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

[jkwilliams]

Just couldn't resist the cheap insult, could you?

 

I find that I leave the church alone more when it's not showing up in my everyday life. I tend to talk (and post) about it when it's making its presence known in my home life. Of course, there's nothing wrong with not leaving it alone. I think the unspoken suggestion from the "you can leave it but you can't leave it alone" mantra is that there's some underlying obsession and animosity that is gnawing at our shriveled and embittered souls. Yes, I know that's a pretty good description of you and me, but it doesn't hold for everyone.

[stemelbow]

Here: Thus saith Mormon PR boss: We don’t go ‘rogue’

 

> Every word the LDS Church's Public Affairs Department issues on behalf of the Utah-based faith has been vetted and approved by higher Mormon authorities, the church's top spokesman said Friday.

I recall a PA dptment lady was interviewed in the wake of the Kate Kelly stuff some time ago. She answered the questions as they came. Not sure how every word was vetted in that. I'm not saying he's trying to be dishonest here, only that he is saying something that doesn't quite make sense. It's a pretty odd statement if ya think about it. It is almost meaningless...sadly. It'd make more sense if he said, all official statements we make go through the brethren for review.

[jkwilliams]

I recall a PA dptment lady was interviewed in the wake of the Kate Kelly stuff some time ago. She answered the questions as they came. Not sure how every word was vetted in that. I'm not saying he's trying to be dishonest here, only that he is saying something that doesn't quite make sense. It's a pretty odd statement if ya think about it. It is almost meaningless...sadly. It'd make more sense if he said, all official statements we make go through the brethren for review.

 

My guess is that she had talking points prepared in advance, so her answers would have followed them. If her answers had differed from what the church wanted her to say, I'm quite sure they would have issued a clarification or retraction. That they didn't suggests that her remarks were approved.

[Stone holm]

I find that I leave the church alone more when it's not showing up in my everyday life. I tend to talk (and post) about it when it's making its presence known in my home life. Of course, there's nothing wrong with not leaving it alone. I think the unspoken suggestion from the "you can leave it but you can't leave it alone" mantra is that there's some underlying obsession and animosity that is gnawing at our shriveled and embittered souls. Yes, I know that's a pretty good description of you and me, but it doesn't hold for everyone.

 

There is truth to the mantra that "apostates can leave the Church, but not leave it alone".  On the other hand, the mantra gets applied too broadly to suggest that any criticism of what a Church leader has done, or not done, is a sign of apostasy.  In other words, "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed."  Another concept spread too wide.  Critics are not necessarily "evil speaking", they aren't personally attacking the character of any GAs.  A person can be a wonderful, congenial, righteous, and compassionate human being and still make a boneheaded statement from time to time, as can a group of like minded people who engage in group-think and do the same thing.  What is interesting though, is often while a criticism may question a policy, all to frequently the critic is personally attacked rather than there being a rational discussion of the points made in criticism.  If a person is chronically called an apostate, or lacking in faith, eventually that can become a self-fulfilling prophesy and the person does in fact apostasize.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Stone holm

[stemelbow]

My guess is that she had talking points prepared in advance, so her answers would have followed them. If her answers had differed from what the church wanted her to say, I'm quite sure they would have issued a clarification or retraction. That they didn't suggests that her remarks were approved.

Shoot...this is going to make me try and search it out, but I'm too lazy. It certainly didn't come off as yu suggest. I do think she was okay'd after the fact, but I'm not sure she could have prepared to have vetted answers before the interview. Some talking points, sure. Some direction, sure. But there had to be some off-the-cuff commentary, one would think.

Ah well, I guess I'll just say, I don't quite buy it and leave it at that. But even if your idea is true, which "m sure for the most part it is, that does not equate to every word being vetted by the Brethren. It could very well be that she said some things that the brethren would have preferred to be worded differently, at the very least. Approval after the fact doesn't mean each word was vetted.

