A New Church? — The New Mormon.org PR/Marketing Campaign

Oh John, you put it so well. It’s so incredibly deceiving in its “openness.” The comments people can post are scrutinized to the letter. It’s not about communication and honesty; it’s about saying exactly what official church policy would have you say. It’s so deceptive. But the videos are nice, of course… It’s just that the whole purpose of the site is about openness, communication, when in fact it’s strictly, insidiously sensored.

Here’s a profile of a gay member http://www.mormon.org/me/1GPP-eng/

Hmmm….I have mixed feelings about the ads. The more cynical part of me thinks that it’s the church’s way of saying, “See? We can be as ‘hip’ and ‘trendy’ as any of the youth-oriented evangelical groups!” On the other hand, the message does fit with what I’ve been hearing in general conference lately (especially from Elder Wirthlin and President Uchtdorf) about there being a place in the church for people from a variety of backgrounds and with a diversity of personalities. I think they’re sincere, but I’m not sure about the execution. It seems a bit forced.

In any case, I think it will take quite a while for the message of inclusiveness to be absorbed and internalized in the general church culture, so I’m not holding my breath. The general buzz about the ads that I’ve heard in my ward is that they’re valuable mainly as a missionary tool.

I also was completely stunned and thrilled by these videos. I could hardly believe the range and types of people the church was holding up as exemplary. For awhile I thought there wasn’t going to be even one stay at home non-career mom until I found her, who also seemed like just a fantastic, vibrant person. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the meetings discussing these videos… Really, I am amazed and heartened by the whole thing.

MORMON.org Content Submission Agreement
You have sought to participate at Mormon.org by submitting content for potential use on the site.
Mormon.org (the “site”) is a Website affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”), where individual members after registering using their LDS Account username and password are now given the opportunity to submit content including writings, photos, artwork, text, video recordings, audio recordings and other content as part of their own profile for the public to see and review to get a better sense of the community of people that make up members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You have expressed a desire to voluntarily provide such content, but to do so you must agree as follows:

a. You understand and agree that if you submit any writing, photo, artwork, text, video recording, audio recording or any other material (“Submission”) to the site, at any time, you grant to Intellectual Reserve, Inc. and its licensees, successors, assigns and affiliated entities (collectively, “IRI”) the right to publish and use the Submission. IRI is the entity created and maintained by the Church to hold Church related intellectual property rights and interests. Additionally, you hereby grant to IRI a royalty-free, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable license to use your Submission throughout the universe in perpetuity, and to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, and to incorporate the Submission (in whole or in part) in other works, in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. You further agree that while IRI is under no obligation to provide you with credit for the Submission, IRI may, at its sole discretion, distribute your name and other personal information, as provided by you, in connection with the Submission. You also authorize IRI to edit your Submission for grammar, spelling and content.

b. You understand that IRI maintains membership and related records containing personal information about you which may include, but is not limited to: name, age, address, Church membership status and location of Church membership. IRI uses this information to help administer the use of the Submissions and the use of the site. You further grant IRI permission to collect and process additional limited personal information about you, including, but not limited to, your e-mail address, one or more photographs of you, and other personal information you might choose to upload through the site. This personal information is collected to allow IRI to identify and contact you regarding the Submission and to publish such content. You hereby consent to this collection, use, processing, disclosure and transfer of your personal information for the purposes described above.

c. You acknowledge that IRI is not obligated to use your Submission in any form. While IRI acknowledges that you shall continue to own all copyright to your Submission, subject to the unrestricted license granted above, you acknowledge and agree that you will not have any right, title or interest in or to any work, publication or material that is produced by IRI and which contains all or a portion of your Submission. You agree that you have not and will not sell or license any part of your Submission in a way that would impair or restrict IRI from fully using the licenses you have granted above.

d. You are under no obligation to provide a Submission. Additionally, you will not receive any compensation for any Submission, for the licenses granted above, or for any waiver or any grant of additional rights as outlined herein. You agree that IRI’s review of your Submission for possible use is adequate consideration for the rights and licenses granted in this Agreement.

