"Backlash against an obituary of its late prophet Thomas S. Monson reveals the existential doubts gnawing at the modern church."

[Storm Rider]

The NYT has an ever more difficult time and the social writer of the second article also has a difficult time of finding any degree of balance.  In their minds they operate from a position of war; a war which all is acceptable if their goals are achieved.  It is the kind of thinking where character, truth, and the common good are forfeited in the constant pursuit of their objectives.  As I write this I don't excuse the Right either because the same type of thinking pervades both Right and Left.  

It is so strange that the sum total of a man's life is only measured in did he stalwartly proclaim the joys of homosexuality and all relationships regardless of how backwards/upside down the entirety of human history would condemn.  If he did not favor the gay agenda then his life was but dross.  Then after judging such a life worthless attack those who seek balance, or at least, an acknowledgement of the good in an honorable man's life.  

And people actually wonder why some of us withdraw from society to a large extent!  What value does society offer any human that seeks after being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men?

Edited January 15, 2018 by Storm Rider

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

1. Do you think that having the church be instrumental in the  passing Prop 8 was a big achievement of President Monson's presidency?

2. Do you think fending off those women who wanted to hold the priesthood a big achievement of President Monson's presidency?

I disagree with the premise that the Church was instrumental in passing Prop 8.  California voters dismissed gay marriage in an early vote and there was no reason to believe the results would have been different the second time around.  More money was spent by the anti-Prop 8 movement so if money buys election results, Prop 8 should have failed.

As to the priesthood and women, only a few women wanted it.  The bulk of the women in the Church were not a part of it.  It was not as much as an achievement as the Church just keeping order and dismissing a small collection of people who wanted the Church to conform and follow their own version of Christ's Church.  A church not built on revelation and "thy will be done" but a new kind of Church where revelation comes by protest and God submitting to the will of the members rather than the members submitting to God.

Edited January 13, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1. No, to most in and even out of the church it was a minor event. We fought on the issue, we lost, we moved on.

 

I would not say we lost in the eternal scheme of things.  Sure the gay marriage side won the battle but eventually it will all be brought crashing down.  Members got the opportunity to declare the truth and their votes are recorded in heaven.  Standing as a witness for Christ is more than just when it is safe.  The real rewards come when it is difficult.  That is when it really counts. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Gads, what a yawner.  I tend to think that the Left has become stone cold stupid and without any ability to see the world other than through their extremely narrow, rose colored glasses.  

The social pendulum is swinging as it always does.  What is today's fad will be tomorrow's enfant terrible.  The Left has the proverbial tiger by the tail and this tiger has major teeth that will destroy societies, communities and nations.  I see no reason to do anything other than get the popcorn and watch Rome burn. 

The people of Shiz and Coriantumr also imagined moral superiority over the other side.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would not say we lost in the eternal scheme of things.  Sure the gay marriage side won the battle but eventually it will all be brought crashing down.  Members got the opportunity to declare the truth and their votes are recorded in heaven.  Standing as a witness for Christ is more than just when it is safe.  The real rewards come when it is difficult.  That is when it really counts. 

For most it was not that difficult but sure, trying to do the right thing has eternal value.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

From Cardinal Newman:
Newman goes on to say that this religions he describes “is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author.”

I do not think Christ’s Church will be celebrated by the world.  Especially those at the NYTs.

Charity, TOm

Profound.  Thanks TOm.  I'll think of this next time I sing Cardinal Newman's song in our hymnbook. "Lead Kindly Light."

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I agree that the Church isn't a "dictatorship,"  but only because it hasn't figured out how to (to the degree that such a political concept can even be ascribed to a Church).  But each year they try a little harder.

My ancestors found it tough to be called by Brother Brigham to pull up stakes in the nice places they had settled and called to immediately go down and colonize the Big Muddy, but they did it.  And other places besides, building dams and pioneering.  They wore themselves out in service to the Lord.  And now we all sit back in comfort, living off the fat of the land, with General Authorities distant and unable to interfere in our complacence.  The Church is just too big.  Oh, we might see an Area Seventy once in awhile, but that usually goes rather well.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I've even heard the Teryl and Fiona Givens talk about the problem of "hero worship" in the Church.  Heck, even Elder/President Uchtdorf admitted as much...!

