Blogger Says Mormons Don'T Welcome Outsiders

[thesometimesaint]

bluebell:

Here is what Senator posted.

But there is a grain of truth to the statement. The needed clarification being the difference between "meetinghouse" and Temples. I see other posters made that simple clarification, but you didn't.

Once again we have an unfortunate outsider daring to make comment on our peculiar religion and not getting it exactly right.

What are we going to do with them??

There is no grain of truth that I can see, and the simple fact is that our public meetings are open to any and all that want to attend. The Temple is not nor has it ever been open to the public, once dedicated. It is by invitation only. Not even all members of the Church are able to attend the Temple. A simple fact check on the church's own web site would have cleared up any misunderstanding before she published her article. I don't expect the ordinary nonmember to know it. But a person in the established press should at least look it up before writing.

There is nothing unfortunate about it. She didn't do her homework before she published. While a general nonmember isn't expected to know. I hold the established press to a higher standard. Particularly with the internet available to all who care enough to get it right.

Nothing should happen to her other than being corrected. Have we become so mild mannered that we can't correct wrong ideas about our religion?

[bluebell]

bluebell:

Here is what Senator posted.

But there is a grain of truth to the statement. The needed clarification being the difference between "meetinghouse" and Temples. I see other posters made that simple clarification, but you didn't.

Once again we have an unfortunate outsider daring to make comment on our peculiar religion and not getting it exactly right.

What are we going to do with them??

There is no grain of truth that I can see, and the simple fact is that our public meetings are open to any and all that want to attend. The Temple is not nor has it ever been open to the public, once dedicated. It is by invitation only. Not even all members of the Church are able to attend the Temple. A simple fact check on the church's own web site would have cleared up any misunderstanding before she published her article. I don't expect the ordinary nonmember to know it. But a person in the established press should at least look it up before writing.

There is nothing unfortunate about it. She didn't do her homework before she published. While a general nonmember isn't expected to know. I hold the established press to a higher standard. Particularly with the internet available to all who care enough to get it right.

Nothing should happen to her other than being corrected. Have we become so mild mannered that we can't correct wrong ideas about our religion?

Thank you TSS. I do know what Senator had posted, and i don't disagree with him or you on the matter. Neither did i ever imply that Scott was wrong in his reaction. I was just trying to explain one reason why Senator might not have understood your post to him.

I did think your intial reply to him about bedrooms and all that was confusing, given how i read his previous post. I honestly still have no idea what you were actually trying to say there in regards to what Senator had said (i do get your analogy, i just don't see how it had much to do with Senator's point, i mean).

Since Scott said that there was no way an intelligent person could not have misunderstood you, i thought it fair and honest to speak up.

[Garden Girl]

What I did was to correct an error that was blatantly false, easily disproved and could have been avoided with a tiny modicum of research.

The author of this piece is a professional columnist writing under the nameplate of a very old and respected news magazine. While I might expect a reckless disregard for accuracy from antagonistic, vindictive or generally ignorant contributors to message boards or reader-comment sections of websites, there are higher standards for professional journalists. And this is just as true for opinion writers and pundits as it is for straight-news writers.

This is what I did when I wrote a "comment letter" to the NY paper regarding the article, accompanied by a picture of a chapel identified as a place Romney would opt to attend for Sunday Services vs the more elaborate DC Temple, and her numerous other errors of fact... I too expect a higher standard for people considering themselves to be professional journalists... all she had to do was some very simple research and she would have found readily available information to correct her preconceived notions that she chose to print as facts.

As far as LDS not welcoming outsiders... pity the poor outsider that walks into Lincoln City ward... we LOVE them to death.

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you TSS. I do know what Senator had posted, and i don't disagree with him or you on the matter. Neither did i ever imply that Scott was wrong in his reaction. I was just trying to explain one reason why Senator might not have understood your post to him.

I did think your intial reply to him about bedrooms and all that was confusing, given how i read his previous post. I honestly still have no idea what you were actually trying to say there in regards to what Senator had said (i do get your analogy, i just don't see how it had much to do with Senator's point, i mean).

Since Scott said that there was no way an intelligent person could not have misunderstood you, i thought it fair and honest to speak up.

This is how I understood thesometimesaint's analogy:

He welcomes visitors into his home, though he doesn't necessarily admit them into his bedroom. It would, therefore, be quite wrong to assert that thesometimesaint forbids outsiders from visiting his home. There would be no "grain of truth" to such an assertion.

