L.d.s. Church To Stay With Scouting

[silvermoon383]

Halelujah.  Now we can all get back to work.

[rockpond]

Let me know when someone sues the church for not allowing openly gay leaders

 

Alarmism 

 

Well, alarmism and playing the victim are key pillars of the Church policy when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality.

[Calm]

The public affairs work of the Church is overseen by the Church’s Public Affairs Committee, which is chaired by a member of the Twelve. Other general authorities or general officers include the senior president of the Seventy, the presiding bishop, the Church’s legal counsel, one of the female general officers and an additional Seventy who serves as executive director of the department. The executive director works particularly closely with me, especially on strategic planning matters. In addition, several senior Public Affairs staff, including myself, attend the weekly committee meetings.

 

 

 

No member of 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 staff.

I’m taking more than a moment on this point because it is extraordinarily important. This audience probably understands, but let me give you an example of what happens when it isn’t understood. Earlier this year, the Church held a news conference to call on the Utah legislature to pass a bill that treated religious rights and gay rights in a balanced and fair way. Three apostles attended that news conference, and Elder L. Tom Perry later attended the bill signing with the governor and other community leaders. 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.

 

 

​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.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/full-transcript-michael-otterson-address-at-fair-mormon-conference

[Ahab]

Did you before the change in policy? Just curious.

No, but you weren't supposed to ask that.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/full-transcript-michael-otterson-address-at-fair-mormon-conference

Thank you, calmoriah.

 

Obviously, this bears repeating. Perhaps again and again.

[Scott Lloyd]

That July 13 statement was also published in the Church News (which is where I originally read it).

 

And, the July 13 statement is, in part, what led me to believe that the Church would stay with Scouting for now.

 

On the other hand, the July 27 statement, based on your comments here, seems to be what led you to erroneously think that the Church would disaffiliate with the BSA because of the recent vote.

 

I cite the contrast to support my belief that the July 27 statement was not well vetted prior to release.

I avoided making a prediction. Like a lot of other people, I was considering and interpreting the events and circumstances.

 

But I doubt even the high leadership of the Church themselves were certain what they were going to do until very near the time the announcement was made.

 

So for you now to crow that you knew all along what was going to happen strains credibility. And for you to use that as an occasion to bolster your notion about a "rogue PR Department" and rogue General Authorities going off half-cocked at Church headquarters is beyond outlandish.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

So you would decline a calling, if your bishop told you the Lord had called you to be a scout leader...?

Unless I changed my mind by then, yes, and I would thank him kindly for the offer.

[rockpond]

I avoided making a prediction. Like a lot of other people, I was considering and interpreting the events and circumstances.

 

But I doubt even the high leadership of the Church themselves were certain what they were going to do until very near the time the announcement was made.

 

So for you now to crow that you knew all along what was going to happen strains credibility. And for you to use that as an occasion to bolster your notion about a "rogue PR Department" and rogue General Authorities is going off half-cocked at Church headquarters is beyond outlandish.

 

I didn't say you made a "prediction".  You avoided using the p word.  And I didn't claim that I "knew" what would happen.  Nor did I say anyone had gone rogue  Let's lose the spin, Scott.

 

But you did say that you thought it was likely that the Church would cut ties with the BSA.

 

And I will use this occasion to bolster my opinion that the July 27 Mormon Newsroom response was not their best work and, likely, was not well vetted prior to release.  It led many church members to conclude that we were leaving the BSA... I heard it over and over from personal conversations to leadership meetings.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say you made a "prediction".  You avoided using the p word.  And I didn't claim that I "knew" what would happen.  Nor did I say anyone had gone rogue  Let's lose the spin, Scott.

 

But you did say that you thought it was likely that the Church would cut ties with the BSA.

 

And I will use this occasion to bolster my opinion that the July 27 Mormon Newsroom response was not their best work and, likely, was not well vetted prior to release.  It led many church members to conclude that we were leaving the BSA... I heard it over and over from personal conversations to leadership meetings.

I always maintained that I didn't know. And "likely" denotes that it still could go the other way. For what it's worth, there are highly connected people I know at the Church Office Building who believed, as I did, that a disengagement was likely. I still believe it was teetering on the edge, or the Church would never have issued the statement it did.

 

Your notion that it was "not well vetted" flies in the face of what was clearly enunciated by the managing director of Church Public Affairs in a well-reported and widely publicized speech available verbatim on at least two websites and quoted at length here a few minutes ago by calmoriah.

 

Thus it amounts to nothing more than your own ill-informed and ill-considered musing.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, alarmism and playing the victim are key pillars of the Church policy when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality.

Playing victim? OK, and I guess you just like to ignore what other groups said they would do.

 

I have a prediction, when there is such a law suite I have a feeling that all we will get out of you is a resounding "shrug".

[rockpond]

Your notion that it was "not well vetted" flies in the face of what was clearly enunciated by the managing director of Church Public Affairs in a well-reported and widely publicized speech available verbatim on at least two websites and quoted at length here a few minutes ago by calmoriah..

Yes. Yes, it does.

As to whether or not my notion is ill-informed or ill-considered can be judged by the facts of the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. Yes, it does.

