Church PR obfuscation?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

So I agree with Ray, the context of doubt must be understood to know if it is a good thing or bad thing. I define my doubts I had as a very positive way to seeking truth…not a negative way of pessimistically rejecting things because of my pride.

This is interesting, and probably warrants a new thread. I’d be interested in exploring this issue a bit more. What I mean is the lack of definition. GAs and church spokespeople have a great tendency to say things in a very ambiguous way. The good news, is that it allows us flexibility in determining what they mean. For instance, tithing being 10% of our “interest” annually. But the bad news is that they create culture where fear mongering is introduced by not clearly defining what they mean. This talk is a great example. I claim doubt and skepticism are good attributes to have, just like faith, charity, etc. They keep us from being too gullible, too ignorant. Taken to the extreme they are disabling for a psychologically healthy adult. A better word for the “good kind of doubt” is uncertainty. So, my question to the author of the talk would be why didn’t you say this? And this, I think, is an important issue in the church.

Not long ago Foxnews did an interview with the church answering 21 questions. See here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html. Not long after, John Dehlin (I assume) addressed this exact interview, and largely had the same response I did: why the obfuscation? Here is John’s analysis http://mormonstories.org/?p=379” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonstories.org/?p=379

This is one thing that led me to where I am. The church preaches honesty, and encourages it, and at times have even proclaimed they are totally open about everything, yet it is clear they purposely skirt what could be an opportunity to clarify, and, IMHO border on being dishonest. What would be the downside of an open, honest, clear, concise response? Are they afraid of something? Would it undermine authority, or damage people’s testimony?

This, to me, is especially frustrating in light of how often I hear people like Ray say what they mean in a way that is clear and easily understandable, using definitions of words that are technically accurate, while colloquially acceptable. I vote for Ray as new church spokesperson!

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

This, to me, is especially frustrating in light of how often I hear people like Ray say what they mean in a way that is clear and easily understandable, using definitions of words that are technically accurate

Thanks for making the new thread, jmb275.

So, why do you think this speaker was “technically inaccurate”? His point is that doubt and faith cannot both exist. Once I turned my doubts into a journey to find truth…it became faith that I could find an answer.

If I let my doubts remain, not taking any action to resolve them, then those doubts become destructive and negative for our spirits.

Do you disagree?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

This, to me, is especially frustrating in light of how often I hear people like Ray say what they mean in a way that is clear and easily understandable, using definitions of words that are technically accurate

Thanks for making the new thread, jmb275.

So, why do you think this speaker was “technically inaccurate”? His point is that doubt and faith cannot both exist. Once I turned my doubts into a journey to find truth…it became faith that I could find an answer.

If I let my doubts remain, not taking any action to resolve them, then those doubts become destructive and negative for our spirits.

Do you disagree?

The issue to me isn’t about disagreeing or agreeing. The issue is about what the speaker is portraying.

Fact 1: people doubt. That’s the term we use most often. If I ask you if fairies exist, you will doubt it. You likely won’t tell me that you are merely uncertain about it.

Fact 2: in the colloquial sense of the word, doubt is used to indicate uncertainty. In some context it means something else, but most often I think we associate it with uncertainty. Go dictionary.com, type in doubt, and look at the first definition.

Fact 3: doubt, as described by this author is seen as negative, and an antithesis to faith, blessings, and everything that is good about the Gospel.

Result: because of fact 1 and fact 1 people will associate doubt with uncertainty, which is the opposite of certainty. Since uncertainty is now seen as negative is it any wonder why people stand up and say they “know” the church is true? Is it any wonder why my wife goes to see my bishop, and they have a disagreement over the idea that faith and doubt can’t co-exist (BTW, my wife thinks they can coexist)?

But this isn’t really my point. My point is that the author could clarify his word choice, or use other words such that the wrong impression wasn’t given. Likewise in the example I gave about the interview, the church could have used the opportunity to clarify, and instill some confidence, but they opted for ambiguity. Why do we need to have a discussion about reconciling doubt and faith? To me this is evidence that there is obfuscation. I’m wondering why? What is the downside to being more articulate, more open, more honest?

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

I vote for Ray as new church spokesperson!

I second the motion!

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

To me this is evidence that there is obfuscation. I’m wondering why? What is the downside to being more articulate, more open, more honest?

I spent some time with a Catholic friend a couple weeks ago. She wanted to know all about my recent journey/changes/etc. We had a discussion about this because she grew up in the same mormon community but was the lutheran pastor’s daughter. She converted to Catholic when she married. So we have great discussions. Interestingly, the Catholic church has gone through fits and starts around this topic. Sometimes they’ve been incredibly open and honest, other times closed in to the point of criminal negligence. They also have the broadest spectrum of believers imaginable. Maybe Judaism is comparable.

