- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have recently come across the claim that the LDS church offered an influencer $$$ to do a video testimony of the BoM. The following youtube video by Jasmin Rappleye provides some apologetic context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbubJuLIGHk In summary, many LDS influencers have found ways to monetize their channels to be sustainable and maybe even profitable.
This support often comes from ad revenue on a per click basis. There are also multiple pro LDS non-profits that operate in the space and they can have paid staff members. It seems that these non-profits are financially supported by donors that are almost certainly LDS members and it is possible that the church itself could make donations as it does to other non-profits.
On one hand, it does seem unseemly for LDS influencers to make a living off of their promotion of the church. However, anti-LDS influencers certainly make money off of their social media work and putting together videos does take time and talent – so, upon closer reflection, I’m not sure that making money as an influencer for or against the church is immoral on its face (although it still can raise some thought provoking questions).
There was recently an influencer that was contacted about a brand deal to do a video testifying of the BoM. This influencer had a Mormon upbringing but is not currently aligned with the church and she was somewhat offended that the church would pay her to do a testimonial. Jasmin suggests that this email came from a third party company that the church works with and the video that they were trying to get the influencer to make would be posted on the church website or other church owned channel to make it clear that it was a “sponsored” or “paid for” message. The influencer in question did a follow up video where she said that an LDS church representative called her to apologize for her having received this brand deal and that the third party marketing agency failed to do their homework and due diligence in offering it to her. The church does not have any interest in having people fake a testimony of the BoM.
The second half of the linked video talked about google ad revenue and that the church seems to invest in google ads. This tends to drive up the asking price for ad space in content using key terms like Mormon and LDS. This does help compensate some pro-LDS influencers/creators, although it also helps compensate anti-LDS influencers/creators.
Jasmin Rappleye is an unabashed LDS apologist but her video on this topic seems pretty even handed.
As a people, we don’t like to talk about how we pay for our spirituality – in part because we don’t want to deal with supply-side compensation and discrimination issues (especially how women are not treated equally at the system-wide level) 
In this case, there is a fair amount of accidental friction between the missionaries doing social media stuff on their missions (paying for the privilege as it were) and the social media influencers getting paid to do a similar function from an entertainment platform. The college age kids who are serving missions could use the financial support (rather then supplying the financial support) and it brings up a question if the individual really needs to serve the mission, to spend their money that way to get the same effect.
In fantasy terms, it’s a competition between a bard and a cleric to woo the hearts of individuals (and get their time, talents, attention, and money). The church itself as a brand becomes part of the competition (and is losing out to grassroots relevancy) for the public speaking market share about church policy and news.
During an intense season in our marriage, I dragged my husband to a Marriage Encounter run by the Catholic church (highly recommend actually). It was interesting seeing marriage treated so sacredly – we sanctify our marriages by location (temple) and degree of unity between the spouses (not necessarily accurate).
They were more upfront about how much it would cost and talked about how it was funded with some passing-the-plate going on.
What was most illuminating for me was the way that community sales events (spaghetti dinners, bake sales, etc.) subsidized their funding as it was casually mentioned during meals by interested parties (mostly women) basically treating it as a stake-level networking experience and reporting meeting.
I do think it’s sad that some people (although likely a very small minority) make money off their “testimonies.” I know a pretty well placed guy (former mission president and area authority) who out and out calls that priestcraft. He also says some books fall into that category (I won’t name the books or authors but I bet if you think about it you’ll get what he’s saying). I know that’s just his opinion and he’s not speaking in any official capacity, but there might be something to what he says. That the church (and many other churches, organizations and corporations) pays Google for certain placements when doing searches isn’t a secret. I would like it if they used supposed investment gains to pay these fees but I bet not (and the church doesn’t really seem to differentiate except when they’re called out and event then it’s very ambiguous). At the same time, the church has in the past paid for television ads, and in more recent times Youtube ads. I can’t say I’ve seen a church ad recently, but I’d be surprised if they don’t exist. I think it’d be great if such ads were more along the lines of the “He Gets Us” ads (I know some people hate them, but I like them because I think they’re right).
My first take is that I don’t see much issue with the church paying influencers (people with a large following on social media) for giving their testimonies of the church on their platforms so long as the influencer’s testimony isn’t dictated by the church. In other words, they’re using their words to say things they truly believe. If they’re being told what to say or even say things that they don’t truly believe then it starts to feel icky. Maybe they should add an, “actor portrayal, not a doctor” disclaimer for paid adverts.
You’ve got me wondering DJ…
Where’s the line for paid influencer? Does it only pertain to popular people on social media? Could a stipend qualify a GA of the church as a paid influencer? What about the perks a mission president receives? What about the revenue a member of the Q15 generates from writing a book?
Maybe the line is more clear in those scenarios, it’s a church leader talking up the church, even if they’re not exactly forthcoming with the compensation they receive. Compare that to an influencer where the link isn’t as clear. Is this something from the heart? Is this something that’s financially motivated?
I’m sure the church has more money than they know what to do with. Perhaps they could pay a few influencers to be janitors.