Edited August 12, 2015 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

Shoot...this is going to make me try and search it out, but I'm too lazy. It certainly didn't come off as yu suggest. I do think she was okay'd after the fact, but I'm not sure she could have prepared to have vetted answers before the interview. Some talking points, sure. Some direction, sure. But there had to be some off-the-cuff commentary, one would think.

Ah well, I guess I'll just say, I don't quite buy it and leave it at that. But even if your idea is true, which "m sure for the most part it is, that does not equate to every word being vetted by the Brethren. It could very well be that she said some things that the brethren would have preferred to be worded differently, at the very least. Approval after the fact doesn't mean each word was vetted.

 

I'm not sure where we disagree, as I said exactly that. I'm sure she was given talking points and guidelines, but if she had said anything that the church disapproved of, they would have issued a correction or retraction. Can you explain to me why you think it didn't come off that way? You basically restated what I said, so I'm left to wonder what you're disagreeing with.

[jkwilliams]

Likewise, maybe your unbelief isn't all that self-evident, either.

 

But I won't hold my breath waiting for any re-evaluation to happen on your side of the aisle.  That would be as futile as waiting for you to stop obsessing about what you've left but can't leave alone.

 

Of course my beliefs are not self-evident and are subject to constant re-evaluation. What makes you think otherwise? 

[Gray]

Shoot...this is going to make me try and search it out, but I'm too lazy. It certainly didn't come off as yu suggest. I do think she was okay'd after the fact, but I'm not sure she could have prepared to have vetted answers before the interview. Some talking points, sure. Some direction, sure. But there had to be some off-the-cuff commentary, one would think.

Ah well, I guess I'll just say, I don't quite buy it and leave it at that. But even if your idea is true, which "m sure for the most part it is, that does not equate to every word being vetted by the Brethren. It could very well be that she said some things that the brethren would have preferred to be worded differently, at the very least. Approval after the fact doesn't mean each word was vetted.

 

One of the most interesting parts of that interview was when she admitted there is no scripture in any of the standard works that says women can't have the priesthood. I don't think that was one of her prepared talking points. 

Edited August 12, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure where we disagree, as I said exactly that. I'm sure she was given talking points and guidelines, but if she had said anything that the church disapproved of, they would have issued a correction or retraction. Can you explain to me why you think it didn't come off that way? You basically restated what I said, so I'm left to wonder what you're disagreeing with.

My disagreement was not with you, it was with the claim that every word from the PA dept has been vetted by the brethren. I don't know that that can possibly be true and I offered an example of why that claim is problematic.

Hope that helps.

[stemelbow]

One of the most interesting parts of that interview was when she admitted there is no scripture in any of the standard works that says women can't have the priesthood. I don't think that was one of her prepared talking points.

Now that you mention it, yes I remember that. I agree.

I was thinking more along the lines of her story about how women in the Church feel free to speak their mind about the difficult issues based on her experience in her ward, or something. My wife was like, "we do?"

Edited August 12, 2015 by stemelbow

[Gray]

Now that you mention it, yes I remember that. I agree.

I was thinking more along the lines of her story about how women in the Church feel free to speak their mind about the difficult issues based on her experience in her ward, or something. My wife was like, "we do?"

 

Yes, I imagine a lot of people who actually attend church were scratching their heads at that one.

 

That was a very PR kind of answer. 

[jkwilliams]

Ken breaks out the popcorn and attempts to control his salivation, so as not to drool down his chin ...

 

Now you're making me hungry. 

[jkwilliams]

There is truth to the mantra that "apostates can leave the Church, but not leave it alone".  On the other hand, the mantra gets applied too broadly to suggest that any criticism of what a Church leader has done, or not done, is a sign of apostasy.  In other words, "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed."  Another concept spread too wide.  Critics are not necessarily "evil speaking", they aren't personally attacking the character of any GAs.  A person can be a wonderful, congenial, righteous, and compassionate human being and still make a boneheaded statement from time to time, as can a group of like minded people who engage in group-think and do the same thing.  What is interesting though, is often while a criticism may question a policy, all to frequently the critic is personally attacked rather than there being a rational discussion of the points made in criticism.  If a person is chronically called an apostate, or lacking in faith, eventually that can become a self-fulfilling prophesy and the person does in fact apostasize.

