Preemptive PR move by LDS Inc to help Romney?

[_Buffalo]

The move to help Romney was the message read over the pulpit to go and participate in your local caucus/primary and all Church meetings were canceled on Super Tuesday (probably only in Super Tuesday states).

It's not really going to help him. Mormons don't have any significant population outside Utah/Idaho, and neither are significant states.

[_Sethbag]

I think this is besides the point Seth. Whether you and I are offended about it, and I am not, and whether other people are offended by it is not really the issue any more. the Church has agreed to stop BTFD for a specific group(s). Preventing verification of what they agreed to do is disingenuous and makes it look like they are not trying to abide by their agreement. For a church that seems really concerned about PR, this seems like a move that will backfire on them.

There's a difference between a non-antagonistic party merely doing due diligence that their agreements are being complied with, and an antagonistic party doing their damndest to find things to go public with in an attempt to slam the church. I think the church perceives Radkey's efforts as belonging to the latter, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to put hurdles in her way.

[_Fence Sitter]

There's a difference between a non-antagonistic party merely doing due diligence that their agreements are being complied with, and an antagonistic party doing their damndest to find things to go public with in an attempt to slam the church. I think the church perceives Radkey's efforts as belonging to the latter, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to put hurdles in her way.

I agree with the distinction you make here.

Did the hurdles the Chruch put in Radkey's way also prevent the non-antogonistic parties from verifying compliance? If so then the problem with what the Church has done still allows the Church to hide (intentionally or otherwise) their compliance, which we have seen has not been very good. If all they are doing is preventing Radkey and people like her from intentionally submitting prohibited names than I have no issue with it.

[_Stormy Waters]

It's not really going to help him. Mormons don't have any significant population outside Utah/Idaho, and neither are significant states.

True, but turnout for the primaries tend to be so poor that an active minority can have decent pull.

[_Stormy Waters]

There's a difference between a non-antagonistic party merely doing due diligence that their agreements are being complied with, and an antagonistic party doing their damndest to find things to go public with in an attempt to slam the church. I think the church perceives Radkey's efforts as belonging to the latter, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to put hurdles in her way.

Do the intentions of the source matter if they are telling the truth? These people did not want their ancestors baptized, and it was being done anyway. The church agreed not to baptize their ancestors and they were not keeping that agreement. Helen Radkey and her like may only be motivated by a personal vendetta against the church, but if their reports were accurate, what difference do their intentions make? What value is there in hiding this information other than to hide the violations of the agreement? Is it ethical to hide information because a critic may use it against you? I guess I don't see the difference between this and hiding damaging information about Joseph Smith.

[_Drifting]

There's a difference between a non-antagonistic party merely doing due diligence that their agreements are being complied with, and an antagonistic party doing their damndest to find things to go public with in an attempt to slam the church. I think the church perceives Radkey's efforts as belonging to the latter, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to put hurdles in her way.

Do the intentions of the source matter if they are telling the truth? These people did not want their ancestors baptized, and it was being done anyway. The church agreed not to baptize their ancestors and they were not keeping that agreement. Helen Radkey and her like may only be motivated by a personal vendetta against the church, but if their reports were accurate, what difference do their intentions make? What value is there in hiding this information other than to hide the violations of the agreement? Is it ethical to hide information because a critic may use it against you? I guess I don't see the difference between this and hiding damaging information about Joseph Smith.

Exactly.
The issue isn't who found the evidence of wrongdoing, or indeed why they were looking.
The issue is the wrongdoing itself, especially as the Church has stated numerous times over more than a decade that it had fixed the problem when it must have known it hadn't.

[_harmony]

Did the hurdles the Chruch put in Radkey's way also prevent the non-antogonistic parties from verifying compliance?

There are no "non-antagonistic parties" when it comes to this issue with the LDS church. Anyone who is non-antagonistic doesn't care enough to verify these and anyone who cares enough to verify these does so because they are antagonistic.

[_Fence Sitter]

Did the hurdles the Chruch put in Radkey's way also prevent the non-antogonistic parties from verifying compliance?

There are no "non-antagonistic parties" when it comes to this issue with the LDS church. Anyone who is non-antagonistic doesn't care enough to verify these and anyone who cares enough to verify these does so because they are antagonistic.

Perhaps, but I was just trying to use Seth's terms to clarify things. I expect that many members (read this thread for a great example http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57186-mormon-church-blocks-whistle-blower%E2%80%99s-access-to-proxy-baptism-data/) expect that the rest of the world should just trust the Church when it says it is trying to stop BTFD on certain groups even though the evidence clearly shows they have not. Anyone who declines to take the Church at its word is labeled as an Anti-Mormon. That thread was one post after another of ignoring what the Church was doing wrong and attacking anyone who tried to stay on topic. It was like the rent-a-cop at a bank emptying his clip into an unarmed man for pointing out the vault door had been left open. "Well THAT solved the problem!!!!"

[_Sethbag]

Do the intentions of the source matter if they are telling the truth?

IMHO yes.

Helen Radkey and her like may only be motivated by a personal vendetta against the church, but if their reports were accurate, what difference do their intentions make?

It puts the church on the defensive, where the accuracy, or not, of what she says, and the measures the church takes to defend themselves against her, play second fiddle to the dance of battle as she pursues the vendetta.

If this turns into a personal thing with Radkey, the church wins, because most people really couldn't give a crap about her or her grievances, and will stop paying attention.

This is one of the biggest reasons I really hate it when the critics get into vendettas with living apologists, like cat-fighting with DCP. The church's truth claims suddenly take a back seat to whatever semantic nitpick someone has to scratch with whatever DCP most recently published, or DCP's motives, or his personality, or his size, or whatever.

That's why DCP is a genius, whether he means it or not. By putting himself out there as a spear catcher for the church, and playing his part in the neverending DCP-anti clownfight, he shifts attention from the things that really matter, and turns it all into a personal matter. Most people will just stop paying attention to the combatants, and he's perfectly fine with that.

What value is there in hiding this information other than to hide the violations of the agreement?

This isn't really the right question, if you don't mind being Milletted. Of course the church isn't going to want any violations of the agreement going public. With that in mind, you were asking?

Is it ethical to hide information because a critic may use it against you?

How is this not just a return volley in the clownfight I spoke of?

I guess I don't see the difference between this and hiding damaging information about Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith started it all. Undermine his credibility and you undermine the whole church. Undermine some church bureaucrat in 2012 and it amounts to nothing more than an annoying pinprick, if even that.

[_Equality]

take a back seat to whatever semantic nitpick someone has to scratch

I see what you did there.