SL Tribune Publishes Tribute to Pres. Monson: "Mormon President Monson was a true man of God"

[smac97]

Here: Tribune Editorial: Mormon President Monson was a true man of God

Very nice.  Touching.

The "Comments" section, however, is the standard pit of venom and rage and animosity.  Ah, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here: Tribune Editorial: Mormon President Monson was a true man of God

Very nice.  Touching.

The Tribune has a substantial enough base of believing Latter-day Saints in its readership that it is prudent for it to include such content in its pages. But contrast this with the nasty editorial comments in the Tribune pertaining to President Brigham Young upon his death.

Quote

The "Comments" section, however, is the standard pit of venom and rage and animosity.  Ah, well.

 

At a time like this, if at no other time, it would be appropriate for the newspaper to moderate the rancor in its "Comments" section. Pure decency would call for it.

 

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Tribune has a substantial enough base of believing Latter-day Saints in its readership that it is prudent for it to include such content in its pages. But contrast this with the nasty editorial comments in the Tribune pertaining to President Brigham Young upon his death.

Indeed. Although, to be fair, it could well have been a different editor. I've heard that newspapers can sometimes change their personnel over a 140-year period.

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At a time like this, if at no other time, it would be appropriate for the newspaper to moderate the rancor in its "Comments" section. Pure decency would call for it.

But does decency sell newspapers and bring in advertising?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Indeed. Although, to be fair, it could well have been a different editor. I've heard that newspapers can sometimes change their personnel over a 140-year period.

But does decency sell newspapers and bring in advertising?

Perhaps not.

By the way, here's a report I wrote a few years ago on a Mormon History Association Conference talk given by historian Ronald Walker on the death of Brigham Young.
 

Quote

 

Not everyone grieved, Walker noted.

"The Salt Lake Tribune, an old opponent, could not resist a final thrust-and-parry" and said Young's most graceful act had been his death.

"The Tribune's terrible display of bad manners signaled that there would be no truce in its combat against Mormonism, even during this time of solemn bereavement.

 

 

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "Comments" section, however, is the standard pit of venom and rage and animosity.  Ah, well.

And it's the same people spewing the same venom in every Trib article. I think they just copy and paste their comments from one article to the other, regardless of the subject.
You would think they would get tired of doing this over and over. 

[boblloyd91]

Unfortunately the New York Times decided to criticize him for not being nice enough to LGBTQ people (in their opinion) and not giving women the priesthood instead of focusing on the countless good things he did. Of course they also lionized Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner....

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

Unfortunately the New York Times decided to criticize him for not being nice enough to LGBTQ people (in their opinion) and not giving women the priesthood instead of focusing on the countless good things he did. Of course they also lionized Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner....

I read the NY Times article and came away with a different option.  It was objective and listed his major accomplishments.  The LGBTQ policies came out under his watch.  They were listed as such.  

[kiwi57]

42 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I read the NY Times article and came away with a different option.  It was objective

IOW, you agreed with it.

42 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

and listed his major accomplishments.  The LGBTQ policies came out under his watch.  They were listed as such.  

They were listed as "controversies." They also seemed to think there was something questionable about President Monson staying out of Mitt Romney's political campaigns.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Unfortunately the New York Times decided to criticize him for not being nice enough to LGBTQ people (in their opinion) and not giving women the priesthood instead of focusing on the countless good things he did. Of course they also lionized Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner....

Essentially, they listed all the things about the Church that offended their liberal sensibilities and castigated President Monson for them. And this purports to be intelligent journalism. 

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I read the NY Times article and came away with a different option.  It was objective and listed his major accomplishments.  The LGBTQ policies came out under his watch.  They were listed as such.  

Incidentally, here is a link to Ben Shapiro's reaction to the NYT's lame excuse for an obituary:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25411/new-york-times-proves-it-hates-religious-americans-ben-shapiro

The contrast to the rather more sycophantic obits offered to Hefner and Chavez is rather telling.

 

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Essentially, they listed all the things about the Church that offended their liberal sensibilities and castigated President Monson for them. And this purports to be intelligent journalism. 

"Castigated" him?  I didn't see that, but they certainly didn't leave anything (or much) out that took place under his watch.  I think it's written from an outsider's perspective and may be a good view of what many think of the church's actions as well as accomplishments during the time President Monson served.  Quite honestly, one could call the obituary in the DN biased or point out that some of what what happened when he was the Prophet and President was not mentioned (new policies, etc.).  I'd say that IMO, the Tribune's is the most balanced while still being positive (which obituaries should be....at least as much as possible).

