While some observers might see the police report concerning the now-famous kissing protest on the LDS plaza as evidence that church security guards acted properly against the gay couple (Derek Jones and Matt Aune), the incident, once again, demonstrates how church officials continue to fumble their public relations strategies and tactics in a percolating controversy over gay rights and community tolerance.

And, the church’s July 17 statement justifying its response hardly settles the battle for favorable public perception. Public relations is as much driven by impression management as it is by factual accuracy. LDS adherents may find satisfaction in the police report’s documenting of the incident which church officials say confirms their characterization of the couple’s behavior as inappropriate displays of “passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language.”

The church stayed silent for a week after the incident, a period during which there was a “kiss-in” protest near church grounds covered, for the most part, quite positively by the local media. Actually, the church has worked quite strenuously to stay well under the radar on any issues or matters of gay rights, particularly in the aftermath of Prop 8′s passage last fall in California. “Nearly invisible” might be the most accurate description.

Silence hasn’t been particularly effective. Last November, just one day after the election, LDS church officials released a statement indicating that it’s not opposed to gays and it sees ground for providing fundamental rights: “[The] Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

Activists welcomed the words and decided to see if church leaders would, indeed, uphold them in the state legislative session last winter as Equality Utah put forth an agenda paralleling precisely the words of that statement. The 45-day legislative session came and went with no public word whatsoever from church leaders. None of the measures made it to the floor for a vote despite statewide polls indicating widespread support for codifying key points of the “Common Ground” initiative.

There also had been, at best, half-hearted attempts to initiate some dialogue among various groups but these, too, were canceled without explanation. At a Q&A session at the June meeting of the local chapter of the Public Relations Society of America, a church public relations official refused to respond to any queries regarding Prop 8 or similar issues.

It’s hard to see how much longer the church can sustain its silence on these issues. Reed Cowan, a former local television journalist, has been working on a documentary “8: The Mormon Proposition” which should be hitting the festival circuit later this year. The film undoubtedly will be a painful touchstone for church leaders.

And, there is the other aspect of the incident on the plaza, a downtown location that once was public property but became the private dominion of the church after a cantankerous political and legal war in which the battle wounds have hardly healed.

The church’s July 17 statement amounts to nothing more than a mere restatement of platitudes about the plaza as a friendly gathering place and a justification of security actions, buttressed by the release of the police report in its entirety. The city prosecutor is reviewing the information to see if trespassing charges can be brought against the couple. There is no doubt the pair would ask for a public trial on the charges. As a public relations counselor, I wonder if prosecution is worth it. The church stands to lose far more of its dwindling PR credibility stock than whatever it possibly could gain in pursuing the matter.

Church officials might be hoping the best strategy is to minimize public statements and actions, knowing that it’s best not to add ammunition to the widespread social media campaigns and networks which dissect, analyze, criticize, and share every church pronouncement on matters related to gay rights. Meanwhile, more savvy communicators will do their best to avoid responding specifically to spun statements such as those released on July 17 and will instead be focused on placing even greater pressure upon the church to address its inexcusable silence and behind-the-scenes manipulation of the broader public issues. At some point, church officials cannot reasonably ignore the increasingly difficult questions that go well beyond a mere kiss.