e. You warrant that you will not submit any material that is prohibited by law in any applicable jurisdiction or to which you do not have the right to grant the license above. You also warrant that you have the right to grant to IRI the rights granted above, and that such rights do not conflict with the rights (including, but not limited to, the copyrights and trademarks) of any other person or legal entity or with your obligations thereto.

f. You warrant that you consent to IRI’s collection and use of your Submission and personal information; you agree to indemnify IRI for any liabilities associated with later acts by you or others in connection with this Agreement and the Submission; and you acknowledge and agree that you will be bound by all provisions contained in this Agreement. You agree that you shall have no claim of any kind or nature against IRI based on the exercise of any rights granted hereunder.

g. The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah without regard to its conflict of law provisions and you agree that any disagreement arising from or related to this Agreement, which we cannot resolve through discussions, shall be settled exclusively in the courts located within the County of Salt Lake, Utah, United States of America. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties’ intentions as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. You agree that in the event of any dispute regarding this agreement or your Submission, you will be limited to your remedies at law for damages and will not be entitled to terminate or rescind this Agreement, or to seek equitable or injunctive relief, or to enjoin, restrain or otherwise interfere with the exercise of the licenses granted herein.

I have read, understand, and agree to all of the terms and conditions of this Content Submission Agreement.

Lol!

Sam, this is what I mean by censoring: The site is about personal, individual dialogue between members and investigators. But in fact it doesn’t work that way. A friend of mine tried to answer a question about polygamy with something like, “I don’t know why the early church went into polygamy, but I don’t hold my leaders to a perfection standard.” This was blocked by the moderators of the site, and he was given the exact language for what he was allowed to say about polygamy, which was a quote from the Official Declaration that ended polygamy. This is what I mean about censoring. The personal conversations I’m supposed to be having with investigators are actually screened, rejected, and revision “suggestions” are given so that I’m constantly quoting Church doctrine and not sharing my individual feelings. I understand that people should moderate and make sure nothing anti-mormon gets on there, but a simple answer like, “I don’t know, but I still support my leaders” got rejected, and specific language was given for an answer about polygamy.

I thought this profile was interesting in that Michael talked about dating men, being infatuated with men, and giving up dating men, but never used the G word. It seemed like an atypical way of referencing gay socializing, and I wondered if he has adopted that manner of speech from his own church experience or if there was intervention in constructing his profile.

http://www.mormon.org/me/1811-eng/

Hey Sam, you are talking past me. I clearly said that some moderation is to be expected. What I find incredibly misleading is that the idea of the site is to have personal one-on-one conversations about the gospel. But the answers aren’t at all “personal,” they are spoon-fed, stock answers. My friend was given an exact quote of what he’s allowed to say about polygamy. His very reasonable, kind, and faith-promoting answer didn’t fit the specific, pre-determined answer that was allowed on the topic of polygamy. Moderation as I understand it is filtering out abuse, obsenity, and blatantly contrary material. But this isn’t moderation. This, to me, is censure. Censure is when you are told exactly what you are allowed to say, and you copy and paste it as your answer.

What I find interesting is that for many years and especially at Church, we are taught that we are different. We have the true gospel, etc. On this new site, we are preaching that we are really the same as everyone else except for our Church membership.

I like it. I think it reflects real life in the Church these days,

As for those who are critical, that’s just SOP.

When a soggy, mass-produced brand of pickled cucumbers starts losing market share to deli-style pickles in the refrigerator case of the supermarket, the manufacturer doesn’t change its recipe or production processes (it can’t, because it’s stocked in the grocery aisle, not the refrigerated section of the store). Instead, it changes its public message. It prints “CRUNCHY!” in large type on every jar of soggy pickles. It blankets the airwaves with cute cartoon characters that make jokes about how incredibly crunchy and crisp the pickles are. People buy the soggy pickles. They aren’t thrilled with them, but the brand survives.

