Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Exiled said: I say that because I have a hard time believing that the headline wasn't coordinated with the church. The leadership may not be able to say it but the paper can in order to put the apology word out there. The mountain meadows non-apology by Eyring was a big, big deal at the time, the church p.r. dept. is well-run and coordinates well with the church owned paper. So, putting apology in the headline would seem to be a firing offense if some editor went rogue. I don't remember if there was an uproar at the non-apology and that the paper put apology in the headline to calm the storm after the fact, but coordination should be the default position. CFR that the Deseret News routinely coordinates with the Church leadership and/or “PR department” on something so mundane as headline writing. (I have a hunch you’re making this up.) Edited June 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that the Deseret News routinely coordinates with the Church leadership and/or “PR department” on something so mundane as headline writing. (I have a hunch you’re making this up.) I'm sure you already know the answer. Even so, I have a friend that worked for the church p.r. dept. in their new york office a while back. He worked on the handcart site opening and some others. He said there was coordination as much as possible. It's important to stay on message in the big events like the mountain meadows non-apology. Maybe it didn't happen with the mountain meadows ceremony but I have my doubts.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Exiled said: I'm sure you already know the answer. Even so, I have a friend that worked for the church p.r. dept. in their new york office a while back. He worked on the handcart site opening and some others. He said there was coordination as much as possible. It's important to stay on message in the big events like the mountain meadows non-apology. Maybe it didn't happen with the mountain meadows ceremony but I have my doubts. So you <are> making this stuff up. I suspected so.
6EQUJ5 Posted June 3, 2018 Author Posted June 3, 2018 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Despite the erroneous headline in the newspaper story you have linked to, the resolution passed by the Illinois general assembly was not termed an apology. In fact The original draft was amended to remove the idea of asking for pardon and forgiveness and make it, instead, an expression of regret (not the same thing, for it does not entail an acceptance of culpability). As a journalist, I was there that day in the Church Administration Building when the document was officially presented by the delegation from Illinois. I distinctly recall a member of the delegation explaining why the Illinois lawmaking body had not termed it an apology. Curious, I asked during the news media Q and A whether any of the delegation there present had ancestors living in Illinois in the 1840s when the Latter-day Saints were oppressed. None had. So not only were they personally not culpable for the wrongs that were committed, they didn’t even have ancestors who were. So, to respond to your question in the thread title, no, the Church should not reject an apology, because there was never one offered, just an official expression of regret. Edited to add: See this link to a New York Times piece which explains that the wording in the resolution was amended: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/us/illinois-tells-mormons-it-regrets-expulsion.html A quote from the article: “An earlier draft of the resolution asked the Mormons for their ''pardon and forgiveness,'' but the language was weakened at the behest of Illinois lawmakers who said they could not ask forgiveness for acts they had not personally committed.” That's right. I remember that the Church helped lobby for this language change.
Calm Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 18 minutes ago, Exiled said: I'm sure you already know the answer. Even so, I have a friend that worked for the church p.r. dept. in their new york office a while back. He worked on the handcart site opening and some others. He said there was coordination as much as possible. It's important to stay on message in the big events like the mountain meadows non-apology. Maybe it didn't happen with the mountain meadows ceremony but I have my doubts. Coordinated with DN or with the main PR dept?
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 56 minutes ago, Exiled said: I say that because I have a hard time believing that the headline wasn't coordinated with the church. The leadership may not be able to say it but the paper can in order to put the apology word out there. The mountain meadows non-apology by Eyring was a big, big deal at the time, the church p.r. dept. is well-run and coordinates well with the church owned paper. So, putting apology in the headline would seem to be a firing offense if some editor went rogue. I don't remember if there was an uproar at the non-apology and that the paper put apology in the headline to calm the storm after the fact, but coordination should be the default position. Yeah, I am sure the apostles vet the Deseret News headlines each day and issued specific orders to deceive the public by switching out a word. 2
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you <are> making this stuff up. I suspected so. I was always speculating and I'm surprised you didn't realize it. Nevertheless, I bet if I were able to get access to your paper's records and the church p.r. dept. records from that time, there would be evidence of a coordinated effort regarding the huge mountain meadows ceremony and subsequent news story. You know the only reason anybody cares is because it was like pulling teeth to get the church to express even regret for mountain meadows and its tough to get regret for the racial priesthood ban.
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 Just now, Exiled said: I was always speculating and I'm surprised you didn't realize it. Nevertheless, I bet if I were able to get access to your paper's records and the church p.r. dept. records from that time, there would be evidence of a coordinated effort regarding the huge mountain meadows ceremony and subsequent news story. You know the only reason anybody cares is because it was like pulling teeth to get the church to express even regret for mountain meadows and its tough to get regret for the racial priesthood ban. I am sure if I had all the data I could prove there was a conspiracy.........says every conspiracy nut from the Flat Earthers to Ancient Astronaut Theorists. Are you also convinced that if you got access to Area 51 we would find a crashed UFO and therefore assume it is there?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 23 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: That's right. I remember that the Church helped lobby for this language change. I don’t recall that.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, Exiled said: I was always speculating and I'm surprised you didn't realize it. Nevertheless, I bet if I were able to get access to your paper's records and the church p.r. dept. records from that time, there would be evidence of a coordinated effort regarding the huge mountain meadows ceremony and subsequent news story. You know the only reason anybody cares is because it was like pulling teeth to get the church to express even regret for mountain meadows and its tough to get regret for the racial priesthood ban. President Hinckley had already publicly expressed regret over Mountain Meadows years earlier at a gathering on the site of descendants of victims and perpetrators. I reject your characterization that it “was like pulling teeth.”
