Mormon Media Studies symposium discusses PR challenges

Mormon Times ^ | 14 November 2010 6:18pm | Lane Williams

[T Minus Four]

If someone came to you and asked you how to run the LDS Church's public relations outreach, what would you advise those who make such powerful decisions to do?

Would you emphasize the good works that Latter-day Saints do while downplaying doctrinal difference to avoid misunderstanding and strife?

Or instead of leaving the doctrine to the missionaries, would you go on the offensive, pointing out anomalies in other faiths in a way that showed the strength of your religious position?

How would you use the Book of Mormon? Would you call them to repentance, as the Book of Mormon often seems to do?

Would you be defensive about your faith, holding back publicly and then responding to attacks only when they came?

Would you ignore mean-spirited public attacks on the church, forgive seven times seventy and move on?

For a church that claims a mandate to spread its gospel to the world, these questions are of no small import, and the answers likely differ depending on the circumstances.

These questions are part of the subtext of this week's terrific Mormon Media Studies symposium at BYU. The keynote speech by the University of Richmond's Terryl Givens and other presenters provided insight into this powerful issue.

An insight I gleaned from his presentation is that when Latter-day Saints provided effective rebuttals, say, to the argument that Joseph Smith is a fraud — and they do — they are arguing on the turf their opponents set out. You see this today in the argument about whether Mormons are Christian or not. It seems to be a debate that can need engagement, but it is a debate set on the terms by others who are not Mormon.

How do you engage in the public dialogue and set the agenda? One way is to focus on the things that make Mormonism distinctive as a way to create conversation that drives the discussion, keeping church opponents talking about what Latter-day Saints wish to be talking about —say the Book of Mormon or eternal marriage.

Beyond Givens' speech, what stood out in this conference is how the church has responded to its public relations challenges over the years and continues to do so today.

BYU scholar Ed Adams studied the public relations efforts of President Heber J. Grant in the years just following World War II. In the decades before Grant became president, the church faced extensive anti-Mormon press and politics. The most famous of these may be the series of anti-Mormon exposes in the muckraking magazines of the era, including Alfred Henry Louis' dark series called "The Viper on the Hearth" in Cosmopolitan magazine.

Adams argued that President Grant followed classic public relations principles in building the church — in an era when the professional practice of public relations was just emerging. For example, President Grant was willing to meet with writers and was witty and avuncular in his approach. A kind, warm caricature of a golf-playing prophet emerged that helped the church at the time.

The church also took advantage of many opportunities that emerged in the culture at the time — including many stories that had Utah ties and brought reporters to Utah.

Similarly, Susan Easton Black's work shows the history of Mormon newspapers that were, in part, efforts at public relations before there ever was a professional practice of it. Her new book of Erastus Snow's newspaper, "The St. Louis Luminary," is an example of the period.

In 1852, not long after the church began settling in Utah, it sent some of its most important leaders, including Snow, to major metropolitan areas to speak up in behalf of the church and to build up the Saints wherever they were. These apostles — John Taylor in New York, Orson Pratt in Washington D.C. and George Q. Cannon in San Francisco — became important advocates for their cause in some of the church's darkest hours. Snow's was just one effort at public relations and the press.

The writers at the symposium took different approaches to the question of how Mormons should tell their story, but all demonstrated the remarkable effort that continues today.

In the end, with another Mitt Romney campaign coming up and tickets going on sale for a new Broadway musical from the creators of South Park called "The Book of Mormon," the question of how Latter-day Saints should present their church to outsiders through public relations efforts will continue to fascinate

[lawsone]

I feel sorry for you. It must be depressing to always be putting down others when Protestants have enough internal probems of there own to worry about.

[T Minus Four]

Like I said, the verses aren’t even about nice people. They are instructions in determining true prophets from false ones

Wow CC! You nailed it! I never noticed that before!

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matthew 7:15-20

[/Petard hoisting]

[T Minus Four]

A) Show me where I put anyone down.

B) Who said I'm a protestant?

What's the matter, can't find a good defense of Mormonism? You should be able to stand up and defend yourself and your faith. If you can't, won't or don't want to, why bother?

[T Minus Four]

We could start with the prophecies of your founding prophet, Joseph Smith.

Either you believe the detractors are lying and all his prophecies DID come true, or you choose to believe in a prophet who is on the record as making false prophecies anyway.

I don't see any other choice, but if there is a third option, I'm open to hear it.

But in the year or two since I've been defending Christianity against Mormonism here on FR, I have never had one single LDS believer find a defense for this. Usually it just starts in with the name-calling and finger-pointing.

I kinda think you might be different, so let's hear it.