Many of us feel that these techniques, relying as they do on willful dissembling, are ethically dubious for consumer goods. When it comes to promoting what is supposed to be sacred and beyond human corruption, they are unequivocally shameful. If you ever had any doubts that the Church has been co-opted by the corporate culture, this particular advertising campaign settles the matter.

Will be interesting to see when the doctrine catches up with the advertising.

johndehlin — I had a mixed race (white husband, black wife) first counselor when I was Elders Quorum President, and if he had not moved to Florida, he’d have been Elders Quorum President. My last ward had two black men married to white women. Of course the first ward was Wichita Falls, Texas and the second was Plano, Texas, but all three were well accepted.

Was http://www.joshmaready.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=0&a=0&at=0 really in the new advertisements?

On the other hand, the message does fit with what I’ve been hearing in general conference lately (especially from Elder Wirthlin and President Uchtdorf)

Yes.

Well, I’m off to catch a plane, but I like these advertisements.

Steve Evans pondered the utility/morality of this campaign over at BCC on Aug 5 in his “Just a little black raincloud” post:

“I have to admit that I am sometimes tempted to disguise myself when trying to get what I want, whether by downplaying my Mormon-ness amongst the gentiles or by up-playing my rebelliousness amongst the Mormons. But the truth of the matter is that I’m not fooling anyone, any more than Pooh was able to fool the honeybees with his raincloud disguise. Hiding true intentions will not trick our opponents — political, religious or other — into letting us get our way, and it seems to me that attempts at subterfuge or misdirection have the potential to anger people more than honesty about our stated aims. Bears love honey, and the only reason Pooh is pretending to be a raincloud is to get that honey and eat it.”

Then again, setting Steve’s concerns aside, if Mormons themselves like the ads, that’s probably what really represents “mission accomplished” for the folks behind the campaign. Look at the TV ad buy. It’s not about reaching investigators, but rather leveraging some modest outlays in third-tier markets in the heartland in the expectation that free buzz would be carried into more expensive media markets by enthusiastic members. Brilliant, really. Lord knows, members have lately been feeling a bit “under siege” post Prop 8. Why not launch a campaign that makes them feel more a part of the larger culture? PR at its finest (noting that PR is actually most typically used on one’s own group … the suggestion that these ads are meant for an outside audience strikes me as little more than a cover story). In any case, great production values. Rock on.

Oh, nevermind. MoHoHawaii already expressed it better in #24.

This reminds me of a Sam Harris statement, “The moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt. Not the least among these developments has been the emergence of our tendency to value evidence and to be convinced by a proposition to the degree that there is evidence for it.”

John said:
“Here’s my hope…that the MEMBERS and LEADERS of the LDS church will see and internalize the values and sentiments reflected in these videos….not the investigators.”

John, I assume what you mean is that you hope investigators won’t be mislead into believing that diversity reigns supreme everywhere in the Church, because it doesn’t and they may suffer dissilusionment or feelings of being tricked if they interpret the message this way. However, this sentence reads as if you hope that LDS investigators don’t internalize the values and sentiments of the videos. Presumably not what you meant.

AB

As one close to the project I can guarantee there is absolutely no sinister motive driving the re-design as is implied in this post and comments. The team that worked on this was incredibly prayerful about their work. They felt the Holy Ghost guiding the decisions they made. They were aware from the beginning that moderation would pose many problems. They know the site isn’t perfect, but it is powerful. They also know people aren’t going to gain a testimony of the restored gospel by visiting mormon.org. It’s a stepping stone. Do you really think investigators are so naive that they’ll expect their local congregation to be filled with sassy artists and sports professionals? Do you believe that all new converts’ faith is so weak that when they see that it’s a bunch of white middle class soccer moms and dads in minivans (like me) repeating hokey Mormon myths during gospel doctrine that they’ll demand a refund?

