015 by smac97

[rockpond]

At the risk of sounding "intemperate" or "harsh," if not "unkind," I'll say that the above post is pure bull.

 

It is the Church's critics who with great frequency state or insinuate that Public Affairs acts on its own part without input from the Church leadership, just as Otterson observes.

 

Here is a recent example from this board:

 

 

The subject under discussion was the Church's response on "Mormon Newsroom" to the recent BSA policy change.

 

And my remark was in response to this from Stone holm:

 

Q.E.D.

 

Edited to add:

 

This is not the first time Otterson has made this point publicly. He said essentially the same  thing in a blog post published about a year ago. My "Public Affairs doesn't freelance" phrasing was drawn from that blog post by Otterson.

 

Maybe the message will get through this time. I plan to keep the link to the verbatim transcript of his FairMormon address at the ready just in case it does not.

 

I said in my response to the above post from rockpond:

 

I thought it deliciously ironic that two or three weeks later, Otterson would reiterate that in his definitive and pointed address at the FairMormon Conference.

 

Read my statement Scott:

 

"I'd love to hear which church leaders you think are going to claim responsibility for that disaster of a press release."

 

I didn't deny that church leaders had been involved in the PR statement.  I said I'd like to see who claims that honor.  To date, it appears none of them have.

[Stone holm]

Read my statement Scott:

 

"I'd love to hear which church leaders you think are going to claim responsibility for that disaster of a press release."

 

I didn't deny that church leaders had been involved in the PR statement.  I said I'd like to see who claims that honor.  To date, it appears none of them have.I

 

I believe he was responding to my comment that the Church needs to make some changes in PR Department because it was embarrassing that the Catholics made a more thoughtful response [this was before the Bishop I ND cut loose and disaffiliated from the BSA].  His response was that he was sure the GAs were involved in the response, hence I suppose no faithful Mormon would dare criticize a response which the GAs had a hand in.  In other words, if you criticize how the Church handles a PR response you are not a faithful Latter-Day Saint, because whatever they have a hand in must the absolute best way to have responded.

[rockpond]

I believe he was responding to my comment that the Church needs to make some changes in PR Department because it was embarrassing that the Catholics made a more thoughtful response [this was before the Bishop I ND cut loose and disaffiliated from the BSA].  His response was that he was sure the GAs were involved in the response, hence I suppose no faithful Mormon would dare criticize a response which the GAs had a hand in.  In other words, if you criticize how the Church handles a PR response you are not a faithful Latter-Day Saint, because whatever they have a hand in must the absolute best way to have responded.

 

Got it.  The old infallible fallibility at work.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read my statement Scott:

 

"I'd love to hear which church leaders you think are going to claim responsibility for that disaster of a press release."

 

I didn't deny that church leaders had been involved in the PR statement.  I said I'd like to see who claims that honor.  To date, it appears none of them have.

Why is it necessary that one person in particular "claim responsibility" for it? Why can't it be taken to constitute the collective and unified position of the Church leadership?

 

Your complaint reminds me of the portion of Otterson's speech where he talked about the news conference earlier this year in which no less than three apostles were present to call on the Utah Legislature to pass a bill that treated religious rights and gay rights in a fair and balanced way.

 

Earlier in the talk, Otterson had cited a blogger who had characterized Public Affairs as a "rogue department."

 

Speaking of the news conference about the gay rights bill, Otterson quipped, "Some people actually challenged the validity of the message because there were 'only' three members of the Twelve, and not all of them plus the First Presidency. Presumably these three apostles were 'rogue' also."

 

Now, because you don't like the statement of the Church on the recent BSA action, it seems, if you can't charge it wholly to the Public Affairs Department, you are casting about to blame it on some "rogue" member of the Quorum of the Twelve, or perhaps even some "rogue" member of the First Presidency.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe he was responding to my comment that the Church needs to make some changes in PR Department because it was embarrassing that the Catholics made a more thoughtful response [this was before the Bishop I ND cut loose and disaffiliated from the BSA].  His response was that he was sure the GAs were involved in the response, hence I suppose no faithful Mormon would dare criticize a response which the GAs had a hand in.  In other words, if you criticize how the Church handles a PR response you are not a faithful Latter-Day Saint, because whatever they have a hand in must the absolute best way to have responded.

Something Otterson said last Friday applies here:

 

 

Sadly, the insight and understanding of some who love to write volumes of commentary seems often in inverse proportion to the amount of words they write. Perhaps it's simply easier to target Public Affairs because it seems less disrespectful than criticizing Church leaders. If so, we are honored to take those "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."