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) I find the notion amusing that Church Public Affairs would be engaging in heavy-handed “coordination” with Deseret News reporters and/or headline writers. If anything, they keep a hands-off stance so as not to be seen in the eyes of other media as playing favorites. Edited June 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
sunstoned Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So long as we are apologizing for stuff for which we bear no culpability, I apologize for all of the critics who come here day after day to denigrate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They won’t do it for themselves, so I may as well do it for them. And I apologize for my church who has landed on the wrong side of every civil rights issue for the past 120 years. 1
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I find the notion amusing that Church Public Affairs would be engaging in heavy-handed “coordination” with Deseret News reporters and/or headline writers. If anything, they keep a hands-off stance so as not to be seen in the eyes of other media as playing favorites. Do you think other media believe there is actually a separation between the church and the church owned newspaper? Does the DN ever criticize the church? If so, please show me where that has ever happened. Why does the church own a lot of media but to get their message out? The separation myth seems a little too much, too hard of a sale to make. Edited June 3, 2018 by Exiled
6EQUJ5 Posted June 3, 2018 Author Posted June 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Exiled said: Does the DN ever criticize the church? If so, please show me where that has ever happened. They DN repeatedly and consistently refuses to follow the Brethren's council on how the name of the Church should be used. You will notice they refuse to cease using the terms "Mormon" and "Mormon Church" despite being explicitly instructed to follow the proper guidelines. I'm surprised leadership has allowed it to go on this long.
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: They DN repeatedly and consistently refuses to follow the Brethren's council on how the name of the Church should be used. You will notice they refuse to cease using the terms "Mormon" and "Mormon Church" despite being explicitly instructed to follow the proper guidelines. I'm surprised leadership has allowed it to go on this long. Wow! So, do you think they will hire Kirby soon to do his church commentary over there? 1
cinepro Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: President Hinckley had already publicly expressed regret over Mountain Meadows years earlier at a gathering on the site of descendants of victims and perpetrators. I reject your characterization that it “was like pulling teeth.” As I asked before, in what capacity was President Hinckley "expressing regret"? And to whom was he expressing that regret?
6EQUJ5 Posted June 3, 2018 Author Posted June 3, 2018 32 minutes ago, Exiled said: Wow! So, do you think they will hire Kirby soon to do his church commentary over there? It is a serious matter when the official Church newspaper won't follow their own leadership. I think it is indicative of a larger problem that goes well beyond the DN.
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 11 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: It is a serious matter when the official Church newspaper won't follow their own leadership. I think it is indicative of a larger problem that goes well beyond the DN. Are you serious about the DN calling the church the "mormon" church is an example of independence or rebellion even? Doesn't the church have a website called mormon.org?
6EQUJ5 Posted June 3, 2018 Author Posted June 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Exiled said: Are you serious about the DN calling the church the "mormon" church is an example of independence or rebellion even? Doesn't the church have a website called mormon.org? Disobedience speaks for itself, unfortunately.
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 12 hours ago, Calm said: Coordinated with DN or with the main PR dept? Scott claims it was a mistake that the DN article said Eyring apologized. Perhaps so, but the mountain meadows incident was such a horrible event and Eyring's speech at the ceremony was such an important response that I find it hard to believe that it was a mistake to call it an apology by the paper. Sure, Eyring was careful not to say apology in expressing regret. However, I think in big events planning does happen and coordination between the church and its paper happens too. Also, it is one thing to deny responsibility, another to show contrition, another to show regret, and another to apologize. I think that this was an occasion where coordination might have happened to guide the public to interpret the non-apology in an apologetic light. As you know, the brethren speak to a wide audience of believers. Some believers will view an apology as a sign that the church made a mistake and this will destroy their worldview that the church is perfect but the members are not. How could the perfect church ever apologize? Nevertheless, the outside world wanted an apology and maybe the DN headline and story was for the outside world? This way, the current argument of whether it was a mistake or planned remains plausible and more are satisfied. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 13 minutes ago, Exiled said: Scott claims it was a mistake that the DN article said Eyring apologized. Perhaps so, but the mountain meadows incident was such a horrible event and Eyring's speech at the ceremony was such an important response that I find it hard to believe that it was a mistake to call it an apology by the paper. Sure, Eyring was careful not to say apology in expressing regret. However, I think in big events planning does happen and coordination between the church and its paper happens too. Also, it is one thing to deny responsibility, another to show contrition, another to show regret, and another to apologize. I think that this was an occasion where coordination might have happened to guide the public to interpret the non-apology in an apologetic light. As you know, the brethren speak to a wide audience of believers. Some believers will view an apology as a sign that the church made a mistake and this will destroy their worldview that the church is perfect but the members are not. How could the perfect church ever apologize? Nevertheless, the outside world wanted an apology and maybe the DN headline and story was for the outside world? This way, the current argument of whether it was a mistake or planned remains plausible and more are satisfied. You’re talking gibberish.
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re talking gibberish. Of course. Feel free to disregard.
Danzo Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 23 hours ago, cinepro said: I apologize for nothing. As well you should.
Jeanne Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Exiled said: Wow! So, do you think they will hire Kirby soon to do his church commentary over there? They need Kirby...every kind of mormon and not..needs Kirby!!😊
Jeanne Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: And I apologize for my church who has landed on the wrong side of every civil rights issue for the past 120 years. Woot..there you go..that says everything! However, it is sad that the members have to do all the apologizing. Edited June 3, 2018 by Jeanne
Recommended Posts