Also,I find this idea that you know what the leadership of the church needs to “internalize” arrogant, and an epidemic in Mormon blogdom. Are you really proposing that you have a better idea of what direction the church should head than God’s ordained prophet? This attitude is what keeps me away from many of the blogs in the bloggernacle. I’ll be the first to admit that when it comes to the church I am a company man. I believe everything they tell me, and could probably use a good dose of cynicism. However, I cannot abide this condescending attitude towards church leadership.

@Nodomama “Also,I find this idea that you know what the leadership of the church needs to “internalize” arrogant, and an epidemic in Mormon blogdom.”

Wishing the church leaders internalize their own communications strategy is indicative of the bloggernacle’s arrogance? Many of us here desperately want to feel like we have a place in mormon congregations, and these ad campaigns give us some hope that it might be possible. what’s wrong with hoping that the church is serious about us “coming as we are”? I don’t see arrogance in that, just cautious optimism.

i’m also an advertising professional, and i’m genuinely curious – was this campaign targeted at potential investigators? because i can also see how these ads could be used to buoy the spirits of the general congregation after the prop 8 aftermath.

“Are you really proposing that you have a better idea of what direction the church should head than God’s ordained prophet?”

Overall, no. On one particularly question, particularly where “God’s ordained prophet” is (1) very likely several degrees removed from the final product prepared by the company men, and (2) not likely to be receiving unambiguous voice-from-Sinai-style revelation about whether to approve the designers’ product, thus leaving open the possibility that this is one of those questions as to which he is left to the best exercise of his well-informed, inspired, but nevertheless fallible “speaking as a man” judgment — well, maybe, and there’s not necessarily anything particularly arrogant about saying so.

That said, people can go too far with constant criticizing, too.

“staying home and not working” is a bit of an oxymoron, neh? (Hardest job that *I* ever had…)

Imagine the church “widening the tent” for other human beings. That such a widening is even necessary is, for me, quite a condemnation.

Having felt first-hand the exclusionary nature of the church on two fronts, as a white missionary being told to lie to black potential converts in Brazil and now as the parent of a gay son in California, please excuse my cynicism.

This marketing campaign is long overdue and delightfully embraced by any and all those with an IQ over 100. Elder Ballard has long said that members need to use the potential of the Internet and social media to help others better understand the Gospel and share it with friends, relatives and coworkers. Some hyper-literalist ‘Nazi’ types will get their knickers in a knot, but I see that as a bonus, having fled a ward and stake, where too many of the the sheople were gutless wonders concerned with the opinions of others, and who lacked the integrity to live their lives true to themselves.

Thomas and Andrew, points well taken. I may be a bit sensitive because I’m all riled up over recent posts elsewhere in the bloggernacle that criticize church leadership directly. You must admit, though, there is conceit in this “Eventually, hopefully, everyone will see things MY way” attitude. But it was unkind of me to say so, and detracts from my main point.

The re-design really began years ago when the church initiated research. I’ve seen the findings of that research, and I don’t believe anyone had the effects of prop 8 in mind at the time. Except maybe God Admittedly I was skeptical when I became involved (indirectly) in this project. My attitude was, “Is anyone besides Mormons even looking at this site?” In short, yes. (How often did you visit mormon.org before the re-design?) The numbers made a believer out of me. When the idea of user-generated content was introduced I began to have a vague idea of how this could impact members. I thought it was a wonderful way for those of us nervous (me) about sharing the gospel to get their toes wet, so to speak. It wasn’t until I saw the videos that I realized this could have an impact on the testimony of other members, similar to the Mormon Messages on You Tube. Then, when the site went live and I spent time looking over the profiles, It affected me in an unexpected way. I felt proud, fiercely proud, of our people. Sure, some of them were saying crazy things that caused some serious eye rolling, but many of them related personal histories that were very compelling and uplifting. I came across a few profiles of openly gay men and was profoundly moved by their testimonies. That was the only time during the process that I even thought about prop 8.

