Thorny Issues handled by Church PR Department

[Anonymous]

Interesting article where the church responds to allegations of whitewashing, racial and sexual orientation discrimmination, and gender discrimination in the past. Otterson is the spokesperson.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3769761-155/mormon-churchs-pr-boss-discusses-lds

What I found interesting was that it the press, they respond to thorny issues like any other temporal organization would. At church, we are not allowed to talk about it. At least he acknowledges these issues exist. Even at one point saying that church materials that whitewash history were to “motivate and inspire” but with the internet that was no longer good enough. That at one time, he dismissed people who felt “betrayed” by the whitewashing, but now he he “repented” of that. He even goes so far as to say that betrayal is too strong a word for what the church did.

So, it stops short of apology, provides hope for a greater role for women in the church in the future. He minimizing the racial issues and comments on the release of the essays as a way of finally coming clean on some of the thorny historical issues.

Is Otterson a GA?

Is this enough?

[Anonymous]

Two thoughts occurred to me while reading the article. First, this will not satisfy many people. It is fine for the PR rep of a large corporation to make such statements, in fact, it is probably expected. When a religious organization does it (as reasonable a practice as it may be) it makes that organization sound more like a corporation. The dark suits and ties which are the uniform de rigeur of people working for the Church does little to dispel these impressions. What would feel better to many is if one of the Twelve would have this kind of frank discussion. I personally don’t believe they necessarily need to “back down” on their positions (though there are one or two I’d like to see changed) but simply that they are willing to be frank about the difficulties and ambiguities attending some of these issues. But it’s a two-edged sword. For every disaffected member that would be satisfied with such candor, there would probably be one or two strong members who would be devastated. What do you do? I think we see what is done: small hints in conference talks and the PR guy discussing the issues in an informal way at some obscure meeting. The Church may be moving slowly out of necessity.

Second, (a more minor point):

Quote:

At first, Otterson, a British convert who read plenty of anti-Mormon material before joining the LDS Church decades ago, was dismissive of those who were surprised by what they learned about LDS history. Only dissidents and critics, he reasoned, would believe that Mormon officials deliberately withheld damaging information or “lied” to members.

I am always a little skeptical when someone says “I read a bunch of anti-Mormon literature and wasn’t affected by it.” That’s because what people are reading now is NOT (for the most part) anti-Mormon literature. I remember reading some of this literature when I was much younger. It was generally easy to dismiss because it was so bitter and angry. It’s much harder to dismiss concerns being raised by those who characterize themselves as the “loyal opposition.” (We can thank Elder Oaks for the quotation marks.) Bottom line: the world is a different place than when Brother Ottersen was exploring the Church. Again, one can’t help but feel that the Church leadership was caught a bit unawares by this “internet” thing.

[Anonymous]

Thoughtful comments Gerald. I agree — I thought it was odd that an employee of the church, or lower ranking person would be the one addressing the press on this issue — not our ecclesiastical leaders. I would have rather seen the prophet do it, or one of this counselors or perhaps an Apostle. But that would attract a lot more attention.

Also, your cost benefit analysis — get one disaffected member back while losing two committed ones if you are frank about the problems and misleading and betrayal — represents the plight of the church right now. If they can leak regret on a limited basis to the fringe people who care about it, while keeping it from the general membership as a whole, then they get the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to satisfy the disaffected.

One thing I’m happy about is that I learned about all these deficiencies now, rather than after this life is over. I feel a bit like I have eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It’s a harder life now, but at least it’s built on truth.

[Anonymous]

If I ever get the time I’d love to hear that 50 minute address.

Quote:

“I later repented of my dismissive attitude,” he said, realizing that LDS leaders were writing curriculum mostly “to motivate and inspire. … With the advent of the Internet … that no longer suffices.”