Was there anything in the NY Times article that was not true?  I skimmed it, but will read it once more too.  I agree that it could have emphasized the good that he did more and downplayed some of the negative connotations, but I think he reported President Monson's term and life as he honestly saw it and how many on the outside possibly viewed it as well.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Essentially, they listed all the things about the Church that offended their liberal sensibilities and castigated President Monson for them. And this purports to be intelligent journalism. 

I appreciated the nonmembers who noticed that the NYT's obituary was not very fair and called them on it.

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciated the nonmembers who noticed that the NYT's obituary was not very fair and called them on it.

The fact that they called it an obituary was the most insulting aspect of it. If it were just an opinion article there wouldn't have been as much a problem with it.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Castigated" him?  I didn't see that, but they certainly didn't leave anything (or much) out that took place under his watch.  I think it's written from an outsider's perspective and may be a good view of what many think of the church's actions as well as accomplishments during the time President Monson served.  Quite honestly, one could call the obituary in the DN biased or point out that some of what what happened when he was the Prophet and President was not mentioned (new policies, etc.).  I'd say that IMO, the Tribune's is the most balanced which still being positive.

Was there anything in the NY Times article that was not true?  I skimmed it, but will read it once more too.  I agree that it could have emphasized the good that he did more and downplayed some of the negative connotations, but I think he reported President Monson's term and life as he honestly saw it and how many on the outside possibly viewed it as well.

 

This was how the NYT's began their obituary of Monson-

"Thomas Monson, the president of the Mormon church who rebuffed demands to ordain women as priests and refused to alter church opposition to same-sex marriage, died Tuesday at 90."

McKay Coppins pointed out-

"The facts are accurate, of course, and it's entirely fair to include them in the piece. But the NYT doesn't usually lead their obituaries for public figures with the things they didn't do when they were alive."  Then he rewrote Hugh Hefner's obit to follow the strategy the NYTs used for Monson.

The real NYT Obit. for Hefner read "Hugh Hefner, who created Playboy magazine and spun it into a media and entertainment-industry giant — all the while, as its very public avatar, squiring attractive young women (and sometimes marrying them) well into his 80s — died on Wednesday at his home, the Playboy Mansion, in the Holmby Hills area of Los Angeles. He was 91."

But if they had followed the example set with Monson it would have read-"Hefner, the Playboy founder who rebuffed demands that he stop publishing a misogynistic pornographic magazine and exploiting young women, died at 91."

As another twitter user said, the NYT obituary seems to be more of an editorialization of Monson's politics which the writer obviously didn't agree with, than an article about his life.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This was how the NYT's began their obituary of Monson-

"Thomas Monson, the president of the Mormon church who rebuffed demands to ordain women as priests and refused to alter church opposition to same-sex marriage, died Tuesday at 90."

McKay Coppins pointed out-

"The facts are accurate, of course, and it's entirely fair to include them in the piece. But the NYT doesn't usually lead their obituaries for public figures with the things they didn't do when they were alive."  Then he rewrote Hugh Hefner's obit to follow the strategy the NYTs used for Monson.

The real NYT Obit. for Hefner read "Hugh Hefner, who created Playboy magazine and spun it into a media and entertainment-industry giant — all the while, as its very public avatar, squiring attractive young women (and sometimes marrying them) well into his 80s — died on Wednesday at his home, the Playboy Mansion, in the Holmby Hills area of Los Angeles. He was 91."

But if they had followed the example set with Monson it would have read-"Hefner, the Playboy founder who rebuffed demands that he stop publishing a misogynistic pornographic magazine and exploiting young women, died at 91."

As another twitter user said, the NYT obituary seems to be more of an editorialization of Monson's politics which the writer obviously didn't agree with, than an article about his life.

I stated that obituaries should be more positive.  My point was that this write up quite possibly is how many (outside the church and even some who are members) view President Monson's term as the leader of the church.  This may be a glimpse of how at least some outsiders see his influence on the church during the years he was the leader.

Personally (as I also stated), I like the Tribune's obituary out of the 3 being discussed here (and the one that is the topic of this thread in the OP).  I think it's balanced, yet positive.

Edited January 6, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

I stated that obituaries should be more positive.  My point was that this write up quite possibly is how many view President Monson's term as the leader of the church.  This may be a glimpse of how at least some outsiders see his influence on the church during the years he was the leader.

