The Church Responds to Nightline
As use of the Internet has continually increased in our society, it seems that the Church has become much more vocal in expressing itself on media reports or policies that deal with or refer to the Church.
I was surprised to see today that the Church has responded in some detail to the recent Nightline story on the Church’s position on homosexuals. It doesn’t seem to me like the Church always did this, i.e. respond to a specific unsavory news story by isolating individual points of error and addressing them individually. The Internet allows this to be done in an almost real-time fashion whereas before the Church would have had to issue its own press release to the contrary, send out a letter, or something to that effect.
The Church’s response isolates comments by Holsinger (though not the manifestly false one about the Church having manuals prescribing what food to eat at what meals) and the “Gamofites” Smith and Gorringe and then rebuts them with quotes from President Hinckley. It makes for an interesting back and forth. The message the Church sends, in the words of President Hinckley, is that
[O]ur opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.
In spite of such statements, of which they were presumably aware when they were interviewed by Nightline, Holsinger stated on the show that
fundamentally who I am is hated and reviled by God. I am alone; there is no one else like me.
Smith, one of the “Gamofites,†for his part, explained that he was “recovering” from Mormonism, stating that
we are recovering from the put-downs, the discrimination, the people that come along and say that if you’re gay, you’re not good.
In this release on its Website, the Church responds to each of these and makes general statements about its position that it views all people, including homosexuals, as sons and daughters of God deserving of dignity and respect. But the release closes with the following firm stand:
We believe the standard of morality is clearly defined and applies to all of God’s children. The Church teaches chastity before marriage and complete fidelity within a marriage. Marriage is also defined by God as the union of a man and woman, and we are not at liberty to change that definition.
I am not sure whether I like this new trend of answering criticisms in the media point by point. It could become onerous. Let’s face it; Latter-day Saints will never get overwhelmingly good media. Our beliefs are too strange to those who do not share them, and we should resign ourselves to that fact. The worship of an executed and suffering God also seemed pretty strange to the world enamored with its pantheon at one time. Why should we be so focused on PR when that is an unwinnable battle?
It could get onerous.
But I wouldn’t say that PR is an unwinnable battle. Indeed, I think it’s clear that the LDS Church has benefited from Pres. Hinckley’s focus on and expertise with PR and while it may not have won any battles, it has certainly made huge gains.
I would imagine that the Church will continue to pick and choose its battles. Nightline is worth taking on because it purports to be a serious, hard news show.
To be sure, our beliefs our strange, but so are those of many people of faith (and even people not of faith).
When it comes to instances like this there is a fairly complex calculus of pros/cons that goes into deciding whether to respond or not. That it would appear that the LDS PR people are aware of that (judging by their selective responses to media reports) speaks well for them.
I still thing that we should emphasize our uniqueness more, but that’s just my particular hobby horse.
Comment by William Morris — June 9, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Perhaps this story was rebutted because the FMA was so prominently in the news this week.
Sadly, I suspect that President Hinckley’s words ring hollow on many ex-Mormons who are practicing homosexuals. I have heard more than a few anti-gay comments in Church meetings — not just opposition to the politics of homosexuality, but personal comments, including the use of epithets like “queer” and “fag.” And I live in a fairly liberal, metropolitan area of Southern California. I can imagine things being worse in more rural, traditional, and older communities.
I think things are getting better, or at least I hope things are getting better. I’d like to believe that the Saints are starting to heed President Hinckley’s counsel against “hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group.”
Comment by Mike Parker — June 9, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
I should add that I think the Church was effective in its response in this case. I liked the idea of simply appealing to past statements by the highest authority in the Church for a rebuttal. Additionally, I thought the Church was wise to focus on the global issue in the response rather than get involved in addressing other blatant and irritating — although, in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor — factual errors in the news report.
Comment by john f. — June 9, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
I just wonder about the overall policy of frequent rebuttals and such constant attention to the media from the official Church channels. It seems that in a certain sense, it would be nice if the Church were simply above all that, not really caring what the media chooses to report about it. But I guess that is not realistic considering the vital importance of the missionary effort and introducing people to the Gospel and the Church.