 

I still haven't figured out what is supposed to be wrong about not leaving the church alone. It's as if the only good apostate is a silent apostate. 

Edited August 12, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Stone holm]

I still haven't figured out what is supposed to be wrong about not leaving the church alone. It's as if the only good apostate is a silent apostate. 

 

I suppose you could look at it that way, but I think the concept was okay if you don't like the Church or the way it operates fine, but you don't have to come back and attack us.  I think you sometimes see people, especially who have left because either they were disciplined or because a relative or friend was discipline, or because of some slight -- coming roaring back with a no holds barred attack on the Church.  Sometimes that is pure spite.  What my concern is that idea gets magnified to include say making a critical comment about a position the Church may have taken which has political overtones or affects the religious freedom of others -- suddenly your testimony and faith come into question because you criticized the Church leaders.

[Calm]

it was with the claim that every word from the PA dept has been vetted by the brethren. I don't know that that can possibly be true and I offered an example of why that claim is problematic.Hope that helps.

Don't have time right now, but you should check not only the context, but if that was a paraphrase or a direct quote.

Given what Otterson said in his talk that I remember, I don't think it means what you are taking it to mean.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't have time right now, but you should check not only the context, but if that was a paraphrase or a direct quote.

Given what Otterson said in his talk that I remember, I don't think it means what you are taking it to mean.

I have a print-out of the talk before me, and you are right, it doesn't mean what he is taking it to mean.

 

Here it is in context:

 

What about other communications, for instance on Mormon Newsroom? Newsroom and the department’s Facebook and YouTube channels are among the primary communications media we use to disseminate significant news and latest developments. Much of what is posted there deals with routine news stories, but even these cannot be posted without approval from Church Correlation, which has the responsibility to ensure that all Church communications are doctrinally sound and consistent. Because of the nature of our work, Correlation gives us high priority when we are dealing with breaking news or issuing a commentary on a significant topic. But again, there is a check-and-balance system that should give members of the Church a high level of comfort that what they read on Newsroom has been well vetted. Are we infallible? Of course not. Might we occasionally make mistakes or fail to choose exactly the right word in a statement or interview? Assuredly, yes. But you can be sure we know who runs the Church and of the respect we have for the established processes.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

By the way, a video of Otterson's address has been posted at Mormon Newsroom, so one can not only read his presentation, but view it as well.

 

I would recommend everyone here read and/or view it so as to be able to comment intelligently on it.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I suppose you could look at it that way, but I think the concept was okay if you don't like the Church or the way it operates fine, but you don't have to come back and attack us.  I think you sometimes see people, especially who have left because either they were disciplined or because a relative or friend was discipline, or because of some slight -- coming roaring back with a no holds barred attack on the Church.  Sometimes that is pure spite.  What my concern is that idea gets magnified to include say making a critical comment about a position the Church may have taken which has political overtones or affects the religious freedom of others -- suddenly your testimony and faith come into question because you criticized the Church leaders.

In my view, it comes down to intent. Mormonism is an endless source of fascination to me, and I enjoy learning new things and hearing different perspectives, and sometimes I like to argue. I know a lot of people who have left the church who feel the same way I do. It doesn't mean we hate the church or wish it would collapse into ignominy. It's just part of who we are, and we find it interesting.

It takes a pretty thick skin to post here as a "critic." The personal stuff used to bother me, but not so much anymore. I always figure that people on either side of the divide are good people with good intentions, until I have reason to believe otherwise. At this point, however, I don't expect anyone to assume the same about me.

[stemelbow]

Don't have time right now, but you should check not only the context, but if that was a paraphrase or a direct quote.

Given what Otterson said in his talk that I remember, I don't think it means what you are taking it to mean.