I think of Dieter & Harriet riding their bikes, without a hint of Uchtdorfism.  Do GAs give autographs?  Does anyone even ask for them?  What about the celebrity status of Terryl & Fiona (I just love her English accent)?

[cdowis]

On 1/13/2018 at 12:30 AM, cinepro said:

Just keep telling yourself that...

 

Disappointed in your shallow comment.  Very shallow indeed.

Don't understand how Elder Nelson denies evolution here.   Do you have a problem with God using evolution in the creation process, which, in my mind, is consistent with LDS doctrine of using natural laws  Exactly how does his comment deny such a possibility??  He is merely criticizing how evolution is being interpreted and applied by a godless society to deny the existence of God.

And where is the problem with the Big Bang?  Are the theories of multi-universes inconsistent with LDS doctrine, for example.  In case you are unaware, the Big Bang does not preclude multiple universes.

Quote

And yet, the multiverse isn’t just an accepted theory in modern physics, it’s almost unavoidable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/cosmic-bruise-could-be-evidence-multiple-universes-ncna771076

 

Just keep telling yourself that LDS doctrine is inconsistent with science.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Got to dash so can't comment now, but thought there might be some interest:

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2018/01/11/east-coast-ignorance-using-emotional-event-another-anti-mormon-hit-piece

Lest this be overlooked, I want to bump this post linking to a level-headed piece by Scott Gordon, president of FairMormon. 

We can argue all day about tone and bias in the Times obit, but the fact errors Scott highlights here are inexcusable for a publication with the stature of the New York Times. 

A particularly egregious example is the writer’s use of a virulently anti-Mormon website as the source for the false claim that the Church for a long time taught that Joseph Smith only had one wife. At the very least, the Times writer should have sought corroboration from an authoritative source on this. It wouldn’t even have had to be someone from Church headquarters. Any competent Church history scholar (of which there are legion) could have cleared up this glaring inaccuracy as Scott did in this piece. 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

I would like the opinion of church members on the two controversial issues that were brought up in the obituary 

1. Do you think that having the church be instrumental in the  passing Prop 8 was a big achievement of President Monson's presidency?

2. Do you think fending off those women who wanted to hold the priesthood a big achievement of President Monson's presidency?

I just wanted to thank those that answered my questions.   It is interesting to me how members view these two events.  I think for a lot of people, Prop 8 shifted the way those outside of the church view the Mormon faith to a small degree.  I don't think that women wanting to hold the priesthood was any significant event, at least yet.

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

I have pointed out to some critics that President Hinckley's obituary 10 years ago in the NYT was formatted much differently.

They pointed out to me that he hadn't had high-profile events like OW, Prop-8, and the policy against children of married-gay couples during his tenure.

So there's more than one way to look at it (although I still think the NYT obituary for Monson wasn't "fair" when compared to their obituaries for Hinckley, Chavez, Castro, Hefner etc.)

To be fair Pres. Benson's obit was more like Monson's. Partially because Benson was a far more polarizing figure. 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To be fair Pres. Benson's obit was more like Monson's. Partially because Benson was a far more polarizing figure. 

Thomas S. Monson was not a polarizing figure. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We can argue all day about tone and bias in the Times obit, but the fact errors Scott highlights here are inexcusable for a publication with the stature of the New York Times. 

 

The NYT using  biased sources and creating fake news?  I am shocked, stunned at the accusation.

[clarkgoble]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thomas S. Monson was not a polarizing figure. 

With regards to LGBT and feminist issues he was at least as polarizing as Benson was with his political views. So I’d just disagree there. I think the difference between the two was that Monson often had a personae of a lovable teddy bear concerned with just loving people. Unfortunately Pres Benson didnt have that public image. (I’m not sure why as he was gongeneal and hilarious in personal settings - his family had a cottage down the road from our family up in Waterton - I still remember him well cracking up the. Ward there with his humor a few months before Pres Kimball died) But overall Benson’s John Bircher ideas were as decisive at the time as Monsons LGBT ones were. Although Benson talked publicly about his views whereas so far as I knowMonson rarely did.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, cdowis said:

Not sure how the church would  "incorporate" the Big Bang and evolution in church doctrine, anymore than the law of gravity.  It does not contradict church doctrine.

 

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just keep telling yourself that...

 

Quote

Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!