[T Minus Four]

We could start with the prophecies of your founding prophet, Joseph Smith.
Either you believe the detractors are lying and all his prophecies DID come true, or you choose to believe in a prophet who is on the record as making false prophecies anyway.

I don’t see any other choice, but if there is a third option, I’m open to hear it.

But in the year or two since I’ve been defending Christianity against Mormonism here on FR, I have never had one single LDS believer find a defense for this. Usually it just starts in with the name-calling and finger-pointing.

I kinda think you might be different, so let’s hear it.

[T Minus Four]

Bad fruit placemarker

[Guyin4Os]

May I ask, where in the Bible is the “Trinity or the “Rapture”mentioned

The trinity is taught by the Bible, although the term "trinity" is not mentioned. The "rapture" is taught by the Bible. "Rapture" is an English rendition of the greek "harpazo," in 2Cor 12:2 and 1Thess 4:17.

where is there any indication that Baptism by sprinkling is the correct way

There isn't.

why do the books of the Apocrypha not disqualify Catholics from being Christians?

The Book of Mormon doesn't "disqualify" Mormons from being Christian. Mormons can be Christians if they start to believe teaching that is actually Christian. LDS TEACHINGS disqualify the religion from being a Christian religion.

Why is “The only begotten Son” so hard to comprehend?

It isn't. "monogenes" means "unique."

Was Christ just being dramatic when he fell to his knees before Lazarus tomb and uttered a prayer to his Father? I cannot understand anyone reading the New Testament and not believing in three distinctive members of The Godhead

No. Drama was not the issue. The Son is a distinct person from the Father, not a distinct God. Mormonism does not teach that Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the same God. It teaches that they are separate gods who are part of a vast pantheon. That is not a Christian teaching. When the LDS church finally states that even though it uses terminology that sounds "christian," nevertheless, it is not a Christian religion, then its PR task will suddenly ease.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

““that God had a work for me to do; AND THAT MY NAME SHOULD BE HAD FOR GOOD AND EVIL AMONG ALL NATIONS, KINDREDS AND TONGUES, OR THAT IT SHOULD BE BOTH GOOD AND EVIL SPOKEN OF AMONG ALL PEOPLE”. You have to know that the statement did not originate from, a teenager or adult but from some other source.

“This statement is not the basis for my Testimony but it is clear to non-members, or should be. THE STATEMENT IS CERTAINLY FACTUAL!!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is certainly true that hundreds of millions know the
name Joseph Smith for evil. I suppose Satan could make
the same claim...

So could most mass murderers, who have their own groupies.

I also agree that the statement probably didn’t originate
with a teenager, which brings us back to Satan...

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Might I suggest that The Rapture,the Trinity, The Nicean Creed, Baptism by sprinkling, and the Catholic books of the Apocrypha, and many other practices of Christians are not Biblical.”

You certainly might suggest it! But then, from your posts
I might suggest that you typed that while wearing magic
underwear. Lurkers should know that. It calls into question
your ability to speak about what is Biblical.

I would also point out that there is more evidence to support every one of the things you attempt to call into question than for mormonism, which sadly only has feelings to support its wild claims.

“Most agree that Mormons are good people. The Savior said, an evil tree cannot produce good fruit.”

Self-produced works in pursuit of “worthiness” do not please God. He has already condemned them. They aren’t good fruit. They are plastic fruit.

That same New Testament that you claim Christians don’t read much reveals the Gospel of the Grace of God, apart from the Law and apart from works. Will you accept it alone and put aside your plastic works?

best,
ampu

[Paragon Defender]

Seekers of truth,

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.  

They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.

Sometimes they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.

The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.

Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Now you will likely notice the "you never address our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.

Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you?

Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.

I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[T Minus Four]

I also agree that the statement probably didn’t originate with a teenager, which brings us back to Satan...

I was thinking exactly the same thing. JS was a tool.

[T Minus Four]

I guess you didn't notice that I already posted all your links and a discussionj of them ensued. You're evidently just a spam machine. I think you have this post macroed and you paste it into any old thread about the LDS without even bothering to read it.

Makes ya look a little foolish, don't ya think?

[T Minus Four]

Maybe we can talk tomorrow. Goodnight.

[ejonesie22]

Oh its the LDS “look over there” defense...

Gee, that’s one I haven’t seen before...

[ejonesie22]

Makes ya look a little foolish, don't ya think?

He either believes or as an operative tries to get others to believe that the Native Americans were Jews, and entire civlization arose then disappeared without a trace some where between New York and who knows where man can become a god and Joe Smith was a “prophet” and stamps your ticket into heaven.

Foolish started way before his psotings...