Of course, both of these religions are quite old and maybe that’s what it takes. A young church like ours, needs to learn that being open and honest is not the end of the world but, rather, a part of the growing and progressing process.

I had an interesting thought today. The church growth seemed to explode on a percentage basis after the priesthood change. But the growth of the church has seemingly plateaued since the “proclamation for the family” or whatever it’s called. Coincidence? In my mind the priesthood change was a positive step towards openness, honesty, change with the times while the proclamation was about retrenching in the idea that the world is totally immoral and there is only one way to avoid it.

Anyway, two different approaches to similar (in my mind) “problems”. You could argue that both were done for PR purposes, one quite successfully, the other, not so much.

Just a random thought that in my mind is how I see the question of this thread.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

To me this is evidence that there is obfuscation. I’m wondering why? What is the downside to being more articulate, more open, more honest?

I spent some time with a Catholic friend a couple weeks ago. She wanted to know all about my recent journey/changes/etc. We had a discussion about this because she grew up in the same mormon community but was the lutheran pastor’s daughter. She converted to Catholic when she married. So we have great discussions. Interestingly, the Catholic church has gone through fits and starts around this topic. Sometimes they’ve been incredibly open and honest, other times closed in to the point of criminal negligence. They also have the broadest spectrum of believers imaginable. Maybe Judaism is comparable.

Of course, both of these religions are quite old and maybe that’s what it takes. A young church like ours, needs to learn that being open and honest is not the end of the world but, rather, a part of the growing and progressing process.

Yeah, I understand that other people and organizations do it, I just don’t understand why. Why do we need to learn that being open and honest is not the end of the world? Why do we think being open and honest is a bad thing? That’s what I’m struggling to understand. Is it because some people might doubt the claims made, or that some might be led down the road we’ve all been down, or worse even leave? As usual, I have to wonder whose interests are being looked after here. Ours, or the organization’s?

On that note, I don’t know how other people view honesty but my experience has been quite positive. When I have confronted people when I’ve made mistakes, and been sincere, humble, open, and honest, good things come about. The receiving individuals are usually quite receptive, and sympathetic. They understand I’m human.

Where I think maybe the church runs into trouble is that it has made quite astonishing claims in the past about Gospel perfection, certain authority, revelation, fullness of the Gospel, etc. etc. To be open is, maybe in the minds of leaders, equated to an admission of failure in some regard. Most people don’t have this same problem because we haven’t made such aggrandizing claims about ourselves.

I dunno, I’m trying to understand their reasoning.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

As usual, I have to wonder whose interests are being looked after here. Ours, or the organization’s?

well, jmb, if you keep asking questions, I guess I’ll keep pontificating without abandon.

I’m guessing the above question was rhetorical. I think your other question/point is interesting about past claims, etc.

I also think, upon further inspection, that maybe it’s the filtering process of the priesthood ranks. Playing it safe, being conservative, not making waves, acting and speaking black/white, never questioning, always saying yes, being a dynamic personality that demands respect for unwavering rectitude. These are the traits of priesthood leaders who rise to GA status.

These are not bad qualities per se, but when you get a group of these types together, well, bad things happen. This may seem too over-the-top but it reminds me of the Augusta Golf Club not allowing a black member till just a few years ago. Yeah, I know, it’s apples/oranges but my point is that alot of these old white conservative self-righteous better-than-you males gather and… not that that’s the GA’s, mind you, but you can see the danger of the process.

And, sometimes I think this point gets overplayed in the DAMU but most of these GA’s are corporate management types and worked their way up the corporate ladder in very similar fashion and bring the corporate mentality to running the church organization as well.

What’s best for the shareholder is often more important than what’s best for the customer. In this model, the church organization, the cob, the corp.of the first presidency, the q12, the 70’s, are the institutional investors that would be considered the most important shareholders or stakeholders, management would be beholden to them more so than the “customers” who would be the individual members of the church.

In this way, possibly, the institution is protecting the shareholders from depreciation of value, probably at any and all cost. This may be a form of institutional cynicism, wherein the institution is bigger than any individual, more important than any individual, and the individual is beholden to the institution first, last, and only.

The cost of course IS the individual. My “situation” may be a good example. When I resigned, there was literally no outreach whatsoever. My bishop was nice enough to listen and was very supportive emotionally, but the institution did nothing to reach out to me as an individual “customer”. I’m not complaining about this, btw, because it would have taken the prophet himself to tell me personally, that the change is in the works for me to change my mind.(or more importantly, my heart)

The “customer service” feels more like the DMV: everyone knows, including the employees, that we have to go there, get in line, wait forever, get treated poorly, and we still have to pay the money. And there’s no customer satisfaction survey at the end to vent our frustrations about the whole process. For most of us heretics here at staylds, we probably feel like the church institution treats us a little bit more like this than some other customer service experience.