Of course, I can’t speak for anyone else, and again, my involvement was limited. There may have been people who had an idea that the site could have the effect you describe, Andrew. Let me recommend the following blog entry written by Gilbert Lee, a member of the creative team.

http://northtemple.com/2010/07/13/new-mormon-org

The blog is geared towards designers, and is heavy on the tech talk, but I think you’ll find it interesting. This paragraph from him states well the hope and message behind the new mormon.org.

“Our main mission as a Church is to help all to “come unto Christ”. As imperfect as we, Mormons, are, we are striving to follow Him in our own lives. Our hope is that the new Mormon.org will help others see who we are and what we sincerely believe in. We hope it will improve people’s perceptions of Mormons.”

I had an epiphany that was long overdue while reading this post, the comments, and looking at the mormon.org site. The epiphany is this: the church is us. It’s not the leadership or the buildings or even the narrow-minded members of my ward. I’m the church — me and my friends, and anyone that chooses to be there. So rather than take the campaign as some sort of cynical attempt to make the church hipper than it really is, or speculate about whether it was really meant to assuage the tender souls who bore the brunt of popular opinion in the wake of Prop 8. It seems so passive to wonder if the leadership will “internalize” the message. How about we just act as if the messages on mormon.org are legit, and as if they represent the church we go to (or aspire to go to)? How would you act or think differently if the church were as it is portrayed in the videos? Why not just start acting and thinking that way? Maybe the message of the videos is really an invitation to the membership to operate this way. Why not just define the meaning that way? Active, not passive.

Well, I suppose if you consider mere generation change in a religion to be “bait and switch.”

Yeah, I guess so.

They’ve worked on the advertising. Now they need to work on the product to match the advertising.

I’m thinking that some of you folks need to get out more. The diversity of all kinds represented on the website, which some of you are so excited about, is not new to the church. Hip, trendy? If you think your ward isn’t hip and trendy, and you want to be in a hip and trendy ward, you may want to move. It’s not the church which is keeping your ward not hip and trendy, it’s probably your zip code. The church is looking at a new angle to connect with people. I don’t see the big deal. The church is about your relationship with Heavenly Father, not about the diversity displayed on a website, or whether or not there is proportional ethnic representation in your congregation. It’s been a very long time since church membership in Utah was eclipsed, and several years since church membership in the US was eclipsed. Diversity is nothing new to the church.

“A non-garment-wearing skateboarding photographer of partially naked women who claims that God wants us all to be individualistic and not robots or chess pieces.”

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Any “Mormon” knows that the photos he is taking are inappropriate as far as church standards go. It isn’t even believeable. He may be a baptized member, but living the standards expected by the LDS church, I don’t think so.

Give me a break Holden….seriously. Diversity is not what I am talking about. You can be a photographer, a skateboarder, a full time working mother, etc. and be Mormon, but there are still standards that the church holds in relation to the way members live. Taking pictures of half naked women isn’t one of them and you have to be living on another planet to not be aware of that.

Maybe my definition of “partially naked women” is different from others, but I didn’t see any pictures on the website that showed more skin than is on a lot of magazines I see at the checkout stand at my local Safeway. It is true that many of those models are wearing fewer clothes than prescribed in “For The Strength of Youth”, but if he wants to make a living as a fashion photographer, his portfolio has to show women wearing something edgier than t-shirts and denim jumpers (the preferred uniform of Modest Mormen Women).

One of the things that saddens me in my ward is that I see so few faces in the congregation that aren’t Nordic. In the five years I’ve lived in this ward, we’ve had five or six black families–families!–baptised, but they rarely come. If all of them attended regularly, they’d make up about a quarter of our congregation.

I’d really like to see both Glenn Beck’s and Harry Reid’s profiles, but I’m not holding my breath.

CS Eric-

Last time I checked we are supposed to adjust our standards to the Lord’s, not the other way around. You can be a fashion photographer and not lower your standards to do so. There are many LDS artists who maintain their standards in their work and though they may not be the most famous, they still make a difference.