Comment by john f. — June 9, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
It would be nice, but the problem with the current media climate is that reporter, commentators, bloggers, etc. etc. are going to dissect everything whether or not the Church chooses to speak officially.
And in the lack of authoritative statements, they’ll then turn to non-authoritative sources, printed materials, previous stories (whatever the source).
Knowing when to respond, in what way, with what type of timing is the most difficult thing a pr professional does.
Comment by William Morris — June 9, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
john,
I think you’re being a bit fatalistic about this.
Besides, it has always been the prophetic role to state God’s mind to the world and let the world choose its own consequences.
Remember also, these statements are just as much directed to the Church membership as they are to Nightline and its viewers.
I think the very fact that they didn’t choose to rebut the dietary misinformation on the show, demonstrates that the Brethren are not engaging in a “point by point rebuttal” as you put it.
This debate isn’t new as conflicting statements from Boyd K. Packer and Neal A. Maxwell illustrate.
Elder Packer once said that, like Samuel the Lamanite, we Mormons should not descend from the city wall to argue with the hecklers in the crowd.
However, Elder Maxwell stated that the anti-Mormons out there should not be allowed an “uncontested slam dunk.”
So who do you believe, and whose advice do you apply here?
Comment by Seth R. — June 9, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Now I’m REALLY confused. So: There is or isn’t dietary (i/e beverage) restrictions in Mormonism!
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 10, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
This is as old as time. Charges not responded to are assumed true.
Seth,
I’m afraid Packer has chased more souls from Christ than he’s brought in. On PR issues, he has no credibility.
Comment by Steve EM — June 10, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Seth R., as a practical matter, I’ve always defaulted to the Maxwell position, if it is really true there is such a dichotomy.
Comment by john f. — June 10, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
KLH, if you could show me the manual that prescribes what to eat and which meals of the day, I’d be grateful. That must be something the Danites are keeping secret (see Martha Nibley Beck).
Comment by john f. — June 10, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
that should say, what to eat at which meals
Comment by john f. — June 10, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Hey, lay off sister Beck! Artsy folk — as naturally suffer from maybe just a sprinkle of emotional instability? deserve ALL the support and kindness we kin get! However, the reference you seek is dee ‘n’ cee eighty-nine? Which I certainly applaud your apparently taking as an inspired “word of wisdom” rather than a religiously legalistic injunction. And so I suggest a single glass of non-sulfites burgandy with the meatless felafel that’s on our correlated meal plan for this evening?
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 10, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
KLH, are you suggesting that D&C 89 is a manual prescribing what to eat at which meals of the day? Have you read D&C 89?
Comment by john f. — June 10, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Hmm: D&C 89? lol. Anyway, rather than say,
“The Church keeps one busy with responsibilities, enjoins conformity to dress and grooming norms, and even has institutionalized certain dietary restrictions” et cetera
— the guy said something about the church’s following you around, even caring about what ya eat. Or something. I forget exactly.
In any case, unlike Martha Beck (who had first submitted her hyperbolic caricatures as fiction to her publisher only to have them lightly retool it/ repackage it as memoirs), he — was just talking in an interview! Which the Church’s spokesman didn’t clarify perhaps since its (MAYBE-?) hyperbole really passes muster as emotional truth?
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 10, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
How could someone who is a returned-missionary LDS accidently make a statement about the Church having manuals for what to eat at which meals? A lifelong Latter-day Saint would never say this unless they are trying to portray the Church in a sinister light. If the Church is so bad on homosexuals, then that should be able to stand by itself and speak for itself, without the aide of misinformation about such manuals. But if you could show me such manuals, I will admit that I’m wrong.
Comment by john f. — June 10, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
John, my answer to
” . . . Are you suggesting D&C is a manual prescriing what to eat at which meals during the day?”
is no. What Holzinger said was, “There are manuals that tell you . . . what you eat for your meals.” Which DOESN’T differentiate special treatments among meals at all. As does DOCTINE & COVENANTS 89
( . . .
