Dear Public Affairs Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
I’m sure you’ve heard the news. Joanna Brooks will be a guest on The Daily Show this Thursday.
I suppose this makes it official. You no longer control the Mormon message.
Who does, you ask? Let’s do a Google news search for “mormon” and see who turns up.
Hrm. Leaving out Mitt Romney, who is famous in spite of being Mormon rather than because of it, it seems to be people most Mormons have never heard of!
Looks like Slate has run a couple of Mormon history articles by Matt Bowman. Huffington Post and The New Republic have run a few of his articles, too. (And good lord, have you read his book?) CNN recently ran an article on Mitt Romney’s religious speechmaking that quoted Kristine Haglund, and of course she was on that C-SPAN panel a few months ago. Salon published an article on Romney, Mormonism, and women featuring Judy Dushku. And you might have heard about a certain Washington Post piece that quoted Darius Gray (and, self-destructingly, Randy Bott.) NPR’s Talk of the Nation had Joanna Brooks and — oh, there you are! — Michael Purdy on the show. And did you hear that Simon and Schuster has picked up her book? She’s even going to promote it on — oh, yeah, The Daily Show. I guess that brings us full circle.
There are plenty more examples, but this is enough for us to pick up on the pattern. The world is listening to liberal, intellectual, faithful-yet-somewhat-heterodox Mormons. Other than the Bott debacle, in which conservative Mormonism used its moment in the spotlight to inflict upon itself a black eye, orthodox Mormons have been ignored and your press releases have been read by only the lockstep faithful.
Why does the press go to Brooks or Haglund or Bowman for comment instead of you? No, it’s not a vast left-wing conspiracy. Here are three reasons — call ’em tips — liberal Mormons have stolen the spotlight and you’ve been left in the lurch.
1. They are candid about the “hard” issues. People who are genuinely curious about Mormonism want the straight dope, not a carefully worded party line. They instinctively know that there are historical, doctrinal, and institutional difficulties. The orthodox may get a little bent out of shape when it’s said out loud, but the public is more likely to trust Mormons who acknowledge those issues than those who try to define them out of existence.
2. They are sympathetic to Mormonism. This pertains not so much to you as to other unorthodox voices who might come to the fore. For example, Richard Packham of the Exmormon Foundation was able to publish a Business Insider article in which he reveals temple secrets, but no one seems to have paid it much attention. It was mean-spirited, deliberately sensationalist, and not particularly informative. Persecution complexes to the contrary, the world isn’t eager to bash on Mormonism. Those who do are ignored.
3. They present a Mormonism relevant to the 21st century. Political homogeneity, heterosexism, regular sexism, and anti-intellectualism may have gone down just fine in the late 20th century, but nowadays they alienate your base of potential converts. Brooks and the others believe in a Mormonism that can transcend those issues. Maybe they’re right.
This last point is the most salient. You might deride liberal Mormons for their heterodoxy, but they are doing your job for you. They have translated Mormonism into a language that is intelligible to the larger public, a language that speaks to the issues the public cares about. Instead of fighting them, you’d do well to emulate them. Show the world that Mormonism can abide folks of all types. Tell them that, in addition to stodgy, conservative white men, Mormonism is big enough for Democrats, racial minorities, gays, skeptics, and even hipsters.
Oh. I see. You already get it. Perhaps you’d like to forward this along to your employers? They seem not to have gotten the memo.
I want to believe Mormonism is big enough. At times I feel it is. But other times, like tonight, I’m wondering if I will have the mental energy to park myself in a pew later today and deal with testimonies of how evil “the world” is.
Hey, not all Public Affairs Directors and not all Bishops and not all Moms and Dads are alike! So, you can post to Public Affairs, but many of them might have already considered your points. They just have to keep the dialogue acceptable to everyone.
As a regular viewer of The Daily Show, thanks to DV-R, I got to watch Joanna Brooks make us all proud. John Stewart seemed to enjoy the dialogue and her book.
Hoping to read the book, preferably with the other Mormon ladies, both conservative and liberal, in my book group!
Hey, not all Public Affairs Directors and not all Bishops and not all Moms and Dads are alike! So, you can post to Public Affairs, but many of them might have already considered your points. They just have to keep the dialogue acceptable to everyone.
As a regular viewer of The Daily Show, thanks to DV-R, I got to watch Joanna Brooks make us all proud. John Stewart seemed to enjoy the dialogue and her book.
Hoping to read the book, preferably with the other Mormon ladies, both conservative and liberal, in my book group!
Really great article…way more incisive and insightful than anything I’ve ever been able to write on the subject.
Nicely done.
