LDS HQ reacts to Big Love episode...

[scottie]

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsr...licity-dilemma

Does the publicity play right into HBO's hands?

[Hallelujah]

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsr...licity-dilemma

Does the publicity play right into HBO's hands?

What publicity? The Church basically said they lied since it's inception. And they cited other occasions where the media tried to paint the Church in bad light and it hasn't had a negative effect. In other words, yawn.

I can't wait for HBO to create a series about Sharia Law and some radical Muslims. Or will they? Would they be fearful to do such or just sensitive to the Islam?

[beelzebabette]

I like the statement. It gives me a response to link to that I hope will be less offensive to those rallying behind the be-offended stance than if I said the same things coming just from me.

[Hallelujah]

I like the statement. It gives me a response to link to that I hope will be less offensive to those rallying behind the be-offended stance than if I said the same things coming just from me.

So you find the depiction of temple ordinances in the media, offensive?

[TripletDaddy]

I like the Church's response. It is very shrewd.

It takes the moral high ground while also getting in a quick few jabs at some of its detractors. I kind of LOL'd when I got the last part of the response where the Church cites specific examples of where it has turned the other cheek. That portion really added nothing and was unnecessary to the main point of the statement, which is to turn the other cheek.

A more truncated response would read: "We believe in turning the other cheek and we practice what we preach. We love those that despise us. And here is a list of everyone that hates us (not that we are keeping score)....."

[RobinFinderson]

I liked how their complaint about the South Park episode was simply that it was "gross." Not "grossly distorted," which they use to describe the Mountain Meadows film. Just "gross," as in it might be true, but did they need the poop jokes?

[Commando]

I liked how their complaint about the South Park episode was simply that it was "gross." Not "grossly distorted," which they use to describe the Mountain Meadows film. Just "gross," as in it might be true, but did they need the poop jokes?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gross

[RobinFinderson]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gross

I'm familiar with the meanings of the word gross. I stand by my point.

[Hallelujah]

I like the Church's response. It is very shrewd.

It takes the moral high ground while also getting in a quick few jabs at some of its detractors. I kind of LOL'd when I got the last part of the response where the Church cites specific examples of where it has turned the other cheek. That portion really added nothing and was unnecessary to the main point of the statement, which is to turn the other cheek.

A more truncated response would read: "We believe in turning the other cheek and we practice what we preach. We love those that despise us. And here is a list of everyone that hates us (not that we are keeping score)....."

They cited the examples to benefit the members who might have viewed this as a catastrophic event. It probably gave many members a sense of comfort.

At least we're not going around beheading people who disagree with us.

[TexTechCoug]

Good work Robin

Nothing like getting in a good accusation about an unrelated topic.

Not much the Church can do aside from just let it go. Just like every other piece of anti-Mormon propaganda, this will soon pass.

[RobinFinderson]

Nothing like getting in a good accusation about an unrelated topic.

Not much the Church can do aside from just let it go. Just like every other piece of anti-Mormon propaganda, this will soon pass.

Sweet! 100% of TexTechCoug's posts are related to my minor troll fart. Eat that DDD!

[TexTechCoug]

Come on, you only got one rather non-specific sentence. That means it was only like 1/3 of my first post. So much gloating

[Commando]

I'm familiar with the meanings of the word gross. I stand by my point.

1 aarchaic : immediately obvious b (1): glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness <a gross error>...

7: deficient in knowledge


no you're not.

[RobinFinderson]

1 aarchaic : immediately obvious b (1): glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness <a gross error>...

7: deficient in knowledge


no you're not.

Take a look at what the church says:

When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable.

Lets try inserting the definitions you propose into the sentence the church uses:

1A. When the comedy writers for South Park produced an immediately obvious portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable.

That doesn't work.

1B. When the comedy writers for South Park produced a glaringly noticeable portrayal (because of its inexcusable badness and objectionableness) of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable.

Ok, while I get that you want to describe the episode as inexcusably bad, the actual meaning of the word gross in that def. in 'glaringly noticeable.' A 'glaringly noticeable portrayal?' That is an awkward choice of words that lead to an even more awkward meaning -- you have to think that the church's problem with the piece is that it was noticeable, and that the episode getting noticed is what would make members feel uncomfortable. Do you really think this is what the church is trying to say?

7. When the comedy writers for South Park produced a portrayal of Church history that was deficient in knowledge, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable.

Setting aside the most obvious counter for this use, that a portrayal can be deficient in facts, but a portrayal can not be deficient in knowledge (since a portrayal lacks sentience), I can go a couple of ways here to suggest this isn't the intended meaning for the word 'gross.'

First way, we could compare the reported facts in the South Park piece to the historic record. Here South Park uses the narrative that the church uses, except South Park mocks it. Of course the church may be hoping that the audience for this letter will not have seen the South Park episode.

The second way we could go is to notice that deficient knowledge is making members 'uncomfortable.' That is a little strange. Do you really think the main point of the word gross here is to suggest that a portrayal that is missing facts would reasonably cause people to feel uncomfortable? Talk about thin skin!

Compare that to the use of 'gross' that I inferred from the letter:

6b. When the comedy writers for South Park produced a crude and vulgar portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable.

Wow! Now we have a sentence that actually describes the South Park episode and doesn't torture the meaning of the rest of the sentence. Go figure, I'm right again.

[BlueHair]

This is bullshit. Why no dusting off of the feet? I want to see that studio burn and the land it sits on to become desolate.

On a serious note, I was impressed by the response. It was well written and didn't come off as whiny. The way I took it was that they are comfortable in their own skin and people that want to make fun of them can do as they please.