Similarly:

The Church welcomes visitors to attend its Sabbath day worship services and weekday activities, and even posts signs to that effect, though it does have certain facilities and functions (namely, temples and temple ordinance sessions) to which only initiates are invited. It is, therefore, quite wrong to assert that the Church does not welcome visitors or that it forbids outsiders from entering its meetinghouses ("churches" or "chapels," if you will) where it holds Sabbath day worship. Again, there would be no "grain of truth" to such an assertion.

The analogy seems quite clear-cut to me; I really do find it enigmatic that some should should find it so difficult to comprehend.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for the insult Scott. Much appreciated!

It was not meant as an insult. I said I thought a person of average-or-better intelligence ought to be able to comprehend thesometimessaint's post. Since I consider you to be of average-or-better intelligence, I was mystified as to why you said you failed to grasp it. That's why I recommended you read it again.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is what I did when I wrote a "comment letter" to the NY paper regarding the article, accompanied by a picture of a chapel identified as a place Romney would opt to attend for Sunday Services vs the more elaborate DC Temple, and her numerous other errors of fact... I too expect a higher standard for people considering themselves to be professional journalists... all she had to do was some very simple research and she would have found readily available information to correct her preconceived notions that she chose to print as facts.

As far as LDS not welcoming outsiders... pity the poor outsider that walks into Lincoln City ward... we LOVE them to death.

GG

I agree, Garden Girl. A quick visit to lds.org could have told her all she needed to know regarding the readiness of the Church to welcome visitors and outsiders and the distinction between LDS meetinghouses and temples.

To imply that the author, a professional pundit and political writer, ought to be excused for her error because she lacks the skill and comprehension to do very basic research before setting fingers to keyboard would strike me as an insult, were I in her position.

[Senator]

We should do nothing to her other than teach her the correct information.

But you and Scott and a number of (I assume LDS commentors) on the blog did more than just "correct the information". You took it an uneeded step further to deride Susan's perfessionalism. She's a politcal writer, not a religious writer. How easy would it be to simply offer the needed fact correction to the one and only off-handed statement regarding Romney's religion and let it be done?

[Senator]

It was not meant as an insult. I said I thought a person of average-or-better intelligence ought to be able to comprehend thesometimessaint's post. Since I consider you to be of average-or-better intelligence, I was mystified as to why you said you failed to grasp it. That's why I recommended you read it again.

Of course

[Senator]

Thank you TSS. I do know what Senator had posted, and i don't disagree with him or you on the matter. Neither did i ever imply that Scott was wrong in his reaction. I was just trying to explain one reason why Senator might not have understood your post to him.

I did think your intial reply to him about bedrooms and all that was confusing, given how i read his previous post. I honestly still have no idea what you were actually trying to say there in regards to what Senator had said (i do get your analogy, i just don't see how it had much to do with Senator's point, i mean).

Since Scott said that there was no way an intelligent person could not have misunderstood you, i thought it fair and honest to speak up.

This is one of many times that I am greatful for those of intelligence higher than my own, and their accompanying ability to articulate.

[bluebell]

The analogy seems quite clear-cut to me; I really do find it enigmatic that some should should find it so difficult to comprehend.

Well, puzzling or not, it didn't seem very clear cut to me.

As i said before, i get TSS's analogy, i just don't understand what it had to do with the point Senator was trying to make.

[Senator]

Have we become so mild mannered that we can't correct wrong ideas about our religion?

Not at all.

But we do seem to often get defensive in the process.

[Scott Lloyd]

But you and Scott and a number of (I assume LDS commentors) on the blog did more than just "correct the information".

This is the comment I posted on her blog:

Member of a church that does not welcome outsiders? If anything The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is criticized for being too energetic in its recruiting of new members (I'm referring to its pervasive and global missionary force.)

And I'm at a loss to figure out how this author got the notion that "non-Mormons are not even supposed to enter the church." Most meetinghouses of which I'm aware where Mormons hold their Sunday worship services carry the words "Visitors Welcome" underneath the name of the church on the building exterior. (And yes, I am Mormon myself.)

Very direct and to the point, but I don't concede that it was in any way uncivil.

You took it an uneeded step further to deride Susan's perfessionalism. She's a politcal writer, not a religious writer.

She is a pundit who is used to researching facts before writing. As I and others have indicated it would have been very easy to avoid her error by doing even a tiny bit of research in advance.

Indicating that one expects better performance from a professional is not deriding her professionalism. And as I suggested above, it is you who are insulting her professionalism by implying that she lacks the capability to do the necessary fact checking.

In this day of Internet access, one of the main things that separate a professional from a hack or amateur is that the professional takes the time and effort and avails herself of the resources to get things right before posting or publishing them.