Jen,

I’m going to make a guess that you didn’t approve of Kerby Heyborne’s being in a beer commercial either, right(the lead character in the movie “The RM”)? It was probably okay that in another commercial that he was clumsy while taking pictures and fell down a mountain. It is also probably a bit iffy that in his most recent commercial, he breaks the law by “shooting the gap” between a couple of semi trucks while he is test driving a car. Do you approve of the LDS dancers’ costumes on “Dancing With the Stars” or “So You Think You Cand Dance”? Was Steve Young setting a poor example by playing his Hall of Fame pro football career on Sundays?

CS Eric-

Dancing with the Stars is not an official representation of the church is it? We are talking about something on an official church website. I don’t really care what Kirby Heyborne or Steve Young does, that is their accountability, not mine.

CS Eric-

“or did you just rush to judgment?” That’s funny coming from you….”I’m going to make a guess that you didn’t approve of Kerby Heyborne’s being in a beer commercial either, right(the lead character in the movie “The RM”)? It was probably okay that in another commercial that he was clumsy while taking pictures and fell down a mountain. It is also probably a bit iffy that in his most recent commercial, he breaks the law by “shooting the gap” between a couple of semi trucks while he is test driving a car. Do you approve of the LDS dancers’ costumes on “Dancing With the Stars” or “So You Think You Cand Dance”? Was Steve Young setting a poor example by playing his Hall of Fame pro football career on Sundays?”

YES, I have looked at his profile and you make a good point that his professional portfolio isn’t on it, but the fact is that they are showing him as a representation of the church. With the way many people surf the web these days, the odds are that quite a few people may seek more info on a person they watch on there, especially when they say they are a photographer.

BTW, do you happen to have any daughters that would you wouldn’t mind him photographing half naked? Maybe your wife?

Jen,

I have seen the photographs on his portfolio. None are pornographic. Theyu aren’t even “tasetful nudes.” I do have family photographs of my wife at family activities (the beach, swimming parties) that aren’t much different from many of his pictures. There is a member of the RS presidency in one of the wards that meets in our building who has Facebook pictures that aren’t much different from his portfolio–only his pictures are better, since he is a skilled professional.

There is a woman I work with who is an amateur body builder. Her pictures show more skin than most of the ones on his website. I think you are so caught up in the phrase “half naked”, that you don’t really care about the actual content of his portfolio. None of them show anything that you can’t see on a mainstream magazine at your local grocery store. His bishop and stake president seem to be okay with his work–as mentioned in some of the comments, you can see garments in some of the footage. Why does it bother you so much?

CS Eric-

“His bishop and stake president seem to be okay with his work–as mentioned in some of the comments, you can see garments in some of the footage.”

Where are you getting this info? This is what the post states about him: “A non-garment-wearing skateboarding photographer of partially naked women who claims that God wants us all to be individualistic and not robots or chess pieces.” It says he is a NON-garment wearing skateboarder.

“Why does it bother you so much?” I have looked through his portfolio and I am not caught up in the phrase half naked. “None of them show anything that you can’t see on a mainstream magazine at your local grocery store.” Well then, that makes it all OK then. Silly me, I’ll just check with the grocery manager next time I need direction on the standards I should maintain.

Jen,

Seriously? You don’t think John was using phrases like “non-garment wearing” and “partially naked” to make a point that the Church is bigger than Utah Valley? Would you have been nearly as interested in this post if he just called Josh a “akateboarding fashion photographer”? Neither you nor I nor John Dehlin knows for sure that Josh doesn’t wear garmnents. I do know that during some of his tricks, you can see that he is wearing what looks like a white undershirt that isn’t tucked in, since you can see part of his torso. For all any of us but Josh knows, that white undershirt is the top half of two-piece garments. I’m giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, thinking that John used a couple of phrases in his description in the original post partly to drive up comments.

It worked.

Jen:

Your comments prove the point about how this advertising doesn’t fit the message. We try to show that people can be “different” or “edgy” or “come as they are” to the Church, but then we judge them. It may not be the “official” policy of the Church. It may not be “doctrinal”. But we judge them just the same.