We have a lesson on David and Bathsheba, why not only tell the faith promoting side of David’s life? People learn from successes and mistakes. I’m inspired when I read about real people facing real problems. I don’t expect people to be perfect, in fact I expect them to be imperfect. I don’t get as much out of stories when the characters become larger than life, they become people I can’t relate to because they have been divorced from reality.

As a side note, I’m not a big fan of the way that is phrased. I can almost imagine a Scooby-Doo episode where someone says “…and we would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that darn internet.”

Quote:

The church responded with historical “transparency” — acknowledging controversial aspects in a series of groundbreaking essays — Otterson said, “but it’s a very long way from betrayal.”

It’s a hard lesson but you don’t get to tell people how they should view things. If it’s a betrayal to someone, it’s a betrayal to them.

Quote:

Only dissidents and critics, he reasoned, would believe that Mormon officials deliberately withheld damaging information or “lied” to members.

Technically true. I guess you wouldn’t be a critic if you weren’t criticizing something. There is a question of intent. I might look at it and see how the teachings came from people that were working from the same perspective as me, not knowing about the history or believing certain things to be lies. Someone else may feel differently, that’s their prerogative. The incident where Joseph Fielding Smith hid a troubling first vision account might make people wonder who knew what when and how much of everything was someone deliberately hiding information that they felt would shake people’s testimonies. I don’t remember exact quotes but it seems like BKP may have hinted at that a few times. Others might look at the Fielding incident and see a person that was afraid and wanted to put something on their shelf until they had some time to figure things out. Reactions are going to be all over the board, gotta let people have them.

I think many people wrestle with the idea that what was once vilified as anti-Mormon lies is now tucked away on the church website. I think it helps to remember that most of the people saying it was all anti-Mormon lies were our family members, friends, neighbors, and ward members, the people we interact with the most. I think they were speaking from a place of ignorance. Where would the average church member learn about these things, the correlated materials? :angel:

Quote:

He denied that the LDS Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage constitutes hatred of gays. The Utah-based faith helped promote statutes that oppose discrimination in housing and employment, he said, so why does the word “hate” continue “to be leveled against the church by some LGBT advocates, gay media and allies? Even some of our own young people have accepted that propaganda.”

I agree that “hate” is a very charged word. I believe leaders are doing what they think is best. I’m sure many see them as being misguided, but when leaders factor in their concept of the afterlife they probably believe that what they are doing constitutes love.

After reading this statement I find myself with a new doubt. Did the church push for statutes to oppose discrimination in housing and employment with the ulterior motive of using it as social capital for their continued fight against SSM?

Quote:

Mormonism neither “constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility” to gays, Otterson said. Members should approach all these issues with “respect, honesty and civility.”

Be prepared for people to view you as being hostile towards gays when you push for changes that would limit their right to get married and promote polices that affect their church standing and their children. It’s gonna happen.

Quote:

Race relations: The church’s prohibition on black boys and men from being ordained to its all-male priesthood and black women from entering Mormon temples before 1978, he said, “doesn’t seem to be an issue for our rapidly expanding African membership. … It is much less significant than it has been in the United States.”

This is stripped of context (the question might have been “How does the priesthood ban affect the work in Africa?”) but “it doesn’t bother this group, why should it bother you?” isn’t the best balm for certain wounds.

[Anonymous]

Gerald wrote:

For every disaffected member that would be satisfied with such candor, there would probably be one or two strong members who would be devastated.

I wanted to put this in a separate post because I didn’t want it to be lost in my text wall above that no one will read.

Obviously many of us here think that if the brethren were frank in responding to the issues that many orthodox members would find themselves in a difficult situation. Do you believe that the brethren feel the same way?

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

The church responded with historical “transparency” — acknowledging controversial aspects in a series of groundbreaking essays — Otterson said, “but it’s a very long way from betrayal.”

It’s a hard lesson but you don’t get to tell people how they should view things. If it’s a betrayal to someone, it’s a betrayal to them.