How easy would it be to simply offer the needed fact correction to the one and only off-handed statement regarding Romney's religion and let it be done?

I did essentially that.

My joke about sending her pictures of "Visitors Welcome" signs was not intended to be posted on her blog site. Somebody reposted it there, apparently in an attempt to embarrass me. I have already apologized for that on her blog site and made the assurance that my comment was not to be taken seriously.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, puzzling or not, it didn't seem very clear cut to me.

As i said before, i get TSS's analogy, i just don't understand what it had to do with the point Senator was trying to make.

I'm curious as to whether you understand it better now that I have explained it.

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

TTBOMK newspapers, quality magazines, and most news shows on the TV have a corrections page/section. They seem to welcome the correction of false information.

Since when is pointing out an easily checked error of a professional news person an assault on their professionalism? Since when is holding someone who professes to be a journalist, and from all appearances is a professional, to a higher standard than the common lay person?

[Scott Lloyd]

Senator:

TTBOMK newspapers, quality magazines, and most news shows on the TV have a corrections page/section. They seem to welcome the correction of false information.

You are correct in that understanding. It is more harmful to the credibility of a news or information outlet to allow a known fact error go unacknowledged and uncorrected than it is to acknowledge the error and provide the correct information. Good writers/publishers/broadcasters/commentators understand this and they do welcome notifications about errors having been made.

[Senator]

You are correct in that understanding. It is more harmful to the credibility of a news or information outlet to allow a known fact error go unacknowledged and uncorrected than it is to acknowledge the error and provide the correct information. Good writers/publishers/broadcasters/commentators understand this and they do welcome notifications about errors having been made.

I do understand that. And from within the profession I see the value of peer review in keeping the profession......well......professional. But it has only been a few days since the blog was posted. Is there a time alotment given for a correction to be made? Should perhaps the chiding be reserved till after it is apparent that no correction is forthcoming?

What strikes me odd is that the author has been so thoroughly chided by some individuals (apperently LDS) who want to stress how very "welcoming" the LDS are! (and Scott, I'm not including you in that group)

Maybe it's just a personality thing. I saw no need for the author to be chided for her blunder (citing unprofessionality), simply corrected is all.

I mean, C'mon Susan, you idiot, you didn't know how obvioulsy welcoming Mormons are? DAMN!

[Calm]

Senator, I have seen online corrections on blogs connected with news outlets happen with in minutes of publishing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Senator, I have seen online corrections on blogs connected with news outlets happen with in minutes of publishing.

For my part, when I make an error, I appreciate being notified about it as soon as possible so I can make the correction in a timely manner. It is bad enough to let the error get into print or online; it is many times worse having to dredge it up many days or weeks later, after a good many, if not most, of the readers have forgotten about it.

[Calm]

Has a correction been offered by the blog yet?

[Scott Lloyd]

What strikes me odd is that the author has been so thoroughly chided by some individuals (apperently LDS) who want to stress how very "welcoming" the LDS are! (and Scott, I'm not including you in that group)

Some respondents on her blog site may have been a bit snarky. I don't control what others do. I emphasize that my own comment was independent; that is, no person or entity put me up to it, I did not consult with anyone before doing it, and as far as I can tell, mine was the first response offering correction. Other than my remarks on her blog site, this thread is the only place where I have engaged in any discussion about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Has a correction been offered by the blog yet?

Not yet. i just checked using the link in my OP.

Maybe the author thinks the responses from me and others are sufficient for correcting the fact error.

[bluebell]

I'm curious as to whether you understand it better now that I have explained it.

No, I still don't see how what TSS said applied to Senator's point. It's not that big of a deal though. He said something a couple of us didn't understand, but you did. Not much else to dissect.

[Stargazer]

She's a politcal writer, not a religious writer.

Well, I have to say "So What?" to this.

If I were a, say, political writer, and was placed in the position of commenting upon something NASA was trying to do, which required some kind of political will to get into, then since this is not necessarily in my area of knowledge, I would consider it important to get it straight before I wrote about it, rather than shooting off at random.

"NASA woos Congressional funding for putting a man on the sun."

vs.

"NASA woos Congressional funding for putting a manned space station in orbit around the planet Mercury as a solar observatory."

The first version is the equivalent of what the writer wrote about, instead of the more accurate statement given in the second statement. A little fact-checking, ESPECIALLY when the subject area isn't so familiar.

Note that as far as I know NASA isn't proposing to put a manned space station in orbit around Mercury -- it just sounded like a cool idea to me at that moment.

[thesometimesaint]

Sounds like a hot idea to me.