Church PR personnel meet w/ Mormon Women Stand group

I saw this a couple days ago on another forum. I don’t know, either, Ann. Obviously this group of women is more aligned with the orthodox point of view, but why meet with them and allow it to be publicized? Part of me says the hierarchy is saying “See, we’ll meet with women who are civil.” But I don’t think OW has been all that uncivil, except by maybe challenging the church’s request not to picket at conference. Honestly. I think it was a bad PR move. This issue is much like abortion, IMO – we have mostly all already made up our minds about which way we believe and no amount of additional information, protests, meetings, etc., is going to change our minds or the minds of the church leadership.

I am ambivalent about OW but I am becoming less ambivalent about our PR department. I see three fails in a row, and no matter how firm their line in the sand is – and I am not sure what the line is, is it keeping status quo/or some idealized retro retrenchment, I am against the LDS PR team.

The part that really kicks this to me is our own history.

We have the WoW because of Emma – who lobbied. I was told that story again and again when I was growing up. It was never brought up with a disclaimer that Emma was being hostile. It was always another way that Joseph was inspired to seek Gods advice.

Relief Society was very similar, the women started on their own, independent benevolent society (without facebook mind you) and then Joseph stepped in.

And finally, from the man who made retrenchment his go-to word, he encouraged women to study medicine, sciences, etc. For that they left the Great Salt Lake valley and headed east to be trained and bring knowledge and skill back to Zion. All women were not bread bakers, no matter how much we imagine them so.

This breaks my heart. It doesn’t take a lot of research those find those facts and add them to the process of making a decision on how to interact with women.

It looks like I am going to have to be on Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s team. Good bye – Well Behaved Women.

They initiated the meeting, and it was NOT reported on or summarized by any Church department or the Deseret News. It was supposed to be a private meeting, which happens regularly with lots of groups. Sister Skaggs (a real piece of work in some ways) emailed the Tribune reporter and was interviewed for the article. She is an attention seeker, and this was part of that orientation.

Frankly, I suspect her actions were not liked by the Church leadership and that she hurt the group’s chances of continuing discussions with the Church.

They initiated the meeting, and it was NOT reported on or summarized by any Church department or the Deseret News. It was supposed to be a private meeting, which happens regularly with lots of groups. Sister Skaggs (a real piece of work in some ways) emailed the Tribune reporter and was interviewed for the article. She is an attention seeker, and this was part of that orientation.

Frankly, I suspect her actions were not liked by the Church leadership and that she hurt the group’s chances of continuing discussions with the Church.

What’s the source for this Ray?

The OW group have also been asking for a meeting with the PR team but have been refused.

Skaggs is an embarrassment.

The source is a friend who also is a reporter and knows personally about the situation.

I think the PR department agreed to the meeting because it was from a group that presented itself as not seeking to change the Church through public embarrassment and pressure, which is how OW is perceived. It was a request for a private meeting, with no media announcement and no initial fanfare beforehand. I think the PR department believed that it would remain private, and the firestorm the interview caused can’t help, imo.

Just for some extra info about Sister Skaggs, this is the woman who wrote a blog post that claimed that there is a hidden message in the movie “Frozen” that encourages homosexuality. I read the post, and it was a really bad example of comprehension skills – with some incredible logical leaps and obvious distortions. She wrote that she saw the movie three times before she realized the message was there – which says everything you need to know about her. She has a daughter who is lesbian who wrote a counter-response to the post. I think she naturally (and probably unconsciously) looks for reasons to justify her daughter’s orientation, since she is old enough to have been raised in a time when it was assumed that homosexuality is a choice.

I might be wrong, but I do think her actions blind-sided the PR department. I am positive there was no intent whatsoever to publish the meeting on their end.

What would they say?

“They asked for a meeting. We met. Not anything else we can say, since we don’t talk about what is said in private meetings.”

Anything they say just prolongs the situation and, in a weird way, validates her. The key will be if they continue to meet with her and the group. I hope I’m right; I will be disappointed if I’m wrong.

Or say something like this. ..

…

I think the PR department agreed to the meeting because it was from a group that presented itself as not seeking to change the Church through public embarrassment and pressure, which is how OW is perceived. It was a request for a private meeting, with no media announcement and no initial fanfare beforehand. I think the PR department believed that it would remain private, and the firestorm the interview caused can’t help, imo.

I might be wrong, but I do think her actions blind-sided the PR department. I am positive there was no intent whatsoever to publish the meeting on their end.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk