Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
It would appear that the "official" response is to simply pretend that it was never the "official" policy of the LDS Church in the first place.

Since it was never the "official" policy of the Church they can get away without apologizing for it or condemning the teachings that led to it.

Pretty slick, huh?

Are you attributing this "slick" behavior to anyone in particular by virture of them belonging to the Mormon faith?

491 posted on 12/13/2007 7:41:57 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic; xzins; AppyPappy
Are you attributing this "slick" behavior to anyone in particular by virture of them belonging to the Mormon faith?

It is not a "behavioral" issue, it is a "public relations tactic."

The decisions regarding the "official" response to uncomfortable historical or doctrinal questions usually come from unnamed people in Salt Lake City.

Pretending that it was never the "official" policy of the LDS Church to deny the priesthood to blacks, or that it was never the "official" doctrine of the church to assert that Blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain because they were not as valiant in the premortal existence as those who were fortunate enough to be born "white and delightsome", is functionally the public relations equivalent of saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

That, IMHO, is pretty slick PR. Better hope nobody calls them on it, or Romney could be in for some uncomfortable questions when he is running against Hillary (I will do ANYTHING to get elected) Clinton.

499 posted on 12/13/2007 8:32:41 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson