- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t know, I have hope. I think even when an idea is born for PR reasons it can eventually take root and grow to dominance. …one example — that the church believes in monogamy.
doug wrote:flowerdrops wrote:They are trying…
I’m pleased for your daughters friend, but this is a PR effort we’re talking about. PR = advertising, and last I heard, advertising isn’t necessarily when we say what we really think, but when we say what it is we think will make someone else think what we want them to think. To me ‘trying’ implies a lot more than that.
This sounds like a “trust” issue, doug. I can understand your cynacism, especially if an individual gets burned or hurt…there will be a trust issue.This was also an issue back in the day when there were baseball baptisms…doing things the wrong way ends up hurting the image of the church and the trust and ultimately makes it more difficult for the missionaries.
I’m definitely one who believes those making choices for ads and PR campaigns and the LDS newsroom sites aren’t perfect, and they have their agenda…but my experience is that their intent is good. They are not trying to “dupe” people…they truly are trying to influence people to believe this is Christ’s gospel, and diversity should be taught in the church…but they may not always get it right or they may say it but we don’t really see it yet in the membership behaviors of the church (2 different things, IMO).
Even when I look back at videos we used in the late 80s when I was on my mission…they were sometimes effective and I think those making them were sincerely trying to teach the good feelings that come with accepting gospel principles, but now I see those old tear-jerker videos and think it was all just an emotional play…which is why they weren’t sustainable and why they don’t use them any more, and they have revamped the missionary program, and also tried new things like the websites and the new PR campaign aimed at trying to be more open and honest. I guess I also have some hope because I see them trying to change with the times.
Maybe they won’t be perfect at it this time either…but I do believe their intent is good. Can I trust them? That is a personal thing, regardless of their intentions…trust is based on my personal experiences with the Church.
I simply believe they believe in the message they are trying to get out there – to non-members AND to members. I know, personally, that the top leadership is FAR more aware of FAR more things (issues of concern, if you will) than most members imagine – but I also know that, at the most basic level, they have FAR less power to change people at the local level than most members (and non-members) imagine.
Change takes time – and I like this particular change very, very much.
To be honest, I do find some of the church’s advertising efforts effective, and sometimes even touching. Others (including, frankly, all of the films I’ve seen featured in the JSMB) are overly-sentimental and a bit gaggy (if I may be so bold), but that’s a personal taste thing. I’ve been picking on this latest effort (‘ … and I’m a Mormon!’), but I can see that it has its place, especially after reading a handful of the profiles. Some are a little disingenuous, like the regular guy Mormon who bikes to work, but saves some up for the races “on the weekends”. Whatever. I’ll say no more about it. BUT, in my idealized and not-terribly-well-thought-out fantasy world, there is no need for the church to engage in these tactics, as if we were selling toilet paper or breakfast cereal, and where those with the biggest budgets and best-est advertising wizards get the results. There aren’t even any clear market incentives to regulate the process. My conclusion is that I think I should just thank my lucky stars that I don’t live in the midst of all of that. My hat’s off to all of you that live in clear view of the sausage making. It must take a special kind.
Quote:in my idealized and not-terribly-well-thought-out fantasy world, there is no need for the church to engage in these tactics
If the membership, especially the ones who are representative of the diversity in the Church, were more open to sharing themselves and their differences more openly, perhaps a marketing campaign like this wouldn’t be necessary – since everyone inside and outside the Church would understand the central message. Unfortunately, they don’t, so perhaps it is necessary. If this campaign emboldens those members to be more open about their differences, and/or if it starts to help more “restrictive” members begin to recognize those they previously have seen as “outside acceptability” as worthy, faithful members, I support it 100%.
Either way, I really like the message of the campaign, so I’m not about to complain. (Yeah, I know it’s obvious that I like it.)
Personally I wouldn’t mind suits and white shirts going – maybe kept for the temple perhaps – but with some rules on modesty. I don’t want to see someone’s backside in low slung jeans in church thank you!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.