Newsroom responds to media attention

[_Bazooka]

Let's see ... first two essays appear, directly searchable. Lots of people read them, and find information about Joseph Smith that hits the headlines all over - 35-40 wives, married 14-year-old girl, other mens' wives. Frankly a PR trainwreck. What's to be done? Delete the articles? No, looks like admitting they are a problem. But what, then?

A few days later, the essays have moved a step away from direct search. Instead, the essay found by a search no longer contains the material everyone was talking about. It is thereby rendered just that bit less likely that members and others will come across what may be (to them) shocking information, without too much obvious backtracking or risking accusations of self-censorship.

I can't see anything that Maklekan has said that makes this view of the situation any less likely. It "fits comfortably into my worldview" only in the sense that it is consistent with my long experience of how large corporations tend to behave when the reputation of their brand is at risk.

It was probably the best the CoJCoLDS could do under the circumstances, so why wouldn't they do it? They are not a stupid organization, after all.

It's not that it fits a particular "worldview", it's that it fits the evidentiary timeline of events, perfectly.

[_maklelan]

Let's see ... first two essays appear, directly searchable.

Directly searchable? As in (1) you can search the article for keywords, (2) you can enter the essay title in the search field on lds.org and directly find it, or (3) you can navigate quickly directly to it? If 1 or 2, nothing has changed. if 3, it's never been quickly accessible. You still have to navigate to the topics page and then to P.

Lots of people read them, and find information about Joseph Smith that hits the headlines all over - 35-40 wives, married 14-year-old girl, other mens' wives. Frankly a PR trainwreck.

Why do you say that?

What's to be done? Delete the articles? No, looks like admitting they are a problem. But what, then?

A few days later, the essays have moved a step away from direct search.

And a post has been put on the front page of mormonnewsroom.com with a link directly to the article. It's the first time links directly to the essays have been published anywhere but the topics page. How clever of them to bury their article by shoving it the front page of their PR website for the first time.

Instead, the essay found by a search no longer contains the material everyone was talking about. It is thereby rendered just that bit less likely that members and others will come across what may be (to them) shocking information, without too much obvious backtracking or risking accusations of self-censorship.

I'll check and see what the numbers say after the numerous links directly to the essay are no longer all over the news and the Church's newsroom page.

I can't see anything that Maklekan has said that makes this view of the situation any less likely.

Of course not.

It "fits comfortably into my worldview" only in the sense that it is consistent with my long experience of how large corporations tend to behave when the reputation of their brand is at risk.

And all the assumptions you make about the Church and its motivations and intentions.

It was probably the best the CoJCoLDS could do under the circumstances, so why wouldn't they do it? They are not a stupid organization, after all.

You're as bad at patronizing as you are at guessing why the Church does stuff.

[_maklelan]

It's not that it fits a particular "worldview", it's that it fits the evidentiary timeline of events, perfectly.

Provided you make the right assumptions about intention and ignore the right evidence.

[_Chap]

Lots of people read them, and find information about Joseph Smith that hits the headlines all over - 35-40 wives, married 14-year-old girl, other mens' wives. Frankly a PR trainwreck.

Why do you say that?

Oh, I dunno. I just had a vague sort of impression that somehow the wide publicity given to the information I mentioned might give a less than favorable impression of the founder of the CoJCoLDS to most ordinary readers who came across it. Can't think now why I came to that conclusion - some kind of weird anti-Mormon prejudice at work, no doubt.

(Have I somewhere missed Maklekan's careful and detailed explanation of why this 'broader' essay was created and put in place, in a way that reduces the two original essays to subordinate 'look at this extra stuff if you're really interested' status, and that only a few days after they first appeared in their own right? Must be in one of his one-liners somewhere, I suppose.)

[_maklelan]

Oh, I dunno. I just had a vague sort of impression that somehow the wide publicity given to the information I mentioned might give a less than favorable impression of the founder of the CoJCoLDS to most ordinary readers who came across it. Can't think now why I came to that conclusion - some kind of weird anti-Mormon prejudice at work, no doubt.

So you were assuming. In the future, let's just use that for the sake of brevity.