This begs the question then: what’s more important, the image of the institution (to protect the shareholders) or the individual member (customer)?

In defense of the PR dept., their job is to protect the image of the institution and the institution has already made the cynical decision that the image(shareholders) comes before the customer. And this whole process has probably been developing since David O. McKay with some interesting twists during Kimball’s era, but becoming really entrenched in ETB’s era, especially with GBH and BKP being such prominent and dominant voices.

That was my longest ramble ever. Sorry, fwiw. All of this is very imho. 😳

[Anonymous]

@swimordie

Brilliant!! I loved your analysis. So maybe I need to understand something more about corporate management or something. Admittedly this is a weak spot for me. I know nothing about it since it’s not my field.

You know, even when I was TBM I came to the realization that certain individuals with certain characteristics were often the ones who sat in the purple chairs. That disturbed me then, but I put it back in the closet and ignored it.

I kind of see a bit of a paradox in what you’ve described swimordie. On the one hand people, and leaders will say they don’t have to, and shouldn’t bow to every request made by individual members. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the leaders are following the revealed word of God. OTOH however, this has the negative side effect of making members feel like they’re always the ninety and nine, but never the one. Ray has commented about this dynamic before. I don’t think I quite understood him before. Maybe you could try again Ray.

I’d love to hear what others have to say as well. And John, if you’re reading this, I’d love to hear a little follow up to the article of yours I linked to above. I’m really interested in understanding this issue from their standpoint. It’s easy for me to just make quick assumptions, and label them, but I’d like a deeper understanding. swimordie you provided a great response, thanks.

[Anonymous]

In all humility, I am a very good public speaker.

I say that to illustrate something:

I don’t know how many times someone has thanked me for saying something I didn’t say – or, at least, didn’t think I said.

My problem with calling people dishonest for not defining something the same way I define it is that I would HATE to be judged by that impossible standard when I speak in public. My talks and speeches convey what I mean, in terms as I understand them. I try VERY hard to avoid being misunderstood, but as this very forum shows, I’m not successful at that all the time. I simply can’t know how others interpret and define the words I will be using – even though I try hard to do so. Someone is going to disagree with me – and, frankly, someone is going to think I am lying, obfuscating, misleading or skirting something.

To be clear:

I understand fully that the Church doesn’t discuss many aspects many members wish it would, but I also think there is a bit of generic sex stereotype showing through in that. Men, in general, tend to say, “We’ve talked about that; why do we need to talk about it again” – while women tend to say, “We talked about that; we need to talk about it again.” Thinkers / tinkerers / heretics / whatever tend to be more like that female stereotype – always wanting to go back and pick something apart “one more time”. Administrators AND ministers don’t have that luxury – and they also must be concerned about “protecting” those for whom they administer and/or minister – the large majority who don’t want to tinker or explore new stuff – the “settlers” who just want to have peace and security.

Those who DON’T want stimulation and excitement and new understanding and exploration have a hard time understanding and accepting the explorers – the ones who represent the danger of having their peace and security shattered. Otoh, the explorers often feel condescension and scorn for those they see as too weak or timid or afraid or even stupid to go where the explorers go and see what the explorers see.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that I try in all cases to be very careful and charitable about blaiming someone for not defining something that way I do – for not seeing something as I do. I think doing so is a sure recipe for disappointment, and it’s a standard even someone like myself who is a terrific public speaker can’t fulfill. Our leaders aren’t called for their oratory skills; they are called for their sincerity. I am willing to accept that 90+% of them are sincere, so I am willing to look for ways to interpret what they say in a way that uplifts and edifies me.

That effort RARELY is fruitless, so I am able to gain something from almost everything I hear. I don’t mind “shoveling through the shit to get to the gold” – as a former Bishop used to say – so I usually can learn something uplifting even from the anti-Mormon sermons I used to hear driving through rural SW Ohio.

[Anonymous]

I’ve got to agree and say that’s a great point, Ray. They are sincere! I don’t doubt that. And I don’t think they need to define every term they use. That would be pretty jaded.

I’m alluding to the fact that it’s not the individuals, it’s the “institution”. Institutions can become “cynical” by protecting their bottom line, whether it’s for-profit or non-profit. Individuals become cynical when they get burned by someone. Institutions become cynical in similar ways, usually protecting themselves legally by following the “letter of the law” rather than the “spirit of the law”. This is where ethics steps in. And why there’s such a fine line between doing what’s right for the institution and what “feels” right from an ethics standpoint.