I agreed with this. If people feel betrayed, then there is betrayal. He can’t define what it is. Heck some of us gave the equivalent of a mortgage to the church and most of our free time doing stuff we would rather not do, for decades. Then, to find that what we are taught was picking the raisins out of the cake, leaving a lot of serious stuff out of it, well, that can be construed as betrayal.

Quote:

Only dissidents and critics, he reasoned, would believe that Mormon officials deliberately withheld damaging information or “lied” to members.

Don’t agree with this one. We’ve seen the pattern here a number of times. First, someone has a doubt from what they hear at correlated church. They start researching it (often after years of TBM-ness). Then they go to the internet, and learn the facts about our religion. yes, they get hit with anti-Mormon stuff too, but there is certainly a lot of truth to be found that is disturbing. They may be dissidents later, but the started out as staunch believers. I was one of them. So, his argument is flawed and certainly not accurate.

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

Race relations: The church’s prohibition on black boys and men from being ordained to its all-male priesthood and black women from entering Mormon temples before 1978, he said, “doesn’t seem to be an issue for our rapidly expanding African membership. … It is much less significant than it has been in the United States.”

This is stripped of context (the question might have been “How does the priesthood ban affect the work in Africa?”) but “it doesn’t bother this group, why should it bother you?” isn’t the best balm for certain wounds.

For me, the issue goes even beyond the disadvantaged blacks for generations — it throws into question the entire doctrine of the church. The prophet can never lead the church astray? How do you explain the priesthood ban then? Previous generations believed the priesthood ban was doctrine. And now it isn’t? Doesn’t that mean that just about any deep, inviolate doctrine can be flawed and disavowed? Doesn’t this mean any prophet’s words needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and subjected to the ultimate test — the conscience of the individual?

To bring this to a more StayLDS focus, I ordered a book by a Mormon Academic, Armand Mauss. In the description of the book, it says that Mauss considers Mormonism a matter of choice, rather than an imperative based on fact. I find refuge in that. You CHOOSE to be a Mormon, as the evidence that it’s all true is not compelling. The arguments that suggest you HAVE to do it because it’s true don’t seem to hold the same kind of water once they did.

I choose to be a Mormon and not retract my membership because it has been good for my family in spots, my marriage is entwined in it, there are some good people, and in my heart, I think I should keep interacting with it at some level. Its’ a choice, not something based necessarily on faith that it’s all true.

[Anonymous]

While I liked some of what Otterson said (I didn’t watch the video, I only read the articles) I also disagree with his point of view on whether some history was hidden or whitewashed. I really like this quote in response to a question by Kate Kelley:

Quote:

“People aren’t punished for opinions,” he added, “and I think there is a significant degree of misunderstanding. Having opinions, even about whether women should hold the priesthood, is certainly within the purview of any member of the church. However, when those opinions transfer into advocacy or lobbying, particularly when they’re clearly lobbying against what has been declared as clear doctrine by church leaders, that crosses a line, and in a few cases, and you mentioned your own case, in a few cases that has led to a disciplinary council.”

While I like the quote, Otterson is not a GA and relatively few people are actually going to be aware of it anyway. Oh that a Q15 member would just say this in GC.

[Anonymous]

The advantage of getting an employee to say it is that anything he says can be recanted as not doctrine! He is not inspired, has no formal seer/revelator/prophetic role. he can admit all kinds of stuff and the church and employees as a whole can rationalize and compartmentalize it.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I wanted to put this in a separate post because I didn’t want it to be lost in my text wall above that no one will read.

actually, I read it all…and agreed totally with your comments, and with Gerald’s take and SD’s and DJ’s comments too.

There is nothing left for me to add…you all said it! :thumbup:

SilentDawning wrote:

The advantage of getting an employee to say it is that anything he says can be recanted as not doctrine!

I agree, SD…and I don’t take it that the church is conniving in doing so.