Well said .Persecution complexes, be they conservative, liberal or personal, are born of a lack of imagination and empathy. We fail to believe that anyone else is feeling as foolish, lonely or misunderstood as we are, when, in truth, everyone feels that way at one time or another. What makes Joanna such a great and needed voice in Mormonism is her clear-seeing empathy, which extends everywhere, not just in the circles that agree with her views. I can’t tell you how pleased I am that she is emerging as one of the faces of Mormonism.
Good points. Another example in your #1 is the BBC piece this year where Jeffery Holland and Michael Purdy were interviewed and came across as being less than forthright in their answers. The problem with church leadership and average members being forthright about the hard issues is that they don’t even know about the hard issues because the church has kept it from them. And those few in leadership who do know about them are less than honest about it when asked because its not faith promoting. So the media will almost never trust them. And for good reason.
Great job! Lots of good insight here…
Excellent piece, Matthew. I’m super glad that we have a new resident smarty-pants here at D&S.
Yay for Matt and his hipster Jesus!
It has occurred to me that our church is undergoing pains. Nobody seems to get all excited that there are many differences of opinion within Catholicism. Anymore, at least. I’m not familiar with their history, but there are different groups within Catholicism who argue with each other and speak out and that seems to be “normal.” I think it’s entirely normal that as an evolving religion, groups that have different opinions on how to be a Mormon are becoming more vocal. I’m pretty well over our church’s public relations—-and other—-departments. They are bland and kind and rock solid stubbornly insensitive in holding the party line.
As an aside, and assuming truth in my conclusions, I’m not sure any of those who have appeared on the news shows represents the group that I belong to within the church. But I guess you’d have to find a crazy, frizzy-headed cursing older Mormon woman for that.
Matt: thank you for the encouragement. i’m gonna read your piece as my prep for the show! it reminds me of what i need to do.
I’d add one other reason to your list. The people you listed above are able to step outside their Mormon frame and understand the perspective of people who aren’t Mormon — they can anticipate the questions others will have and they know how to explain things without using Mormon speak. And, they’re not scared of people who aren’t Mormons because they’re used to actually interacting with them, rather than just encountering non-mos when they want to convert them. And, they don’t automatically assume that the other person is seeking to persecute them or embarrass them. Oh– and they don’t have that Mormon Male Style of pontificating and speaking down to other people– they actually interact. It’s not unique to these Mormon spokespeople, but ironically enough it does seem to me that a lot of us in the uncorrelated community do the church a lot of good because we also use that same interaction style. We had a couple over for dinner the other night who asked us all the questions they’ve wondered about with Mormons for about three hours.
Looks like I actually came up with three more reasons rather than one. :)
Yes. Totally. IN the world.
Paula, your first reason strikes me as a Grand Unified Theory that predicts everything I (and you) wrote. Someone able to step outside his/her Mormon framework is someone who realizes that the hard questions must be dealt with straight, that Mormonism needs to be made relevant to the outside world, that actual interaction is more effective than wagon-circling.
Excellent additions, Paula!
annegb,
I would attend a ward with another crazy, frizzy-headed cursing older Mormon woman. Do you think the Church would create a branch for us–sort of like the Genesis branch for African-Americans?
“The world is listening to liberal, intellectual, faithful-yet-somewhat-heterodox Mormons.”
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Big Media in California and New York are listening. Which makes sense, given that they lean heavily to the Left. Leftists enjoy talking to other Leftists, academics, etc. Everyday normal people don’t really pay as much attention to all this that you think they do.
The real “world” also includes the huge red middle of America, and they stopped tuning into Big Media a long time ago. They get their news from other sources now. Most of them have never heard of Kristine Haglund or Joanna Brooks. Nor would they care about their views too much. They are too busy serving faithfully in church callings, consecrating their time and talents to building the Kingdom, not building themselves.
Michael, I agree with you in part that many people self-select themselves out of being presented with viewpoints that challenge their already-held beliefs. However, the urbanized national media you refer to has actually done little to dent the image of Mormons as a monolithic, white-shirt-wearing, Coke-avoiding, Republican-voting bloc. To that extent, the more diverse voices that can be added to the conversation, the better. Breaking down stereotypes is a healthy thing for all – even for the folks who conform themselves to it.
Sure, Dan, as long as it’s a real conversation and not a “look at me, I’m a liberal Mormon, so pat me on the back” gush-fest. The oldest conformity in the book is the rush to be a non-conformist.
Annegb and CC: Here am I. Now we have a presidency. Let’s organize!
“They are too busy serving faithfully in church callings, consecrating their time and talents to building the Kingdom, not building themselves.”
The implications there are rather unkind, Michael. As it turns out, I’m pretty busy serving in church callings, too, and I’ve never called up a reporter and asked to go on the record. I’ve done my best when they called me, but I’ll be thrilled when they stop.
” I’ve done my best when they called me, but I’ll be thrilled when they stop.”
Indeed? I don’t believe that anyone is forcing you to respond to a reporter’s call.
