Stokes Sounds Off: Journalist's gripe against the Church's Public Affairs Department Is Not Justified

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Journalist's gripe against the Church's Public Affairs Department Is Not Justified

On the LDS Church Growth blog, some discussion was had regarding a gripe made recently by a journalist regarding how the LDS Church Public Affairs Department responded to some questions he had about the Tabernacle Choir's agreement to perform at the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump. One comment made on the LDS Church Growth blog was to the effect that the Public Affairs Department should be more transparent regarding the information they share about the public actions of the Church and its associated entities.

Since I had before offered my opinion on the Choir's decision (which I believe is fully justified), I was sickened by reading the journalist's rant about the unjust way his concerns had been dealt with. In his rant, he cited James 1:5-6 as being the reason Joseph Smith sought wisdom at the hands of the Lord, saying that while the Lord is willing to give wisdom to those that ask for it, his concerns and questions had not been dealt with in the same spirit.

I couldn't disagree more on that point, and I will explain my reasoning for saying that in a minute. First, if you haven't seen the rant in question yet, you can find it here. When I read his rant, the first thought that came to my mind is this: While it is absolutely true that Joseph was given wisdom when he lacked it primarily because he asked, there was another side to that. He additionally had studied the matter out in his mind before he asked, and he had done research enough to give him doubt as to the truthfulness of any Church then in existence. A big part of obtaining wisdom when one asks for it is doing the research to know what questions to ask. Had the journalist bothered to do so, his questions would have been addressed without him having to ask the Church public affairs department to do his research for him.

Now that you understand more about my line of reasoning in my approach to all of this, I wanted to share my personal response to the journalist's questions. This response was posted on the same comment thread as the link to this rant. And I am only in a position to venture any answer to these questions because I have made the subjects of the Church's political neutrality and the Choir's past experiences singing for presidents and presidents-elect a matter of extensive study, prayer, and observation. That said, for what it may be worth, these are the answers I felt to provide on the LDS Church Growth blog in response to the questions posed by the journalist.

1. The Choir is a volunteer unpaid organization, and as such, any events at which they appear are entirely voluntary and no participant receives any compensation of any kind for their participation.
2. The Choir has accepted any and all invitations extended to participate in any event that involves a current or future US President. By nature of the Church's devotion to political neutrality, no candidate receivesspecial support, consideration or rejection of such invitations for any reason. If that were not the case, the Church could not maintain its professed political neutrality. Their actions would clearly set the lie to their words, and that's the last thing the Church wants or needs.
3. The only opportunities the Choir ever seeks or books as an entity is their appearances at special venues, such as during tours or for special events. They would never presume to seek an opportunity to perform forany government leader (especially one who clearly sees the Church and its members and practices through a very darkened lens) but willingly respond when invited to do so. That being said, the Church and Choir may have taken this opportunity as a way to see if the Church's image could be improved in the eyes of the President-elect.
4. Again, in the Church in general and with the Choir in particular, except where noted above for special events at particular venues, opportunities are never sought after nor declined. If it is true that the Choir has not for a while performed at an event for a Democratic President, it is because such an opportunity was never extended.
Anyways, that's how I chose to respond to the attempts of this journalist to take issue with the answers provided him by the Church Public Affairs Department. I welcome any comments, whether in agreement or contention with what I have said here. However, I would encourage us all to be respectful of other people's right to their own opinion. Even if that opinion is not shared, any uncivil, rude, or contentious comments will be promptly deleted after they are made. Thanks for letting me weigh in on this.

No comments:

Post a Comment

In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.

At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.

I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.

And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.

Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.