Additional stories from the Church that may not lend themselves to a news release

Am I on a rant against the LDS church? Sure I am. But don't worry, I'll get off of it and on to something else soon. In the meantime....

I couldn't help but be amused and then saddened at the latest development from the LDS Public Affairs office: the Newsroom Blog.

Obviously it would be hypocritical for me to criticize the existence of the blog itself. Lots of organizations put up blogs (and some even make effective use of them). However, this blog and its motivations strike me as less than benign.

Why would the church choose to put up an official blog? According to their initial post:

1. "The purpose of this blog is to supplement the Newsroom Web site with additional stories from the Church that may not lend themselves to a news release..."

2. "You may notice a different, more conversational tone on this blog than you would see in official news releases on the Newsroom Web site...The information here will be reliable and accurate but should not necessarily be viewed as official statements from the Church."


So, the church wants to say things to the media...without really saying them.

What kinds of things? Why, wild and crazy things that other people are saying in defense of the LDS church:

"I would love to know what percentage of Americans think the Mormon church rocks for standing up for traditional marriage versus what percentage think less of them."

and

"Who in tarnation are these 'observers' who are saying these things? I mean, that opinionated line is horrific."

and

"The reporter then uses a bunch of scary language to describe the LDS church involvement in Prop. 8."


I'm no journalist, but it strikes me that the church, for its very first substantive blog post, would choose to link to a fiery, dare I say bombastic little third party blog. It's almost as if the folks in Public Affairs want to RANT, without really ranting.

Which is in line with the increasingly militant attitude from the church that's come to characterize the Thomas Monson presidency.

I admit, I let myself get a little too optimistic at Tommy's early decisions (despite the stories here and there that I hear from people who work with him who think he's just plain mean). I mean, within six months of becoming the Presiding High Priest, the guy agrees to push for Historic Landmark status for the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (on land the church owns and refuses to let go of...). And, as pointed out in a previous post here, Tommy agreed to send someone to meet with Affirmation.

It's no more kissy-kissy now, though. The reactionary, wacko factions in the church (you know, the ones that call for violence against the "homos" and demand death on the spot for those who engage in interracial marriage*) seem to have won out rather quickly.

They've been there for a long, long time, of course. After all, it was during Gordon Hinckley's administration that the church enthusiastically picked up Sean Hannity to air on KSL. But at least Gordon realized the potential public image problems associated with the church getting down and dirty against its perceived enemies.

With Brother Tommy at the helm, though, it seems to me like it's getting to the point where it's no holds barred in the church's epic struggle against those who would do it harm (be they looming genealogists in New Zealand, or the powerful and shadowy Wikileaks Foundation). We're not going to be diplomatic or measured or reasonable or nice.

It's time to start up a blog and fire away.



*For one of the more ridiculous pieces of Mormon "apology" I've read in a while, just go here to see how to make Brigham Young's call to anti-miscegenist violence seem like strident solidarity with Sojourner Truth.