 

 

(Emphasis in original)

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, if in the future the PR department of the Church is caught misquoting sources, waffling on the truth, ignoring contradicting statements from previous Church leaders, or flat out misrepresenting the statements or teachings of previous Church leaders on doctrinal subjects, should I treat that as if it was done with the support of the current Prophet and Apostles and is, in effect, their doing, or should I treat it as if the PR department was acting independently?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just so I'm clear, if in the future the PR department of the Church is caught misquoting sources, waffling on the truth, ignoring contradicting statements from previous Church leaders, or flat out misrepresenting the statements or teachings of previous Church leaders on doctrinal subjects, should I treat that as if it was done with the support of the current Prophet and Apostles and is, in effect, their doing, or should I treat it as if the PR department was acting independently?

Is this another "I wouldn't put it past 'em" attack?

 

Perhaps this passage from Otterson's address bears quoting:

 

No member o the Public Affairs staff would last long if he or she issued a statement on behalf of the Church that had not been approved. Of course, we frequently suggest a response to a breaking issue, but the Brethren are not shy in editing or rejecting those statements or writing their own versions. In addition, the member of the Twelve who chairs the Public Affairs Committee will confer with other members of the Twelve or with the First Presidency on major issues. Our task is to find language that most accurately reflects what's in the Brethren's minds. There is no place for private agendas on the part of the staff.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Why is it necessary that one person in particular "claim responsibility" for it? Why can't it be taken to constitute the collective and unified position of the Church leadership?

 

Your complaint reminds me of the portion of Otterson's speech where he talked about the news conference earlier this year in which no less than three apostles were present to call on the Utah Legislature to pass a bill that treated religious rights and gay rights in a fair and balanced way.

 

Earlier in the talk, Otterson had cited a blogger who had characterized Public Affairs as a "rogue department."

 

Speaking of the news conference about the gay rights bill, Otterson quipped, "Some people actually challenged the validity of the message because there were 'only' three members of the Twelve, and not all of them plus the First Presidency. Presumably these three apostles were 'rogue' also."

 

Now, because you don't like the statement of the Church on the recent BSA action, it seems, if you can't charge it wholly to the Public Affairs Department, you are casting about to blame it on some "rogue" member of the Quorum of the Twelve, or perhaps even some "rogue" member of the First Presidency.

 

You sure have read a lot into my statement.  Most of it incorrect.

 

It wasn't a complaint.  Nor did I say that it was necessary for someone to claim responsibility for it.

 

I stand by my criticism of the Newsroom statement following the recent BSA vote.  The statement contradicted current church policy and doctrine.  It gave off a selfish, childish tone:  we didn't get the delay we asked for so now we're taking our ball and going home.  It stands in contrast to the Church News statement on the matter from two weeks prior.

 

If the governing councils were unavailable to comment, maybe the Newsroom should have waited until they were available.  Or better yet, wait for the man who holds the keys and authority as the Lord's mouthpiece on earth, to make a statement on the matter.  And then quote him.

[Scott Lloyd]

You sure have read a lot into my statement.  Most of it incorrect.

 

It wasn't a complaint.  Nor did I say that it was necessary for someone to claim responsibility for it.

 

I stand by my criticism of the Newsroom statement following the recent BSA vote.  The statement contradicted current church policy and doctrine.  It gave off a selfish, childish tone:  we didn't get the delay we asked for so now we're taking our ball and going home.  It stands in contrast to the Church News statement on the matter from two weeks prior.

 

If the governing councils were unavailable to comment, maybe the Newsroom should have waited until they were available.  Or better yet, wait for the man who holds the keys and authority as the Lord's mouthpiece on earth, to make a statement on the matter.  And then quote him.

So much that could be said in response to this, but I'll forebear except to the say the following:

 

"Church policy" is what the Church leadership, not you, defines it to be.

 

And as for what constitutes Church doctrine, I'll accept the collective understanding of the Brethren over yours any day of the week.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

You sure have read a lot into my statement.  Most of it incorrect.

 

It wasn't a complaint.  Nor did I say that it was necessary for someone to claim responsibility for it.

 

I stand by my criticism of the Newsroom statement following the recent BSA vote.  The statement contradicted current church policy and doctrine.

Says the fellow who thinks the Church ought to introduce "same sex temple marriage."

Which policy? Which doctrine?

 It gave off a selfish, childish tone:  we didn't get the delay we asked for so now we're taking our ball and going home.  It stands in contrast to the Church News statement on the matter from two weeks prior.

So it wasn't to your taste. We get it.

I wonder if your incessant whining about the statement's "tone" isn't just a way of indirectly going after its substance; after all, isn't that where your real beef is?

 

If the governing councils were unavailable to comment, maybe the Newsroom should have waited until they were available.  Or better yet, wait for the man who holds the keys and authority as the Lord's mouthpiece on earth, to make a statement on the matter.  And then quote him.

Yet again, again: the PA department is not the ecclesiastical channel of communications. Its role is to tell the world what the Church's public positions are. They don't need Priesthood authority to do that.

And President Monson has had plenty of time to order a correction or retraction. He has not yet chosen to do so.

I wonder why?

