I think there is a corollary between this campaign and Paul speaking to the people of Athens about their unknown God.
Paul did not infer that he agreed with the Athenians and their worship of their pagan God ....
22”Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious[3].
23”For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
—Acts 17:22-17:31, KJV
That's a good example.
Certainly Paul might have issued more qualifiers or disclaimers as he cited that example--were there former Athenian pagan worshipers-turned-Christian in that crowd, that is.
I think one of the bottom-line issues is how we go about citing the common ground we have as Christians with other religions.
In our rush to highlight that common ground, do we yield unnecessary false impressions that we sanction it or their sources?
That is where we need to be good at caveats-- qualifiers-- disclaimers.
Campaigns of this nature need to stress those quite heavily. And I should have been a bit more attentive to that in my very first post; hence my apology.
It's the same thing when a writer wants to cite a source that is highly problematic.
If he doesn't use such caveats/qualifiers/disclaimers, the reader is simply going to follow the footnote & assume this is a good, trustworthy source.
I've actually come across one Mormon author who I thought was right-on re: some social insights in this country (& I'm not talking about Glenn Beck). Then I discovered this author has written a deeply, deeply occultic book.
If I posted a vanity here -- and cited the author's first book but failed to tell readers how occultic his orientation is -- I have failed that navigational course of providing proper warnings.
Therefore, it's the writer's job -- if she/he feels it's important to keep the reference in her/his work -- to point out what is controversial about this source before/after even citing it. And it's not enough for that writer to say they've done that somewhere else.
If it's an article, the reader may only have access to that article; a book, same thing.
A campaign of this nature, I believe, is similar in nature. Yes, I still think it can be pulled off...with the proper navigation and proper disclaimers on board. Certainly it would be good if MRM had plenty of ex-Mormon input before they launched it (I hoped they did).