We expect them, in the ideal “Mormon” world, to be clean-shaven, short-haired, white shirt to Church wearing, single earringed, non-tattooed, one-piece bathing suited, etc. We expect shoulders covered with cap sleeves and knees covered with capris. We judge each other and whether a particular picture of someone skateboarding allowed him to be wearing or not wearing his garments. We judge whether someone’s photographs are up to our standards. We judge whether the non-alcoholic beer they may be enjoying is the “appearance of evil”. We judge whether they come to Church EVERY Sunday or why they weren’t there last week. We judge them if we see them coming out of Starbucks.

This is what bothers me. None of these things have ANYTHING to do with eternal gospel principles. Christ cares if we are honest with our fellow man, if we have compassion for each other, if we look out for our brother. He dined with sinners. He drank wine. He had a beard and long hair. He was nowhere near as judgmental as people I have seen in this Church. We have added layer upon layer of garbage onto the gospel, much like the Jews did by Christ’s time. They worried about minutae like how many steps you could walk on the Sabbath before you “broke the Sabbath”.

If this campaign means the Church is truly changing to be more inclusive and less judgmental, I welcome it. If it’s merely trying to whitewash things and put an appealing face on the same practices, it will ultimately backfire – just like their attempt to suppress historical documents is ultimately backfiring in the long-run.

In the five years I’ve lived in this ward, we’ve had five or six black families–families!–baptised, but they rarely come. If all of them attended regularly, they’d make up about a quarter of our congregation.

Although there are very diverse wards in the DC metro area, in my opinion, that’s the most pertinent statement in the entire thread. Instead of blowing all that money on another Mormon ad, we would be better figuring out why converts do not remain active.

Obviously, we are not meeting their expectations. Jacking up expectations with another ad campaign will only be counterproductive. Until we fix what is happening in the chapel, no amount of public relations will overcome the stagnation and the bad reputation of the Church.

Jen et al – the skateboarder does wear G’s. He is not a non-garment wearer, although as with most members he does not wear them for strenuous exercise. As to fashion photography, I see it as perfectly acceptable to photograph men and women wearing all types of clothing: underwear, swim suits, artistic photography, etc. That is what the job calls for.

Jen, I too was pretty taken aback to see the top-less girl in the tutu. I would consider the picture pornographic simply because it has that effect on me, and I wouldn’t feel good about creating such photos. That said, the church wasn’t promoting or even condoning his work. The church is trying to show that Mormons aren’t all the same and that we can be in different stages of our development and have different perspectives on life.

There aren’t very many Mormons who live all the standards completely, but that doesn’t mean they’re philosophically out-of-whack either. Just because the GA’s fly on Sundays doesn’t mean they don’t feel we should all keep the Sabbath day holy — they’re making trade-offs, same as the rest of us. We need to be very careful applying a litmus test to people.

I have no idea if the “church” knew what kind of photos he takes either. I suspect that some of the people involved did know, and some didn’t. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were an apostle or two deeply concerned about this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a couple who knew and decided to let it go.

Just for interest’s sake, what if the prophet himself knew and chose to do nothing? What would that mean?

Jen – I don’t think it would mean that the church’s standards had changed. I shudder to even think of one of my beautiful daughters ever posing for a photo like that.

I think it would mean that we don’t disavow people who don’t hold to every ideal. That we’re willing to sit next to a guy who smells like smoke in sacrament meeting. That we’re willing to eat with sinners. That we’re truly a diverse and welcoming group. Or at least, ought to be.

I guess the question is what the LDS Church expects to get from this ad campaign.

I mean, we assume that the purpose is missionary work, because we’ve kind of been raised in the church to assume that everything has something to do with missionary work. But is that really the aim up at HQ?

Or is this campaign meant to bolster Romney’s campaign, like conspiracy theorists over at Salon.com and the Daily Kos seem to be hinting at? Somehow I doubt that one.

Or is this campaign meant as a defensive measure by the LDS Church to try and shield its members from a backlash of negative press that has frankly gone downright bigoted in many quarters? That seems possible to me as well.