😈 Is the line a generational thing where the younger social media guru or staff writer for the leader is the “paid influencer” and the leader is just a leader with the name that motivates attendance and attention? Sounds like priestcraft to me. Making money off your holding the priesthood or your membership in the church. I think it’s shady… SilentDawning wrote:
Sounds like priestcraft to me. Making money off your holding the priesthood or your membership in the church. I think it’s shady…
I find it interesting. If I worked for the church as an accountant, computer programmer, or janitor – I would be compensated for my time, my labor, and my skills.We also expect church members to volunteer their time, labor, and skills for a host of duties.
We give GAs a generous stipend because they are expected to give all of their time and give up any previous career.
We do not give stipends to any of the women serving in the RS, primary, or YW general leadership. I think it is assumed that their husbands will provide financially for them but in the case of Sheri Dew she had to juggle being CEO of Deseret Book and 2nd counselor in the RS general presidency. She went to the prophet at the time to request guidance on how to juggle it and was told something like, “I believe in you to figure it out. Just do your best.”
Where do we draw the line? and is drawing the line in one place moral and another place immoral?
I think that we collectively draw the line based on what we are comfortable spending money on (at least on an intellectual level). And, in general, our culture is focused on not spending money given half-a-chance. I also think that we spend money on situations we want to control or have controlled. Our government pays election staff for their services (poll workers and inspectors to provide site supervision) in part to standardize the election format and to rally qualified individuals to the cause. The amount itself wasn’t insane (125 for the inspection post in CA a good 25 years ago I think), but it justified the additional state training meetings and other duties I had to the election site I was running.
Lastly, I think the LDS church has shifted expenses into “volunteer work” and “reimbursement” to the point where church fundraising isn’t a requirement and we don’t talk about the local religious community self-funding (except for mild girls camp funding and Boy Scouts of America activities – which took up a lot of budget talk and funding at the time the church was affiliated to the BSA). It is telling that the joint, more equalized youth program for individuals 7-18 is cheaper and more locality-directed because of some changes.
Because we have a volunteer clergy (and that is a serious selling point for the battle-sore parish board member), we don’t have to pay for organization administration human resources expenses for the most part (insurance and salary primarily) up until our full-time GA’s. This reinforces a gender divide about what labor is worth paying for.
AmyJ wrote:
This reinforces a gender divide about what labor is worth paying for.
I noticed that too. “Women’s work” is more likely to be expected for free.I did a little digging and noted that in 2014 the CES reversed a previous policy that would prevent women with young children at home from working as CES instructors. They were actually terminated once their babies were born and would not be eligible for rehire until their children graduated high school. This was inconsistent with the fact that the vast majority of unpaid seminary teachers were and are women, many of those with young children at home. (Side note that there is a trend among seminary teachers to spend their own money on classroom projects and not get reimbursed. I think that the covenant of consecration and culture of women serving without making a fuss makes it hard for some women to ask for reimbursement in an assertive manner)
It was also interesting to note some other inconsistencies. Quoted from the 2014 Salk Lake Tribune article:
Quote:Brigham Young University-Idaho history professor Andrea Radke-Moss praised the move for making the policy consistent across church institutions.
The LDS Church “already long allowed for hiring mothers with children as full-time faculty at church universities,” Radke-Moss writes in an email. “Further, the fact that the motherhood-status exclusion for women was not similarly applied to female secretaries exposes some gender binaries at play for what was considered ‘acceptable’ work for mothers. (Secretary, yes, teacher, no.)”
It was ok for church employed secretaries or university professors to be working mothers. It was ok for a mother with young children to spend loads of time and her own money as an unpaid (volunteer) seminary instructor. It was not ok for a mother with young children at home to be employed by the church as a paid CES instructor (seminary or institute). This has everything to do with the church leadership’s understanding of gender roles and that, ideally, women would be stay at home mothers (a sentiment that is still pushed in the family proclamation).
Interesting thought related to gender roles and paying influencers: I think that some might find it more acceptable for men to be LDS paid influencers (I’m thinking of John Bytheway, Michael Mclean, and Brad Wilcox here) than women.
The only female example I can think of in this category is Al Carraway (aka the Tattooed Mormon). She is a really engaging speaker and I understand that her husband is the stay at home parent as she does her work of paid speaker and influencer.
I think that the “competition” between men and women for post-WW2 jobs and job security hasn’t left our culture yet and shows up in a preference for men being paid for their labors and women not. Women At The Pulpitincluded commentary that most congregations were not comfortable with hiring a female pastor initially, but that when they did so, there was no longer a resistance to doing so in the future. I bring this up because church leadership at the local level is a prime example of “influencer” for a congregation – that is why the bishop or branch president is charged with leading the young men programs (primarily) and provides a measure of support and presence for young women programs. It also ties into the “soft power” of persuasion brought into the forefront of culture by social media which is normally held by women and was more localized to women-centric spaces of various “parties” where women gathered to talk aka tupper ware parties, makeup gatherings, and baby showers (for connection not sales).
I have no problem with the Church using advertising, as long as what is shared is sincere – and as long as the Church approaches the recipients, not the other way around.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.