(Have I somewhere missed Maklekan's careful and detailed explanation of why this 'broader' essay was created and put in place, in a way that reduces the two original essays to subordinate 'look at this extra stuff if you're really interested' status, and that only a few days after they first appeared in their own right? Must be in one of his one-liners somewhere, I suppose.)

It consolidates four different existing articles on the same topic on the topics page into one. Your insight is obviously better than mine, though. After all, your judgment is not clouded by direct knowledge of the people, procedures, and policies that govern the publication of material on the Church's website.

[_Tator]

Ever try to unring a bell? I bet the church would like unring this one.

[_maklelan]

Ever try to unring a bell? I bet the church would like unring this one.

Not really. They knew what they were doing.

[_Chap]

Oh, I dunno. I just had a vague sort of impression that somehow the wide publicity given to the information I mentioned might give a less than favorable impression of the founder of the CoJCoLDS to most ordinary readers who came across it. Can't think now why I came to that conclusion - some kind of weird anti-Mormon prejudice at work, no doubt.

So you were assuming. In the future, let's just use that for the sake of brevity.

Yup, just assuming. Like I assumed that when people heard the same kind of stuff in relation to Warren Jeffs, they probably though of him in a teensy weensy less favorable way. That kind of arbitrary and baseless assumption. I mean, it may well have been that most people think better of a church founder when they learn that he had around 40 wives, some of them married to other men already, and one of them being a fourteen-year old. Who am I to say?

What do you honestly think, Maklekan? (Please let's skip the "if I told you, you'd just make fun of me" stage and just level with us.) Didn't Joseph Smith's public image take a downturn from this publication? Do you honestly think it didn't?

(Have I somewhere missed Maklekan's careful and detailed explanation of why this 'broader' essay was created and put in place, in a way that reduces the two original essays to subordinate 'look at this extra stuff if you're really interested' status, and that only a few days after they first appeared in their own right? Must be in one of his one-liners somewhere, I suppose.)

It consolidates four different existing articles on the same topic on the topics page into one. Your insight is obviously better than mine, though. After all, your judgment is not clouded by direct knowledge of the people, procedures, and policies that govern the publication of material on the Church's website.

OK, so Maklekan has no explanation of why it was found necessary to present the original two essays in a different and less prominent way only a short time after their original publication. Got it.

[_maklelan]

Yup, just assuming. Like I assumed that when people heard the same kind of stuff in relation to Warren Jeffs, they probably though of him in a teensy weensy less favorable way.

Of course, the FLDS Church did not write and publish an essay outlining those things about Jeffs. Did you really think it never occurred to anyone during the proposal, composition, and Q12/FP review of the essay that there might be a public reaction? Is everyone at the COB and CAB a third grader in your mind?

That kind of arbitrary and baseless assumption.

Yes, I agree that that's an arbitrary and baseless assumption. I happen to think those are inappropriate.

I mean, it may well have been that most people think better of a church founder when they learn that he had around 40 wives, some of them married to other men already, and one of them being a fourteen-year old. Who am I to say?

What do you honestly think, Maklekan? (Please let's skip the "if I told you, you'd just make fun of me" stage and just level with us.) Didn't Joseph Smith's public image take a downturn from this publication? Do you honestly think it didn't?

I don't recall saying anything at all about Joseph Smith's public image. We're discussing the characterization of the publication of this essay as a "PR trainwreck." You're suggesting the public reaction caught the Church off-guard and they're trying to bury the essay to mitigate any further damage. Pointing out that it probably negatively influenced the public's impression of Joseph Smith is absolutely and entirely irrelevant unless you mean to insist that the Church did not anticipate this and is now doing damage control. That's the arbitrary and baseless assumption you're making.

OK, so Maklekan has no explanation of why it was found necessary to present the original two essays in a different and less prominent way only a short time after their original publication. Got it.

I just gave you an explanation. Whether or not it fits into your worldview has no bearing whatsoever on its legitimacy.

[_Bazooka]

I just gave you an explanation. Whether or not it fits into your worldview has no bearing whatsoever on its legitimacy.

Actually, you didn't. You gave a description of the new summary essay. You did not explain why a summary essay was required and why, given this summary is now being portrayed as the "starting place" for reading about polygamy, it was not the very first essay published in the series on polygamy rather than the very last.