And of course there’s overlap too between goals. But it may be that the PRIMARY aim of this whole thing isn’t missionary work.

Just a thought.

You’ll note in my post that I pretty-much ruled out the help-Romney motive.

I think there are still some mixed messages. I drove through downtown SLC today and you see diversity on the street. Then when I turned onto North Temple and the employees were coming out of the church office building (many heading for and lined up at a bus stop) they all look the same. The men are all clean shaven, white shirt, tie, women with longer skirts, etc.

There is such a strict dress code that these people stand out even in Salt Lake. We say in one breath we are the same, yet we thrive on being peculiar???

By the way, this is by far my favorite of the new “And I’m a Mormon” ads:

Hi, I’m Sarah and I’m a Mormon.

Sarah rocks!

The ads look like Apple.
The official people in the Church (ie. hierarchy, church office workers, leadership, conference, BYU, etc) look like PC.

This appears to me like the PC guy trying to look as hip as the Apple guy in the ads. It’s still a PC.

Josh Maready’s video isn’t up on mormon.org anymore.

Josh’s profile is still on the site: just not featured on the homepage.
http://mormon.org/me/14DH-eng/

This is definitely a ‘bait and switch’ but I don’t understand how that can be a good thing. The term ‘bait and switch’ implies FRAUD. This campaign perpetuates the the church’s same old pattern of whitewashing truth and hiding what it really is. Isn’t this the same pattern that caused many of us to leave the church? Someone nailed it earlier when they said SLC and mormon.org are on very different pages. You listen to general conference and the message is ‘Conform, conform, conform’ and this campaign is sending a very different message.

I do just fine as an individual in my LDS wards.

But I also make sure that my individuality does not become a nuisance to others.

It seems these days in America, that anything short of do-whatever-the-hell-you want is viewed as “oppression.”

Partial consecration is an oxymoron. :0)

Anybody know how long the review process takes, on average? I filled out a profile about a week ago and I’m wondering when anything will happen with it…

I believe this is positive in the long run. Don’t understand why people are knocking it.

It will have a trickle down effect on the church, both intake and membership.

I’m getting mixed messages. It seems that we are told to try hard to follow what the scriptures actually say and be a peculiar people, but then mormon.org shows how “cool” Mormons are, and I really don’t think that being Mormon will ever or should be “cool”. We don’t want to be part of the large and spacious building.

Also interesting (if you watch the Mormon/Christian debate/dialogue and the Mormon propaganda websites that have flooded the internet) is that Mormons, all of a sudden, are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and by grace. There is a real effort on the part of the LDS church to say: “hey, we’re just like all you other Christians. We believe essentially what you believe.”

It would seem that the Mormon Church may be the one true church, after all – the one true Chameleon Church, that is.

It will be interesting to see where it all leads.

Watch this for another side to the new Mormon PR campaign:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueGt-lPg91Y 

I like louis vuitton handbags,the women louis vuitton handbag is fashion,if you like,you can enter my web
http://www.mylouisvuittonuk.org

Wow, I never heard any of that “women-must-stay-in-their-place” and “beware of the lowly black man” stuff you speak of. Then again, I grew up in Michigan and joined the church thirty years ago. Maybe these were just Utah traditions. I heard more of that from people OUTSIDE of the Church when these individuals thought they were experts on the religion of my choice. I’m still waiting for the Word of Wisdom to become a suggestion since
there are many substances and medications which are not listed in this scripture that are very harmful to the human body. I drink green tea and it is alright with my bishopric; I even hold a
temple recommend. Yet my daughter told me in her ward up in Orem you can get excommunicated for drinking tea. She beats me over the head with guilt trips over that. It’s an anti-inflammatory and healthier than the prescription I should be taking. Sadly, her jibes hurt me almost as much as the kidney stones I used to have. I think her bishopric should
consider disfellowshipping the judgmental, envious sheep that they’re cranking
out in that ward, but that’s just my opinion.