That’s true. But believe it or not, I actually care deeply about how the church is perceived, and I feel some obligation to explain and defend it as well as I can. My talents, such as they are, are in writing and speaking nerdily, and I am trying to consecrate them. It’s true that they’re not very impressive, and I know that. http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/03/what-i-wish-i-had-said-part-26-or-so/
Fair enough, Kristine. I appreciate your willingness to talk about it. We are on different planets with respect to worldview and what-not, no doubts there, but I do value your honesty. Thanks for putting up with my comments.
Well, as long as we’re both trying to orbit around Kolob, I think being on different planets is ok :)
Delightful! I love the orbit around Kolob idea. Have you written that concept up yet?
Matthew you wrote:
OK, I’m new to this board and my HTML encoded mangled that first attempt, let’s try this again …
Matthew you wrote:
“Richard Packham of the Exmormon Foundation was able to publish a Business Insider article in which he reveals temple secrets, but no one seems to have paid it much attention. It was mean-spirited, deliberately sensationalist, and not particularly informative. Persecution complexes to the contrary, the world isn’t eager to bash on Mormonism. Those who do are ignored.”
And the link to that article is http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-mormon-secrets-that-every-voter-should-know-2012-7
Respectfully, did we read the same article?
I’m not seeing any mean-spiritedness or sensationalism in the article. And I found it quite informative and to the point as well. In fact, all I saw was Mr. Packham speaking in his normal tone and using his normal vocabulary – albeit with a bit of humor from time-to-time to keep it light and interesting.
In fact, I didn’t read anything there that I haven’t heard him say – using the exact or near exact words – elsewhere. It was pretty much a “plain vanilla” Richard Packham as far as I’m concerned.
So I’m puzzled as to what you saw that the rest of us missed.
(and if someone could delete my mangled post I would surely appreciate it – thank you)
Thanks for your response. I’ll get your former comment deleted.
One can be mean-spirited and sensationalistic while keeping a normal tone and vocabulary.
Mean-spirited: The insinuation that Romney’s “secret oaths” make him a stooge to SLC and unable to exercise his (hypothetical) office. Mormons deserve more credit than this.
Sensationalistic: Secrets, guys, we’ve got secrets to reveal! Never mind that anyone who’s even halfway motivated can already find the details on the internet.
Those are both good points Matthew. Thank you for clarifying.
And, BTW, I thought that your article was great – no need to change anything despite any “push back” you might get from some quarters.
I really think that you should print it out and mail it to the Public Affairs Office at COB, it’s that good!
Eh. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but open letters are rarely intended to be read by their addressees. This one is no different. And, as Kristine points out, there’s nothing here they’re likely not to have thought of before.
2012 is not the banner year for Mormonism. Visit channel “NewNameNoah” on YouTube and you’ll even find temple ceremonies filmed with a hidden camera INSIDE a temple. It’s going to get worse before November.
Why have to punch the church in the eye to make one’s thoughts and feelings heard? Your thoughts are interesting, provocative and relevant. I see as suspect anyone whose efforts are focused on tearing down instead of building up. To be bright is to enjoy irony and the absurd and to see twists and turns in thoughts and deeds. I do not believe that such gift and blessing gives license to antagonize, ridicule, mock or to tear down. I want to hear your words without the attitude.
Debbie, that’s a fair point. I’ll confess that the piece is a little snarky, and probably it could be rewritten sans snark without losing much in terms of content or delivery. But this is how it came out when I wrote it last night.
Don’t worry; not everything I write is so smug!
Well done, Matthew! And I quite enjoyed the ‘snarkiness’. Reminded me a little of Andy Rooney…
Fred, the Public Affairs Dept. is in the JSMB, not the COB, and I’m pretty sure they have already noticed the phenomenon Matthew describes.
(And sorry I keep forgetting about threaded comments…)
Somehow, you get the feeling that some of these folks are going to overplay their hand and it will be 1993 all over again.
I don’t get it.
The basic assumption of this post is that the Church really doesn’t want the press calling Matt Bowman (et. al.) for quotes. Are you serious? From the Church’s perspective, this is a fantastic development. I’ve read almost everything published by the mainstream press in the last several years on Mormonism, and I think 95% of the quotes from the set you have described have been very good for the Church. Bowman, Bushman, Haglund, Mueller, Givens, Mauss and Shipps have all consistently provided excellent perspective while being factually correct and translating things to a modern, secular world. Only Brooks has pushed the line a little farther toward advocating liberalization on certain issues. (Not intending to pick a fight here, just saying the she is the only one that seems to fit the thesis of possibly making Church leadership a little uncomfortable).
