Today Mrs. Smith told me that the third hour combined lesson at her ward was on public relations (her exact words, not mine). The point of the lesson was to get people to answer church questions correctly. Among topics discussed were:
They spent time talking about how Randy Bott answered the questions about Blacks and the priesthood incorrectly. They were given some sort of prepared response to questions about blacks and the priesthood.
They were told to stick to a pretty narrow response for questions about polygamy, basically that Mormons used to practice it but no longer do.
They were told not to refer to themselves as "Mormons" or the LDS church as the "Mormon Church." Mrs. Smith pointed out this didn't make much sense as they were also told to go to Mormon.org and put up their "I'm a Mormon" profile.
The kicker for me was that the class was instructed to NOT proselyte when people ask questions about Mormons, at least until the presidential campaign was over. Apparently the church does not want to be seen as using the Mitt Romney candidacy as a means to increasing church membership. One class member asked if this was a change in church policy/doctrine. His question was not answered.
Anyway, a couple of questions. What does everyone think about this? Has this happened in your ward or in any ward you know of? I'm trying to find out if this stuff is isolated to my wife's stake or if this is a general phenomenon.
by the way, Mrs. Smith was not too impressed with the lesson.
The kicker for me was that the class was instructed to NOT proselyte when people ask questions about Mormons, at least until the presidential campaign was over.
Alas, I'm confused. So, when someone asks a question about Mormons, in what way is the LDS person supposed to answer?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
The kicker for me was that the class was instructed to NOT proselyte when people ask questions about Mormons, at least until the presidential campaign was over.
Alas, I'm confused. So, when someone asks a question about Mormons, in what way is the LDS person supposed to answer?
As Mrs. Smith explained it to me, answering the question is fine. What Mormons shouldn't do is then ask a question like, "Would you like the missionaries to come visit you?" Basically giving information is fine, soliciting for missionary lessons/church attendance etc. is not cool.
WOW. I never thought I'd see the day that the missive "Every Member a Missionary" would be temporarily suspended.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
The point of the lesson was to get people to answer church questions correctly.
By answering from something most recently published by the Church on any given subject.
WOW. I never thought I'd see the day that the missive "Every Member a Missionary" would be temporarily suspended.
Most of what Bott said was correct. But the issue too politically sensitive to risk accidentally inserting one's own opinion like FAIR does on it's MormonVoices.org (tattoo etc.). Best to stick with the officially published material.
Dr. Shades wrote:WOW. I never thought I'd see the day that the missive "Every Member a Missionary" would be temporarily suspended.
This is because Mormonism is changing so rapidly that nobody knows what to teach anymore. So go back to the milk before meat.
Hide garments. Hide secret names, handshakes, stolen Masonic rituals. Hide Celestial polygamy, Lamanites and all the dirty little secrets. Play some campy staged videos that pull on the heart strings - claim copyright to the Holy Ghost and press hard the sales tactic of getting them baptized by Lesson 3.
The point of the lesson was to get people to answer church questions correctly.
By answering from something most recently published by the Church on any given subject.
WOW. I never thought I'd see the day that the missive "Every Member a Missionary" would be temporarily suspended.
Most of what Bott said was correct. But the issue too politically sensitive to risk accidentally inserting one's own opinion like FAIR does on it's MormonVoices.org (tattoo etc.). Best to stick with the officially published material.
I'm confused about your response here, BC. How does "sticking to the officially published material" correlate with setting up someone interested in the Church with the missionaries? Or with encouraging friends to get together with the missionaries? It sounds like what Aristotle's Stake is doing is counterproductive to the missionary movement. Aren't we encouraged to invite our non-member friends to dinner when we have the missionaries over?
Why would the directive basically now be to discourage missionary work? This just doesn't make any sense.
by the way, I have heard of no such directive in NC, where I am located.
Most of what Bott said was correct. But the issue too politically sensitive to risk accidentally inserting one's own opinion like FAIR does on it's MormonVoices.org (tattoo etc.). Best to stick with the officially published material.
I'm confused about your response here, BC. How does "sticking to the officially published material" correlate with setting up someone interested in the Church with the missionaries?
My understanding of the statement was that if the Church went out of it's way to correct Bott, how can any member communicate LDS doctrine ala the "Every member a missionary" notion without fear of similar correction? After re-reading, that is still my understanding.
Why would the directive basically now be to discourage missionary work? This just doesn't make any sense.
I agree. I've not seen any such directive. Again, the solution to the dilemma is to stick with the published doctrine; something that FAIR does not do but most of the rest of the membership does.