PR is different than preaching and declaring doctrine. PR can be delegated to professionals under the direction of the Q15.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

The advantage of getting an employee to say it is that anything he says can be recanted as not doctrine! He is not inspired, has no formal seer/revelator/prophetic role. he can admit all kinds of stuff and the church and employees as a whole can rationalize and compartmentalize it.

Hey, that can be both a good and a bad thing. It creates space to change in the future but I can see how it causes issues by not feeling more official.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Gerald wrote:

For every disaffected member that would be satisfied with such candor, there would probably be one or two strong members who would be devastated.

I wanted to put this in a separate post because I didn’t want it to be lost in my text wall above that no one will read.

Obviously many of us here think that if the brethren were frank in responding to the issues that many orthodox members would find themselves in a difficult situation. Do you believe that the brethren feel the same way?

Yes I do think the brethren really feel they are between a rock and a hard place. I believe they honestly feel that keeping the church going is paramount, even if it means attempting to ignore many things and calling those things the boogie man for years (which is no longer working). If I was friends with a GA, I would be having a discussion on reconciling certain actions with quotes like

Hugh B. Brown wrote:

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us.

I agree that it is intentionally being done by the PR arm so that the brethren don’t deal with these dirty details.

I am having a hard time seeing this as anything more than them being forced to agree (at least from one arm of the church) to save some face.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Hey, that can be both a good and a bad thing. It creates space to change in the future but I can see how it causes issues by not feeling more official.

It is also a good thing for me pesonally…because I can agree or disagree openly when it is not “official”. I think I prefer it that way…with more wiggle room. That just works for me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

nibbler wrote:

Hey, that can be both a good and a bad thing. It creates space to change in the future but I can see how it causes issues by not feeling more official.

It is also a good thing for me pesonally…because I can agree or disagree openly when it is not “official”. I think I prefer it that way…with more wiggle room. That just works for me.

It is good to remember that there is still a certain amount of room for personal interpretation. It’s not a free for all and there are some definite boundaries but with many issues there is still room. Unfortunately, not everyone likes having that freedom of interpretation and so vague principles discussed above (Church Office Building) become hard and fast rules down below (individual wards).

I know that in our stake young men are expected to read the Book of Mormon before the stake president will turn in their mission papers. Is this a bad idea? No! (And I’m personally fine with the policy.) But it is a stake taking a good suggestion from above and making it a hard and fast rule down below.

[Anonymous]

PR and the Mormon Church do not go hand in hand. No matter who says it or how it rolled out. Just look at the November Surprise – nee New Policy.

[Anonymous]

There’s a lot of interesting stuff in the transcript,

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-michael-otterson-uvu-academic-conference

but re. matters near and dear to my heart, I feel very finessed by Bro. Otterson. The surface-y treatment of Bro.and Sis. Brown’s “tragedy” is not satisfying.

Quote:

And now I want to introduce another word that is sometimes used alongside transparency. I think it’s an extreme word, but it’s one that has gained some currency among the disaffected. That word is “betrayal.”

Perhaps the best way to contextualize it is in a kind of parable. Brother and Sister Brown are third-generation Mormons, active in the faith, possibly living in the Intermountain West, raised in the best tradition of Latter-day Saint families. One day, not in church, they come across something they never heard in Sunday School. For the sake of this discussion, let’s say they learn that Joseph Smith shared several different accounts of the First Vision, some of them differing in significant details. Surprised and somewhat puzzled, they go to the Internet to learn more, whereupon they discover anti-Church materials that raise all kinds of questions. Perhaps Brother and Sister Brown ask other members about the issue, but they meet mostly blank looks or shrugs, because other members either don’t know about these issues or may not even seem to care very much. Now the Browns start to feel they have discovered something important.

The Browns “feel” they have discovered something important? Why not respect them if they say it’s important to them?

Quote:

They conclude they and earlier generations have been lied to, and we start to hear the word “betrayal,” because those same websites are going to tell them that Church leaders deliberately kept these facts from them. Shaken, Brother and Sister Brown leave the Church. In the wake of that decision, family members still faithful to the Church may have their own sense of betrayal—that a family member has rejected part of their core identity as a family.