President Russel M. Nelson

You don't need to incorporate it. It's science.

President Nelson doesn't need to be a physicist.  I was just having a conversation with my step-son-in-law tonight where he asked me what I felt about the actual age of the earth. He seemed to think it had been put together from pre-existent spare parts (containing dinosaur bones etc) and was six thousand years old or so. He seemed a little surprised that I thought that God had caused the Universe to assemble itself in the form of the Big Bang about 13.5 billion years ago, and that our sun and its attendant planets came into being about 4.5 billion years ago.  And God guided it every step of the way.  

What President Nelson is arguing against here is the idea that the Universe and us came about by means of random fluctuations.  An explosion in aa printshop could never produce a dictionary, any more than a Universe could result from a random fluctuation in space-time.  It's organized, it was organized by God, and it proceeds and continues on His orders.  I can't prove it, but it's the case.

I have tried multiple times to try to imagine the Universe without a Maker, and it eludes my imagination.

And besides, God told me that He made it, and it follows His laws very faithfully.  Well, he didn't tell me that directly of course.  It was kind of within the lines.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What about the celebrity status of Terryl & Fiona (I just love her English accent)?

I'm sure her accent is nice, but my wife's English accent surpasses them all!

 

[CMZ]

The whole thing is kind of silly:

1. Worldly person mocks the Lord's prophet
2. Instead of knowing that this is what worldly people do and that it should be expected people in the Church act surprised and offended
3. Because of such offense worldly person says that members are having a crisis of faith

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

And people actually wonder why some of us withdraw from society to a large extent!  What value does society offer any human that seeks after being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men?

I erased much of what you wrote. Not because it was not valid, but to give the mods less to do, as they have to reread every word to ensure someone did not slip in something objectionable. Your comments are (are were) spot on! Their goal and focus was to discuss what he "didn't do", or what they thought he should do instead of all "he did do". I got involved in the discussion in the newspaper part, or comments. Respect and good manners, the hallmark of this website was of course not the norm there. So, I had to endure many terribly harsh comments, most from from people living in Utah, because the SL Trib, had published the article as well. This of course allowed a large number of people to use the "C word", over and over and over again. You know the "C" word, "Cult". Certainly not all believed we were a cult, just because we were behind the times on Gay marriage, but it was the angriest and most vocal group. Anyway, nuff said.  

[Calm]

"give the mods less to do, as they have to reread every word to ensure someone did not slip in something objectionable"

They don't do that unless someone reports a post from what they have said.

[Five Solas]

On 1/12/2018 at 3:07 PM, rongo said:

Well, and the Times routinely gives glowing, sympathetic obits for people like Fidel Castro. The NYT editorial board, and their defenders, are stunningly lacking in self-awareness when they try to spin this as just the type of objective, journalistic obituary that they do all the time. It's painfully obvious to everyone. 

You, cdowis, stargazer, and others--please take all the pot shots at the New York Times you want.  It has the largest circulation in our nation's largest city--and indeed, ranks 18th in the world by circulation, according to Wikipedia.  It is the very definition of mainstream.  So if you're just itching to prove fringe, cult bonafides--this is sure a great way to do it.  Make mine a double! 

;0)

--Erik

PS.  But I honestly don't get it.  Have you ever bought a Sunday edition of the NYT and read the "Arts & Leisure" section?  Or "Travel & Vacations?"  Or the real estate section?  Have you not heard about the 1 percent?  Sorry to break it to all you haters out there--but it ain't exactly Mother Jones.  

[kiwi57]

On 1/13/2018 at 2:31 PM, california boy said:

I would like the opinion of church members on the two controversial issues that were brought up in the obituary 

1. Do you think that having the church be instrumental in the  passing Prop 8 was a big achievement of President Monson's presidency?

No.

On 1/13/2018 at 2:31 PM, california boy said:

2. Do you think fending off those women who wanted to hold the priesthood a big achievement of President Monson's presidency?

Are you kidding?

The Church's position on female ordination and homosexual activity is the same in the year of President Monson's death as it was at his birth. IOW, the trajectory of the Church on those matters, throughout his entire lifetime, of which his presidency was only a fraction, is - no change.

That isn't newsworthy or noteworthy.

Except, perhaps, in the minds of those who may have an absolutely absurd sense of entitlement.