.9 And, again strong drinks are not for the body or belly.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man –
11 Yea, flesh also of beasts and the fowls of the air, I the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving, nevertheless they are to be used sparingly
. . . ).
Which renders Seth’s observation (in post # 6)
” . . . The [Brethren] . . . didn’t choose to rebut the dietary misinformation on the show . . . .”
as overly sensitive. (As perhaps, ditto, John’s all-in-fun gamesmanship of “Have you read D&C 89?”)
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 10, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
In other words, John, you’d misrepresented Holzinger in your text worse than Holzinger did how manuals covering the Word of Wisdom tell members what to eat . . . simply because IN SPEECH he neglected to qualify meals to be meals AND SNACKS throughout the day?
Zhisch! lol.
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 10, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
So: Church manuals say to avoid strong drinks, eat seasonable herbs, use meat sparingly.
Which Holzinger CORRECTLY reads as “The Church’s manuals say what to eat at meals.”
Which in turn John INCORRECTLY reads as “The Church’s manuals say what to eat at SPECIFIC meals,” then casts aspersions on an RM’s making such a preposterous claim.
(But, I hesitate to ask here: Who’s reaction here is really being preposterous?)
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 10, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
re 17, I’m not following you. Holsinger said what he said.
Comment by john f. — June 10, 2006 @ 11:53 pm
Re Steve, #8
“I’m afraid Packer has chased more souls from Christ than he’s brought in. On PR issues, he has no credibility.”
Aahh, but was it worth keeping those souls in Church at the expense of “correct doctrine?”
(this comment signifies nothing about what I actually think. I actually am seriously asking)
Comment by Seth R. — June 11, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Is an assertion like “chased more souls from Christ” simply hyperbole to express some personal antipathy for Elder Packer? Perhaps you could suggest an objective metric to evaluate net souls unto Christ that Elder Packer has to account for or can take credit for.
I understand his personal family line numbers close to a hundred, all of them reportedly loyal active church members. Maybe that would be a good place to start.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — June 11, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Kimball, I think it’s a stretch to portray D&C 89 as a “manual.” It’s held out as a justification for whatever present senior LDS leaders say is the Word of Wisdom, but it’s obviously not a description of present LDS policy … which says no tobacco or alcohol, but you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want. So the statements apparently made on Nightline strike me as (at best) misinformation, the sort of misleading exaggeration that flows so easily when people with an agenda start talking about the Church. At least that’s how I see it.
Comment by Dave — June 11, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
John, when the WoW was covered, wouldn’t the manual would have us read it and then discuss it? Anyway let’s agree Hols-what’shisname thinks the Church is all encompassing lifestyle that his practicing homosexuality won’t enable him to be fully a part of? And if you want to also believe he has an agenda to mischaracterize the Church as well, fine. (Still, I personally conjecture that — since it’s likely he and his significant other bless the food before they eat their tee-totaller, no-caff meals — maybe for this reason, in the heat of complaints about feeling marginalized, Holsinger rambled on about something having to do the Church’s telling members how and what to eat — when, yeah, more correctly he should have specified that the Church encourages giving thanks for meals which do not include habit-forming drinks. Shrugs. But, like, whatever.)
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 11, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Jim (#21) is right to ask Seth for some numbers to back his assertions about Elder Packer. Personal antipathy toward Elder Packer does not justify false accusations.
Likewise, I need to ask Kimball L. Hunt (#14) for some documentation on his claim that Martha Beck “first submitted her hyperbolic caricatures as fiction to her publisher only to have them lightly retool it/ repackage it as memoirs.” This is the first I’ve heard this claim. No one I am aware of — including Martha and her entire family — has offered this explanation before.
Comment by Mike Parker — June 12, 2006 @ 11:56 am
Something of a retraction of my comment #24: Boyd Petersen, in his review of Martha Beck in the latest FARMS Review, argues that Beck started out in the memoir business by writing fiction and then repackaging it as memoir when the publishers suggested that.