As to whether or not my notion is ill-informed or ill-considered can be judged by the facts of the matter.

And at this point, the "facts of the matter" are zip as pertaining to your supposition.

[Russell C McGregor]

Well, alarmism and playing the victim are key pillars of the Church policy when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality.

 

Since that is what most people hostile to the Church say about this topic, that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

 

Incidentally, I have observed that the key pillars of homosexualist policy when it comes to Mormon matters are (1) ridicule, and (2) empty reassurances.

 

What a surprise...

[Sevenbak]

Sure, the world is coming to an end, let's prepare for the gay apocalypse LOL

I believe the term is gaycalypse.

[stemelbow]

Well, alarmism and playing the victim are key pillars of the Church policy when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality.

I see this comment is getting some opposition, but I agree with it.

[provoman]

Well, alarmism and playing the victim are key pillars of the Church policy when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality.

I think it has more to do with a collective of individual member. There are ill-informed alarmist here whose bell rings hollow. The "about face" of members towards Scouting will be interesting.

[rockpond]

Playing victim? OK, and I guess you just like to ignore what other groups said they would do.

 

I have a prediction, when there is such a law suite I have a feeling that all we will get out of you is a resounding "shrug".

 

Exactly... fear of what someone might do.

 

The Church has been involved in these LGBT rights/equality issues since the 90's, always predicting dire consequences.  I'm not seeing any of them come to pass.

 

That's the alarmism I'm referring to.

 

After two decades of political involvement could there be a lawsuit against our Church?  Definitely.

[rockpond]

And at this point, the "facts of the matter" are zip as pertaining to your supposition.

 

Facts:

July 13 statement from the Church saying that we needed to retain the right to select leaders per our standards.

July 27 statement from the Church that conflicted with current Church policy and gave the incorrect impression that we were not able to vote on the resolution.

Aug 26 statement that said the Church will continue its affiliation with the BSA and reiterated the language used in the July 13 statement.

[rockpond]

Since that is what most people hostile to the Church say about this topic, that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

 

Incidentally, I have observed that the key pillars of homosexualist policy when it comes to Mormon matters are (1) ridicule, and (2) empty reassurances.

 

What a surprise...

 

Well, now you've heard it from someone who is not hostile to the Church.

 

No ridicule.  Just observation.  And no reassurances.

[rockpond]

I see this comment is getting some opposition, but I agree with it.

 

Thanks.

[Stone holm]

Just before the other thread was closed rockpond posted this:

 

Incredibly, after Michael Otterson's explicit address at the recent FairMormon Conference, which was discussed extensively on this board, rockpond continues to beat the sour-grapes "public-affairs-is-a-rogue-department" drum.

Yeah, what did you expect Michael Otterson to say, oh yes our public affairs department occasionally goes off the rails and the overseers, don't perform their overseeing responsibilities? No, he would cover for them. Frankly, I prefer to remain under the delusion that they didn't check it before it got out, rather than ascribe such a whiny poorly thought out response to the General Authorities. But if you want to say the Apostles like to issue responses like that one, well go ahead.

[ERayR]

Yeah, what did you expect Michael Otterson to say, oh yes our public affairs department occasionally goes off the rails and the overseers, don't perform their overseeing responsibilities? No, he would cover for them. Frankly, I prefer to remain under the delusion that they didn't check it before it got out, rather than ascribe such a whiny poorly thought out response to the General Authorities. But if you want to say the Apostles like to issue responses like that one, well go ahead.

 

I thought it was succinct and got the point across.

 

You are welcome to keep and wallow in whatever delusions you like.

[Stone holm]

I thought it was succinct and got the point across.

 

You are welcome to keep and wallow in whatever delusions you like.

I was talking about the initial response, which said basically we have people on vacation and haven't put any thought into this in advance, although we have been arguing about it for what a year or so?

[Scott Lloyd]

Facts:

July 13 statement from the Church saying that we needed to retain the right to select leaders per our standards.

July 27 statement from the Church that conflicted with current Church policy and gave the incorrect impression that we were not able to vote on the resolution.

Aug 26 statement that said the Church will continue its affiliation with the BSA and reiterated the language used in the July 13 statement.

As I said: zip.

[Buckeye]

We're really off track here, but hey, I'm happy to keep discussing the PR department. I can only go off of the few years I've spent listening to the newsroom as an interested member (which by the way is not the targeted audience for PR). I believe they are sincere and do not "go rogue." But they often get put in a difficult position because "the church" they represent is not a monolith, but a group of at least 15 men (recently expanding to include a few women) who have differing views on things and even (gasp) sometimes change their own minds.

 

Is it really too hard to imagine that the confusion in the PR statements is a result of changing views and ongoing discussions within the quorums/presidencies that PR represents? If so, I'd point you back just a year ago when the church's various branches couldn't agree on whether Women's Session was a part of General Conference (see http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/do-women-count/ for a good overview). President Uchtdorf said one thing, PR said another, lds.org said something more, and it wasn't settled until the FP issued a statement. In all - remarkably similar to what just happended with scouts.

 

ETA: Otterson's a good guy. It's not just any professional spokesman who can take the heat of explaining situations when prophets/seers/revelators change their minds.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Buckeye