Come on. “Those websites tell them….” The reasons this information was kept out of manuals is perhaps understandable, but don’t tell us many deliberate decisions weren’t made. The Browns don’t need websites to tell them that. It’s common sense, especially for third-generation Mormons like the Browns. They grew up hearing all this stuff, and being reassured that it was all Tanner-esque lies. Or maybe I’m just too wrapped up in my own experience, which was this, and wrongly assume that the Browns’ had the same one.

Quote:

I don’t know how common this situation is. It may be less common or more common than any of us think. Either way, it’s tragic. Hence, the subject belongs in our conversation today about boundaries.

There’s not much sense here that the church shares in the making of this tragedy.

He then goes on to characterize the problem mainly as member failings.

Quote:

Some critics accuse Church leaders of deliberately painting a false picture of Church history and doctrine, all the time knowing that they were deceiving Church members. The imposed boundary, they say, was complete orthodoxy with no exploration allowed. Every historical story was painted with faith-promoting care regardless of any nuances or contradictory facts. It was as if the writers of Church curriculum were the literary equivalent of Arnold Friberg’s paintings—just a little too perfect, with a dash of exaggeration. And it was all done deliberately to deceive.

You would expect me as a Church spokesman to reject those claims, and I do. But I want to go further and reject it wholly, utterly, and irrevocably because I simply do not believe it and it does not square with my personal experience about how Church leaders think and act and what motivates them.

I am a convert to the Church. Before becoming a member, I read extensively—everything I could find, including books from highly biased authors like Dr. Walter Martin’s absurdly named Kingdom of the Cults to much more even-handed treatments that raised questions worthy of study.

Perhaps because of that period of careful evaluation before joining the Church, such topics as the multiple accounts of the First Vision were not new to me. They were certainly not new to Church scholars, either, and such publications as BYU Studies and even the Improvement Era, later renamed the Ensign, and the Ensign itself in January 1985 addressed these and many other topics in some frank detail over many years.

I admit to being initially somewhat dismissive of criticisms that such issues were not the common fare of standard Sunday School curriculum. After all, Church leaders have long emphasized personal study—Harold B. Lee is reported to have said to Church members:

“We would remind you that the acquiring of knowledge by faith is no easy road to learning. It demands strenuous effort and a continual striving by faith. … In short, learning by faith is no task for a lazy man [or woman]. … Such a process requires the bending of the whole soul, the calling up of the depths of the human mind and linking it with God.”

I later repented of my dismissive attitude, however. In reality the vast majority of members learn gospel doctrine at home when they are growing up, or in seminary and in the three-hour block. While many also read beyond curriculum-based lessons, most are more likely to seek inspirational or motivational works by favored writers than delve into the complexities of Church history and doctrine. Church leaders, and those charged with developing and writing curriculum for lessons in church, were writing in order to motivate and inspire. Teachers wanted their youth and adult classes to leave at the end of the lesson fortified and motivated to tackle another week outside of church. The three-hour block was never intended to be a course deep in Church history and doctrine. Students interested in those subjects could always find scholarly works if they wanted.

With the advent of the Internet and the arrival of a generation that is wired 24/7, that no longer suffices and even seems superficial. Members now Google terms and topics on their smartphones while they are sitting in class. I do that myself. But the realization by Church leaders that they needed to substantially strengthen and deepen Church curriculum and introduce better resource materials was a natural evolution as audience needs, interests, and study habits changed.

Quote:

Responding gradually to these changing needs is a very long way from betrayal.

They didn’t respond gradually to several hot-button issues. I’d have had a lot more respect for the polygamy essay writers if they had responded gradually, but they flew out of the gate with angel’s sword drawn.

I’m not following what the Parable of the Browns is teaching.

[Author]

Posts