Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Should the church officially reject Illinois' apology?


Recommended Posts

Posted
14 hours 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.) 

Have to ask..don't you somewhat do some coordination yourself??  You have to!  At least I think so.  Correct me if I am wrong.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

They need Kirby...every kind of mormon and not..needs Kirby!!😊

He's funny and hits the nail on the head a lot of the time.  The Trib needs to get rid of the paywall.  That model doesn't work when other papers don't follow suit.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Have to ask..don't you somewhat do some coordination yourself??  You have to!  At least I think so.  Correct me if I am wrong.

What do you mean, precisely?

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, cinepro said:

As I asked before, in what capacity was President Hinckley "expressing regret"?  And to whom was he expressing that regret?

As president of the Church. To the audience he was speaking to. 

I don’t see your point. Expressing regret does not mean accepting culpability. And as I said, anyone can do it. Apologizing, on the other hand, can only be done by one who is at fault. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What do you mean, precisely?

Well...don't your articles and info have to coordinate with the Priesthood Elders and the Church?  Everything you write is with their consent or acknowledgement?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Exiled said:

He's funny and hits the nail on the head a lot of the time.  The Trib needs to get rid of the paywall.  That model doesn't work when other papers don't follow suit.

The most important thing he does is makes mormonism more relatable and bridges some gaps with humor.

Edited by Jeanne
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well...don't your articles and info have to coordinate with the Priesthood Elders and the Church?  Everything you write is with their consent or acknowledgement?

What do you mean by “priesthood elders and the Church”? 

And when you say “your articles and info” and “everything you write,” do you mean me personally or some other “you” and “your”?  And if you mean the latter, please define it more explicitly. 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What do you mean by “priesthood elders and the Church”? 

And when you say “your articles and info” and “everything you write,” do you mean me personally or some other “you” and “your”?  And if you mean the latter, please define it more explicitly. 

I mean you, personally.  You do make sure that what you write..aligns with the Prophet/Apostles and their agendas.  Am I right?  My big question is..what would happen to a mormon write in DN that just say..wrote only facts..without the slant of pro LDS doctrine?  I am just saying facts without all the colorful mormon positivity

Edited by Jeanne
Posted
On 6/2/2018 at 1:50 AM, 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).

Kind of like the erroneous headline in the Deseret News in 2007 which termed the LDS Church's regret as an apology.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I mean you, personally.  You do make sure that what you write..aligns with the Prophet/Apostles and their agendas.  Am I right?  My big question is..what would happen to a mormon write in DN that just say..wrote only facts..without the slant of pro LDS doctrine?  I am just saying facts without all the colorful mormon positivity

So you’re alleging a “Mormon writer” at the Deseret News cannot write unslanted content without fear of consequences? I think that’s preposterous.  

But the way you frame the question indicates to me that you harbor the attitude that a story cannot be unslanted unless it reflects negatively on the Church. Makes me ponder where the real bias is here. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Kind of like the erroneous headline in the Deseret News in 2007 which termed the LDS Church's regret as an apology.

I’ve already acknowledged that inaccuracy. 

Maybe you need to read through the thread to get up to speed before posting. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you’re alleging a “Mormon writer” at the Deseret News cannot write unslanted content without fear of consequences? I think that’s preposterous.  

But the way you frame the question indicates to me that you harbor the attitude that a story cannot be unslanted unless it reflects negatively on the Church. Makes me ponder where the real bias is here. 

Could you give some examples of DN writers being critical of the church?

Posted (edited)
4 hours 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 did not answer my question.  Appear to have completely avoided it.  I am not the least bit interested in the should they, shouldn't they apologize debate.

Did your PA friend tell you they coordinated with the SL PA headquarters or did he tell you they coordinated with DN?

what you said:

Quote

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. 

Please clarify.

Edited by Calm
Posted
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I mean you, personally.  You do make sure that what you write..aligns with the Prophet/Apostles and their agendas.  Am I right?  My big question is..what would happen to a mormon write in DN that just say..wrote only facts..without the slant of pro LDS doctrine?  I am just saying facts without all the colorful mormon positivity

Do you also believe everything in Church bookstores gets vetted through Coorelation too?  Because I know some members who thought that way and were quite wrong.

Posted
55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve already acknowledged that inaccuracy. 

Maybe you need to read through the thread to get up to speed before posting. 

Sorry, I missed it.

Next time somebody misses one of your posts, perhaps you could be more understanding like Bobbieaware.

On 12/5/2017 at 12:40 PM, Bobbieaware said:

Scott, If you haven’t already done so, I hope you will read my previous post in response to Kiwi on this thread. It’s on page 3. There are some things I wrote therein that I’d like you to read and consider because I believe they effectively address and settle the so-called “contradiction” issue.

To which you replied.

On 12/5/2017 at 1:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

That is indeed insightful, Bobbieaware. Thank you for drawing my attention to it as, obviously, there are some posts on this thread, yours included, that I had not viewed.

 

Posted
50 minutes ago, Calm said:

You did not answer my question.  Appear to have completely avoided it.  I am not the least bit interested in the should they, shouldn't they apologize debate.

Did your PA friend tell you they coordinated with the SL PA headquarters or did he tell you they coordinated with DN?

what you said:

Please clarify.

For the grand opening of the martin handcart monument, they coordinated with everyone.  SL coordinated with N.Y. and Europe, too.  DN reps along with Bonneville reps were in the meetings.  Why is this such a big surprise?  If one bothers to own media, one does so to be able to promote certain stories that benefit the organization. Do you think the DN or any of the Bonneville media outlets could run a story disparaging the church's response to Ms. Denson or any of the child abuse cases?

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Exiled said:

For the grand opening of the martin handcart monument, they coordinated with everyone.  SL coordinated with N.Y. and Europe, too.  DN reps along with Bonneville reps were in the meetings.  Why is this such a big surprise?  If one bothers to own media, one does so to be able to promote certain stories that benefit the organization. Do you think the DN or any of the Bonneville media outlets could run a story disparaging the church's response to Ms. Denson or any of the child abuse cases?

Don't assume someone is surprised just because they want you to be specific in your claims.

I doubt this one was vetted, given the Church's insistence on not endorsing candidates, etc:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4446222&itype=CMSID

 

Edited by Calm
Posted
16 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.

And I apologize for the members of my church who actually believe this.

Posted
2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Sorry, I missed it.

Next time somebody misses one of your posts, perhaps you could be more understanding like Bobbieaware.

To which you replied.

 

Interesting. 

I’d like to review the post of mine to which Bobbieaware was responding on that occasion, as I don’t recall it at the moment. Was it a gotcha post as yours was here? I admit I’m more mild when I’m not confronting a gotcha post. 

Posted
1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is, by far, the single worst thing the DN has ever published.  I hope that editor was canned.

If you hope the editor was “canned,” then you don’t understand the character and role of the Deseret News and its relationship to its owner any better than do Exiled or Jeanne. 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Could you give some examples of DN writers being critical of the church?

Blessedly, no. And I don’t get your reasoning that one must be “critical of the Church” to be a fair or unslanted reporter or writer. Maybe it says more about you than it does me. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you hope the editor was “canned,” then you don’t understand the character and role of the Deseret News and its relationship to its owner any better than do Exiled or Jeanne. 

I know more than you may realize, Scott.

Edited by 6EQUJ5
Posted
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Don't assume someone is surprised just because they want you to be specific in your claims.

I doubt this one was vetted, given the Church's insistence on not endorsing candidates, etc:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4446222&itype=CMSID

 

Where did the candidate reference come from? I was talking about p.r.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...