[Scott Lloyd]

Says the fellow who thinks the Church ought to introduce "same sex temple marriage."

Which policy? Which doctrine?

So it wasn't to your taste. We get it.

I wonder if your incessant whining about the statement's "tone" isn't just a way of indirectly going after its substance; after all, isn't that where your real beef is?

 

Yet again, again: the PA department is not the ecclesiastical channel of communications. Its role is to tell the world what the Church's public positions are. They don't need Priesthood authority to do that.

And President Monson has had plenty of time to order a correction or retraction. He has not yet chosen to do so.

I wonder why?

I guess he just can't control that "rogue department."

Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

So much that could be said in response to this, but I'll forebear except to the say the following:

 

"Church policy" is what the Church leadership, not you, defines it to be.

 

Even when it contradicts itself.  Apparently.

[Scott Lloyd]

Even when it contradicts itself.  Apparently.

The validity of that accusation is not self-evident.

[rockpond]

I wonder if your incessant whining about the statement's "tone" isn't just a way of indirectly going after its substance; after all, isn't that where your real beef is?

 

If by substance you mean the Church indicating that it may end its affiliation with the BSA... I don't have a problem with that other than being sad that my sons will miss out on the LDS BSA experience.

 

It's the tone that bothers me.

[ttribe]

So much that could be said in response to this, but I'll forebear except to the say the following:

 

"Church policy" is what the Church leadership, not you, defines it to be.

 

And as for what constitutes Church doctrine, I'll accept the collective understanding of the Brethren over yours any day of the week.

 

 

Says the fellow who thinks the Church ought to introduce "same sex temple marriage."

Which policy? Which doctrine?

So it wasn't to your taste. We get it.

I wonder if your incessant whining about the statement's "tone" isn't just a way of indirectly going after its substance; after all, isn't that where your real beef is?

 

Yet again, again: the PA department is not the ecclesiastical channel of communications. Its role is to tell the world what the Church's public positions are. They don't need Priesthood authority to do that.

And President Monson has had plenty of time to order a correction or retraction. He has not yet chosen to do so.

I wonder why?

 

 

I guess he just can't control that "rogue department."

 

[jwhitlock]

Just so I'm clear, if in the future the PR department of the Church is caught misquoting sources, waffling on the truth, ignoring contradicting statements from previous Church leaders, or flat out misrepresenting the statements or teachings of previous Church leaders on doctrinal subjects, should I treat that as if it was done with the support of the current Prophet and Apostles and is, in effect, their doing, or should I treat it as if the PR department was acting independently?

 

I'm sure it doesn't matter. As a critic, you're going to find something to criticize no matter what they do.

[jwhitlock]

You sure have read a lot into my statement.  Most of it incorrect.

 

It wasn't a complaint.  Nor did I say that it was necessary for someone to claim responsibility for it.

 

I stand by my criticism of the Newsroom statement following the recent BSA vote.  The statement contradicted current church policy and doctrine.  It gave off a selfish, childish tone:  we didn't get the delay we asked for so now we're taking our ball and going home.  It stands in contrast to the Church News statement on the matter from two weeks prior.

 

If the governing councils were unavailable to comment, maybe the Newsroom should have waited until they were available.  Or better yet, wait for the man who holds the keys and authority as the Lord's mouthpiece on earth, to make a statement on the matter.  And then quote him.

 

That, of course, is your interpretation. It's colored by the distrust you have of anything that comes from the church that doesn't fit your worldly-view.

 

There are other ways to look at it, though. Rather than just being "childish" (more sneering criticism of the PA department) because they didn't get the delay, perhaps - just perhaps - the church was actually blindsided by the BSA with a number of behind the scenes items related to the vote. From what I understand, Elder Holland, for instance, was only given one hour notification of the vote. The public tone of the church in the time before the vote relayed a willingness to work with the BSA. With the tone of the press release when the BSA vote occurred, it appears very likely that the BSA basically dissed the church in the way the vote was held and in the attitudes conveyed to the church.

 

Otherwise, I doubt the church would have responded as strongly as they did. The press release sent a strong, public message to the BSA about what they did and how they did it.

 

The tone of your post, on the other hand, portrays a clear antipathy towards the church PA department and those who direct it. The church is always guilty, in your mind, until proven innocent - which means agreeing with your "progressive" viewpoints.

[ttribe]

That, of course, is your interpretation. It's colored by the distrust you have of anything that comes from the church that doesn't fit your worldly-view.

 

[snip]

 

The tone of your post, on the other hand, portrays a clear antipathy towards the church PA department and those who direct it. The church is always guilty, in your mind, until proven innocent - which means agreeing with your "progressive" viewpoints.

 

How is it you claim to know his "mind" better than he does?

[jkwilliams]

I'm sure it doesn't matter. As a critic, you're going to find something to criticize no matter what they do.

 

And if we can't find something to criticize, we'll just make something up!