[Colofornian]

Most agree that Mormons are good people. The Savior said, an evil tree cannot produce good fruit.

(#1) (Ya better believe if you're auditioning for godhood, that you'll have an external reputation for being "good" to some extent...and, BTW, so did the Pharisees -- even with Jesus: ...unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. -- Matt. 5:20)

(#2) (Surely you've heard a game-show buzzer over some two-part Q where the participants missed one of the Q's...well, the irony is that as you paraphrased one remark by Jesus, in the previous sentence you 100% contradicted one of His observations!!!)

Sorry, lawsone...Jesus of the Bible did NOT share this presumption of yours:

He said: "'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good--except God alone.'" (Mark 10:18).

Jesus wasn't saying He wasn't good; but He was addressing the misguided presumption behind the comment.

Jesus levels the playing field before the cross by undercutting any spiritual pride that presumes we don't Him as our great physician ("It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick...For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."--Mt 9:12)

Jesus is for the person who understands the cancerous diagnosis of sin.

We're all spiritually unhealthy and depraved -- including your "good" Mormons OR our supposed "good" Christians! [Depraved doesn't mean being as bad as we can be; it's just no part of our being is untouched by sin]. Yet that doesn't pre-empt people from accomplishing good works.

Some folks do good works and give the credit for those works to God the Holy Spirit working through them;
Some folks do outwardly good works and assume the credit for themselves, stealing God's glory. Theft of God's glory thereby defeats any act otherwise qualifying itself as "good"...
...And it leads us directly back to #1 above -- auditioning for godhood with good works is self-defeating!

(#3) Finally...Earlier this year I spent a LOT of time investigating just about ALL of the references to "Laws" emphasized by the Mormon church on Lds.org. Since then, I've made this challenged a couple times, and in light of your FReeper moniker, I offer it again:

I dare any Mormon to attempt to list every law emphasized by Lds.org!!! (Or even most of them!)

Now, indeed none of us knows all the laws within our home towns, let alone state & fed laws & codes, etc. But, you see, our eternal salvation isn't determined by such knowledge and/or ignorance.

That can't be said of perfectionistic Mormonism. Mormons' very acceleration up the ladder to Kolob is entirely dependent upon not only knowing all the laws, but obeying them!

Yet if 0% or 0.1% of Mormons actually know ALL the laws they're expected to honor, how is keeping them possible? And if then keeping them all is impossible, how are they supposed to be "saved after all they can do?" (2 Nephi 25:23).

And where is acclaimed "godhood" even a potential reality?

(It's time to drop the "temple-access-gets-you-godhood" Mormon program like a time-share vacation resort you can never schedule when you're actually available!)

[Colofornian]

I wonder how many Christians ever really read the New Testament.

OH, btw...
My #3 aspect of my last comment was especially relevant in light of your comment above:

(#3) Earlier this year I spent a LOT of time investigating just about ALL of the references to "Laws" emphasized by the Mormon church on Lds.org. Since then, I've made this challenged a couple times, and in light of your FReeper moniker, I offer it again:

I dare any Mormon to attempt to list every law emphasized by Lds.org!!! (Or even most of them!)

Now, indeed none of us knows all the laws within our home towns, let alone state & fed laws & codes, etc. But, you see, our eternal salvation isn't determined by such knowledge and/or ignorance.

That can't be said of perfectionistic Mormonism. Mormons' very acceleration up the ladder to Kolob is entirely dependent upon not only knowing all the laws, but obeying them!

Yet if 0% or 0.1% of Mormons actually know ALL the laws they're expected to honor, how is keeping them possible? And if then keeping them all is impossible, how are they supposed to be "saved after all they can do?" (2 Nephi 25:23).

And where is acclaimed "godhood" even a potential reality?

(It's time to drop the "temple-access-gets-you-godhood" Mormon program like a time-share vacation resort you can never schedule when you're actually available!)

[grame]

And the Angels in Heaven rejoiced!

and may it continue.

[grame]

Yes, and if you want to end a discussion quickly try pointing out valid examples of persecution.

Choosing to take up residence in the ‘whiner’s pew’ doesn't make one stronger, it makes many weaker.

Whiner’s never prosper in God's economy. They have a long way to go to suffer to the point of shedding blood if they beginning with whining about be called names.

Does Romans 12:1-2 ever come into their growth process?

[Elsie]

I cannot understand anyone reading the New Testament and not believing in three distinctive members of The Godhead, etc;

Thanks for illustrating the POLYTHEism of MORMONism.

---

I've always wondered what the Holy GHost did in the PRE-EXISTANCE to NOT have the privledge of inhabiting a BODY.