Comment by Mike Parker — June 12, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Hey people, I took the swipe at BKP, not Seth. Fair or not, all I know is that if there are true prophets, there must also be false prophets. I choose to be on guard for the latter, but respect those who are more trusting.
Seth,
In response to your query, for background, I find rigid belief systems are the antithesis of faith. Thus, I have little use for doctrine, “correct” or otherwise. I will say an apostle’s commission is to preach repentance and not to abuse the position to promote personal opinion.
Comment by Steve EM — June 12, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
I think true faith is impossible without at least a rigid core of belief. Faith without doctrine is just personal opinion and isn’t worth much in my opinion.
I appreciate Boyd K. Packer. He keeps me honest.
Comment by Seth R. — June 12, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
Re post # 25: Sighs. & THEN — after the secular world yawned over the Martha Beck micro-controversy, it set up the Oprah literati’s bein able ta take all those money of cash to the bank with mister Frey’s spell binding memoirs — Cha-CHINGGGG!!!! Smiles.
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 13, 2006 @ 9:03 am
“LDS church is not just something you go and do on Sunday,” Holsinger said. “There are manuals that tell you how to carry out your day-to-day existence. How your family eats its meals, what you eat for your meals, what activities your family participates in. It is a lifestyle. It is all encompassing.”
The above is at best a poorly worded attempt to explain a dietary code and at worst an intentional exaggeration and distorsion. The phrasing seems to me to be intended to portray the Church as cult-like and in total control of its members lives. How you eat your meals???
Comment by a random John — June 13, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Well, I don’t know about you, but my manuals say that it’s mini-wheats and toast for breakfast most mornings (Costco doesn’t have a great cereal selection). Off the top of my head, I can’t seem to remember what the manuals say is for dinner on Tuesdays, but I think the manuals say no meat on Fridays–oh wait, nevermind, the meat on friday thing is in some other church’s manuals.
Comment by john f. — June 13, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
I want a manual with ding dongs for breakfast on Mondays, waffles on Tuesdays, pancakes on Wednesdays…. Maybe I can find on on eBay…
Comment by a random John — June 13, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
I looked up onerous. Do you mean this could become time consuming?
I kind of like it.
Comment by annegb — June 13, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
pretty much
Comment by john f. — June 13, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
arJ, there are some churches in the valley that might have such manuals. email me off-blog for a few recommendations.
Comment by john f. — June 13, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
I’m guessing that the wards with non-correlated buildings get those manuals…
Comment by a random John — June 13, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
Well, John:
I’m originally from the Sacratomato “Valley.” Aaaand: MY family’s particular Word of Wisdom manual must’ve said something about we oudda partakd of a hot bev “made of barley. ‘Caus we dug the blue-label Postum. (But, forget the red label — no flava!)
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — June 14, 2006 @ 5:55 am
Seth R., I don’t see the dichotomy in the 2 statements in #6.
To me, “descend[ing] from the city wall to argue” suggests getting caught up in the spirit of contention. One need not have the spirit of contention to prevent the “uncontested slam dunk”.
Comment by DGD — July 12, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
I think the statement, “moderation in all things” should be the official stance of any religion trying to establish guidelines and an affective policy. Within the LDS Church we have our obese with cholesterol levels around 300 and high blood pressure that will abstain from drinking a caffeinated beverage and then chastise or find offense to a body builder having a cold beer at dinner.
That same person is also deemed worthy to obtain a temple recommend. Go figure. The obese member is a “thrombo” waiting to happen but the coffee or beer drinker who runs marathons is found to be not in compliance. I think something is amiss here.
I think only the truly healthy and fit have a leg to stand on when it comes to extolling the virtues of the W of W. The way it appears now most are out of whack with regard to abstaining from certain things while gorging and allowing oneself to be a heart attack away from death or disease.
Comment by michael james — July 12, 2006 @ 2:13 pm