[kiwi57]

59 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You, cdowis, stargazer, and others--please take all the pot shots at the New York Times you want.  It has the largest circulation in our nation's largest city--and indeed, ranks 18th in the world by circulation, according to Wikipedia.  It is the very definition of mainstream.  So if you're just itching to prove fringe, cult bonafides--this is sure a great way to do it.  Make mine a double! 

(Emphasis added by me.)

So, according to you, a "mainstream" outlet is ipso facto above criticism, and the only people who would dare to criticise it must needs be members of a "cult."

If you're itching to prove your EV anti-Mormon bigot street cred, this is sure a great way to do it.

Keep it up!

Quote

;0)

--Erik

PS.  But I honestly don't get it.  Have you ever bought a Sunday edition of the NYT and read the "Arts & Leisure" section?  Or "Travel & Vacations?"  Or the real estate section?  Have you not heard about the 1 percent?  Sorry to break it to all you haters out there--but it ain't exactly Mother Jones.  

If you're speaking to the haters, I suggest you address the mirror.

It doesn't matter that the NYT isn't "Mother Jones" or anything else. What matters is (1) it can't get its facts straight, (2) it applies completely different standards when it writes obituaries for murderous dictators and rich old lechers than it does for LDS Church leaders, and (3) it is so collectively blind to its own editorial biases that its editors can claim, with straight faces, to have rendered "a faithful accounting."

I don't care how "mainstream" it is. It still blew it.

Edited January 14, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

On 1/13/2018 at 11:11 AM, cinepro said:

Now the petition against the NYT is itself being analyzed for how it makes LDS look to the outside world...

Mormonism’s Crisis of Faith

 

They go on to note:

Yes, if incorporating the "Big Bang" into our beliefs is the path to success, then having President Nelson at the helm isn't an encouraging development.

I wonder if the writer has ambitions of becoming a journalist when he grows up.

He rabbits about the Church "shoring up the base" and its "strategy," quite as if there are no principles involved; or if there are, he has no understanding of such things. And that's only the beginning. He allows the NYT to deliver their own verdict about their "rigor and impartiality," which he then sycophantically endorses. But he fails entirely to address - or even acknowledge - the real concerns about the NYT obituary. He cites McKay Coppins, showing that he has read him, but he does not even try to engage, or even mention, the specific examples Coppins put forward of the NYT's lack of even-handedness. Why do murderous dictators like Castro and Chavez get the kid-glove treatment while a Mormon prophet is fair game?

And is he ignorant of the fact that not all the voices that have protested the NYT piece are Mormons? Ben Shapiro also sharply criticised the NYT for its hatchet job, and Shapiro is a Jew. Clearly that fact does not play into Armstrong's agenda of playing up the protests into some kind of "crisis of faith." So we have to ask the question: Is Armstrong simply ignorant of Shapiro's criticism, in which case he's incompetent, or did he consciously ignore it, in which case he's dishonest?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

With regards to LGBT and feminist issues he was at least as polarizing as Benson was with his political views. So I’d just disagree there. I think the difference between the two was that Monson often had a personae of a lovable teddy bear concerned with just loving people. Unfortunately Pres Benson didnt have that public image. (I’m not sure why as he was gongeneal and hilarious in personal settings - his family had a cottage down the road from our family up in Waterton - I still remember him well cracking up the. Ward there with his humor a few months before Pres Kimball died) But overall Benson’s John Bircher ideas were as decisive at the time as Monsons LGBT ones were. Although Benson talked publicly about his views whereas so far as I knowMonson rarely did.

I don’t recall President Monson directly addressing LGBTQ or feminist issues. President Benson, on the other hand, was highly outspoken about conservative politics, primarily while he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. So I would respectfully but earnestly contradict you about the one being as polarizing as the other. I believe the Times writer and others are visiting their wrath over Church policies upon the head of President Monson now that he has died. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[kiwi57]

If the impeccably "mainstream" New York Times were to write an obituary for Josef Stalin today, what might it look like?

"Joe Stalin, best known for his industrialization of the USSR, winning WW2, and love of the ballet died today at 75. Well wishers around the globe - especially those at the NYT - were heart broken at the death of the Man of Steel." (From a comment on an article at The Federalist.)
 

Edited January 14, 2018 by kiwi57