The medical field has dealt with this forever, especially insurance. Remember all the HMO scandals of the 80’s-90’s? Those insurance companies were protecting their bottom line by finding technicalities to deny coverage. And people died. Did any one individual act illegally? Probably not. Unethically? Maybe. But that’s how it is. Those HMO’s were acting cynically, looking for ways to NOT cover customers rather than looking for ways to “enhance” coverage for individuals. Of course, even most cynically, the shareholders were ignorantly blissful because the bottom line was being protected.

So, yes, I’m sure GA’s are sincere, good men. How do you make the institution as sincere and good? The PR answers reflect the cynicism of the institution (they’ve surely been burned before by giving straight answers). Is this possible? That may be the heart of what jmb was asking originally.

[Anonymous]

Great question, swimordie – especially since Jesus was known to avoid direct answers and respond with questions or parables. It is an age old question for individuals and institutions when others literally want to destroy them.

My own approach is to focus on my own local sphere – that in which I have a degree of influence and I know the people directly involved. The LDS Church really is two separate entities in a real way – the global and the local. I think globally; I live and deal locally.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

My own approach is to focus on my own local sphere – that in which I have a degree of influence and I know the people directly involved. The LDS Church really is two separate entities in a real way – the global and the local. I think globally; I live and deal locally.

Ray, you bring up a great point that many people miss in understanding their feelings towards the church. It really is run as 2 organizations, local and centralized (global).

Those speaking in general conference on topics have a different role than a bishop working directly with individuals.

I felt this when I had a stake calling. I was a stepped removed from actually working with people, instead I was a resource to train, uplift and communicate messages to others, but the local leaders did the real ministering.

I would think many of the speakers would answer questions more directly or would act with less ambiguity if their sphere of influence was different and they were working with their families or someone more on a one-to-one level.

[Anonymous]

I’ve got almost 20 years experience in large corporations, and let me just add that people are crappy communicators. Almost without fail, they are inarticulate or give accidental offense. They mean to be clear, but they fall short in meeting the needs of everyone in their audience. The very best communications appeal to and are clearly understood by no more than 80% of their audience.

The faith vs doubt talk was something that also didn’t appeal to me until someone said they viewed faith as courage to act despite doubts. If we think of faith as action-oriented (vs conceptual), then doubt becomes a negative – the inability to take action because of lack of faith (or courage). It’s a completely different paradigm. In that paradigm, doubt poses a practical problem. But if you ask me, that’s not my initial response to the concept of faith and doubt. Faith without doubt is overconfidence and arrogance. Faith without doubt leads to triablism (think of The Crusades), confirmation bias and polarized thinking.

These are not actually simplistic terms, but they are oftew explained by simple people who don’t appreciate the nuance of the words they are using.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

JMB275 said…Where I think maybe the church runs into trouble is that it has made quite astonishing claims in the past about Gospel perfection, certain authority, revelation, fullness of the Gospel, etc. etc. To be open is, maybe in the minds of leaders, equated to an admission of failure in some regard. Most people don’t have this same problem because we haven’t made such aggrandizing claims about ourselves.

I dunno, I’m trying to understand their reasoning.

The above gives me the impression some people think LDS church leaders are playing a game of mental chess with them. I believe the leaders know who they are and where they are going, and pretty much let most people play a one man chess game with themselves. They are busy stearing this great ship ( the church ) and are not all that aware of every wind (word) that fill the sails and buffets the ship as it sails on it’s journey. I think we can paraphrase Ben Frainklin, the Lord who notices every sparrow that falls from the branch, could hardly fail to notice the progress of his church as it goes forth. This world is a place to gain experience, and we humans will make darn sure everyone gets some.

[Anonymous]

Forgive my late entry into this discussion. I went to the original posting in the thread. I read the 21 questions which FOX asked of the church. I reviewed John Dehlin’s comments regarding the same. John’s concern/dialogue focused on just four answers. Four out of 21 seemed to reflect well for those folks in trying to answer in a forthright way. If I were in a classroom & answered seventeen out of twenty-one right, I would feel like I nailed a C+. In a few cases in the spectrum of questions, there seemed a desire to tie LDS church beliefs with mainstream Christian beliefs. I saw much of the same in the administration of President Hinckley. He seemed to say sharing similarities with other Christians was the best road forth as our faith community entered a new century. I just know playing a PR person is a rough road to hoe. What’s that old admonition, “You can please some of the people all the time, some of the people most of the time, but never ALL the

people… etc.” I also think John Dehlin nailed it with the answers he responded to. They likewise had raised my eyebrows. I’m so glad that there are alternate voices when my mouth is slow to open. I’m so pleased I lived to see the Internet. I find ‘like’ thinkers in my religious voyage, in some pretty rough seas. It sure helps.

[Author]

Posts