No...you have a good point. That was Peggy who summed it up that way. My mistake. For some reason, even as I first read it, it came off a little problematic on that point to me. When I came here and saw this OP I commented from the start. Pardon my hasty response.

[Calm]

Now that you mention it, yes I remember that. I agree.I was thinking more along the lines of her story about how women in the Church feel free to speak their mind about the difficult issues based on her experience in her ward, or something. My wife was like, "we do?"

I haven't had a problem with this for 25 years or so save once where I felt I would be too confrontative to a teacher who called herself a progressive LDS (that was 20 years ago or so, I think I would be able to phrase my disagreement decently now). I know lots of women who don't have that same experience and I wouldn't claim that it was the most common or widespread one (I don't know, talk about the subject is triggered by unhappiness usually so I don't think we have an equal chance to learn actual stats). I can see if she was using her own experience and made that clear to phrase her answer it would be accurate, but iirc she did err in making it too generic.

However now we can use her comment to support speaking out.

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't had a problem with this for 25 years or so save once where I felt I would be too confrontative to a teacher who called herself a progressive LDS (that was 20 years ago or so, I think I would be able to phrase my disagreement decently now). I know lots of women who don't have that same experience and I wouldn't claim that it was the most common or widespread one (I don't know, talk about the subject is triggered by unhappiness usually so I don't think we have an equal chance to learn actual stats). I can see if she was using her own experience and made that clear to phrase her answer it would be accurate, but iirc she did err in making it too generic.

However now we can use her comment to support speaking out.

As one who taught the Sunday School gospel doctrine class for many years, I have to acknowledge that not every remark or statement or expression would have been welcome in my class, this because of the nature of the setting and the expectations of those who come to the class to be spiritually fed.

 

Comparing the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father is one example that springs readily to mind.

[jwhitlock]

I still haven't figured out what is supposed to be wrong about not leaving the church alone. It's as if the only good apostate is a silent apostate. 

 

Isn't that some kind of an oxymoron?

[jwhitlock]

I'm happy that you've found peace and spiritual fulfillment in the church. 

 

That was just the beginning.

[webbles]

I was thinking more along the lines of her story about how women in the Church feel free to speak their mind about the difficult issues based on her experience in her ward, or something. My wife was like, "we do?"

Even as a man, I don't feel free to speak my mind about difficult issues.  I never feel that the time is right or the lesson is right or the spirit is right, etc.  It just never feels like a good time to talk about difficult issues in church.  In fact, it never feels like a good time to speak about any issue in church.  The few times I'm in Elder's Qurom or Sunday School (I've been in the primary organization for close to 10 years now), it feels like no one wants to give their opinion on anything.  Everyone just wants the lesson to be done with as quick as possible.

[Stone holm]

Even as a man, I don't feel free to speak my mind about difficult issues.  I never feel that the time is right or the lesson is right or the spirit is right, etc.  It just never feels like a good time to talk about difficult issues in church.  In fact, it never feels like a good time to speak about any issue in church.  The few times I'm in Elder's Qurom or Sunday School (I've been in the primary organization for close to 10 years now), it feels like no one wants to give their opinion on anything.  Everyone just wants the lesson to be done with as quick as possible.

That isn't a real problem in our Ward it sounds like you have teachers addicted to following the manuals, they were written by insomniniacs trying to create a cure for their illness.

[stemelbow]

Even as a man, I don't feel free to speak my mind about difficult issues.  I never feel that the time is right or the lesson is right or the spirit is right, etc.  It just never feels like a good time to talk about difficult issues in church.  In fact, it never feels like a good time to speak about any issue in church.  The few times I'm in Elder's Qurom or Sunday School (I've been in the primary organization for close to 10 years now), it feels like no one wants to give their opinion on anything.  Everyone just wants the lesson to be done with as quick as possible.

I hear ya. With the mundane rote style of our Church lessons, it's no wonder there is little participation. The participation is most often quite canned and as rote as the lesson material. eh....it's what we got these days. There's some hope things will change, but the little steps taken so far aren't enough for my hungry self.