In other words, this post seems to be written to the leadership of the LDS church circa 1993. In 2012, the LDS Church is extremely media savvy, is perfectly aware of all of its clippings, and has a crack team of public affairs personnel (both internal and external) watching and guiding the conversation. But more importantly, there are faithful Mormons (Bowman is heterodox? How?) speaking from multiple points of view in ways that knowledgeably add to the conversation and package Mormon doctrine and history in ways that are both interesting and intelligible in modern parlance. Is the Church leadership surprised by this? What do they have to be uncomfortable about here?
It’s an uncharitable (and, I think, inaccurate) view of the people at the top of the Church to imagine that they view this development with great chagrin. Elder Ballard and others have been very clear in stating that members of the Church need to be speaking out, using social media and other online outlets to tell their story. How is that consistent with the view of a Church that is desperate to control its own message from within the institution? The current crop of quotable intellectuals are not out there in spite of the Church and its leadership. They are there as part of a new wave of people encouraged by the Church’s shift toward open discussion, scholarly inquiry, and cross-cultural conversations.
Finally, I don’t know why you cherry-picked the one instance of Purdy showing up on Talk of the Nation, but Otterson and Purdy have been quoted in numerous articles in the last six months. They are participating. No, they’re not in control of the overall coverage, as no institution can be. But the next best thing is to have smart people who are friendly to you out there doing the work for you. I think that overall they must be pleased with this development. And I would also expect that if they weren’t, some of these people might have gotten the hint and would likely have dropped out of the conversation by now.
Great points. Let me address them one by one.
“The basic assumption of this post is that the Church really doesn’t want the press calling Matt Bowman (et. al.) for quotes.”
That’s not what I wrote. My position is that upper leadership wishes more of the media attention on Mormonism would draw on official sources, rather than individuals whom they cannot control and who diverge from the correlated message.
“I think 95% of the quotes from the set you have described have been very good for the Church.”
I agree, and in large measure that’s the point of this piece. I’m not sure how much the men in suits agree, however.
“In 2012, the LDS Church is extremely media savvy.”
This is rather charitable, don’t you think? The ham-fisted, equivocating response to Bottgate is not the reaction of an “extremely” media-savvy organization. The situation is certainly improved from 1993, but the LDS church is still capable of astonishing tone deafness.
“there are faithful Mormons (Bowman is heterodox? How?)”
I can’t speak to anyone’s personal beliefs. However, Bowman’s book — much like Bushman’s — is at tension with the Gospel Doctrine manual. I remember reading, with some amusement, comments to Bowman’s Slate articles in which Mormons complained that Slate had allowed a non-Mormon, who obviously didn’t know “real” Mormon history, to write anti-Mormon lies. It seems not to have occurred to them that a believing Mormon could write such things. And certainly Brooks has been publicly criticized by conservative Mormons. “Heterodox” is a slippery concept in a church without official doctrine, but surely the bulk of chapel-going Mormons would take exception to large chunks of the Mormonism espoused by those getting most of the spotlight.
“They are there as part of a new wave of people encouraged by the Church’s shift toward open discussion, scholarly inquiry, and cross-cultural conversations.”
I suspect that you and I simply disagree on whether the tail is wagging the dog on this one. That there is tension between this new wave and upper leadership is obvious to me, Ballard or no.
“Finally, I don’t know why you cherry-picked the one instance of Purdy showing up on Talk of the Nation, but Otterson and Purdy have been quoted in numerous articles in the last six months.”
Here I agree with little reservation. The most glaring omission in my piece is the series of Washington Post articles that Otterson has written. However, I don’t think that detracts from the overall point: most of the spotlight is on non-official sources, a phenomenon on the increase.
P.S., I had intended to mention that Joanna Brooks’ book is going to be sold by Deseret Book. Although Joanna does seem to be the most heterodox of the bunch, this makes it hard to imagine that the Church is really shuddering every time she speaks.
I can’t speak to anyone’s personal beliefs. However, Bowman’s book – much like Bushman’s – is at tension with the Gospel Doctrine manual. I remember reading, with some amusement, comments to Bowman’s Slate articles in which Mormons complained that Slate had allowed a non-Mormon, who obviously didn’t know “real” Mormon history, to write anti-Mormon lies. It seems not to have occurred to them that a believing Mormon could write such things.
Ryan, As long as this sort of thing is happening (its happened to me a lot in relation to Bushman), the Church is failing in the teaching of its own members.
And your gang will fly on.
You’ll be left in a Lurch.
You’ll come down from the Lurch
with an unpleasant bump,
And the chances are, then,
that you’ll be in a Slump.
And when you’re in a Slump,
you’re not in for much fun.
Un-slumping yourself
is not easily done.
Ryan, regarding whether the Church wants the press calling Joanna Brooks, Matt Bowman, et al., there was a letter read in my ward this last week that said if we were contacted by members of the press, we should refer them to official Church PR people. I would be surprised if Joanna and Matt’s wards didn’t have similar directives.