Personally (as I also stated), I like the Tribune's obituary out of the 3 being discussed here (and the one that is the topic of this thread in the OP).  I think it's balanced, yet positive.

It probably is how the writer viewed his term, but obituaries of are not supposed to be about the writer's personal views on the beliefs and actions of the deceased.  It should be a biography void of editorializing, and the choice of how to frame the opening paragraph on Monson is an example of editorialization. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It probably is how the writer viewed his term, but obituaries of are not supposed to be about the writer's personal views on the beliefs and actions of the deceased.  

I never stated this is a good obituary (I stated they should be more positive).  I agree this is more of an opinion piece than a proper obituary.  I just made an observation that this might be a glimpse of how some "outsiders" feel about his term as the President of the church.

However, from what I've been reading since President Monson's passing, the views he shared are not just his.  I've read opinions even from members who agree with him (regarding some of what took place during the time he was Prophet) but of course with a much more positive approach.  

I have wondered what President Monson will be remembered for (if you know what I mean...).  With some (I'd say maybe most) past Prophets, something comes to mind as soon as he is mentioned.  For example, President Kimball was known for his great love and concern for the Lamanites, etc.

For me, I think of the words "love and service" when I think of President Monson.  Also, what a great story teller he was and how he could truly captivate an audience of all ages.

However, I also think of some things that are not so pleasant for me to think of (such as the new policy in place during his service regarding those involved in SSMs).

I also think of the age reduction for missionaries and both the positive and negative this has had for different members and youth in the church.

What I'm trying to say is that anyone's contribution is not all 100% positive for anyone.  But in an obituary, it's respectful to keep it positive, IMO. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Incidentally, here is a link to Ben Shapiro's reaction to the NYT's lame excuse for an obituary:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25411/new-york-times-proves-it-hates-religious-americans-ben-shapiro

The contrast to the rather more sycophantic obits offered to Hefner and Chavez is rather telling.

 

Shapiro’s analysis, of course, is spot on. I have come to appreciate his common-sense observations as well as his courage in the face of antifa thugs who would prevent him from speaking on college campuses. 

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I stated that obituaries should be more positive.  My point was that this write up quite possibly is how many (outside the church and even some who are members) view President Monson's term as the leader of the church.  This may be a glimpse of how at least some outsiders see his influence on the church during the years he was the leader.

Personally (as I also stated), I like the Tribune's obituary out of the 3 being discussed here (and the one that is the topic of this thread in the OP).  I think it's balanced, yet positive.

I agree the Tribune’s obit is well written, and I have not said otherwise. 

I just think that, for once, they should have muzzled the obnoxious attack dogs in their reader comment section online. Allowing the vitriol to stand unmoderated is ill mannered and very much in keeping with the legacy of the old Tribune. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree the Tribune’s obit is well written, and I have not said otherwise. 

I just think that, for once, they should have muzzled the obnoxious attack dogs in their reader comment section online. Allowing the vitriol to stand unmoderated is very much in keeping with the legacy of the old Tribune. 

I agree.  I usually avoid reading any of the comments in the Tribune.  Many of them are way over the top and filled with anger and hatred.  Definitely not what I consider enjoyable reading or something I want to waste my time doing.

[Bobbieaware]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Essentially, they listed all the things about the Church that offended their liberal sensibilities and castigated President Monson for them. And this purports to be intelligent journalism. 

The reason why these people do what they do, and the reason why they will never change, is because they are filled with a mighty zeal that grows out of the fervent belief they actually possess the knowledge needed in order to create a perfect world of unlimited freedom, justice, mercy, compassion and economic egalitarianism, a non-religious, secular materialist version of the LDS Zion, if you will. The perfect world they envision is one in which there will be no acknowledged differences between men and women, the family will be redefined in many different ways, and many behaviors the scriptures  plainly condemn as being sinful, ungodly and misery-inducing will be normalized and fully accepted with open arms, and this in keeping with their ideas of a radical, anything goes freedom.

These passionate and fully-engaged missionaries for the new global secular Zion, a ‘New Age’ system they strongly believe is finally within their grasp, view Thomas S Monson and the Church he led as holdouts who advocate for an obsolete, unjust and hostile old order that will soon pass away as long as they keep up the intense, incessant pressure that they are confident will eventually cause institutions like the LDS Church to either buckle under and change to fit in or be forced to exist in unbearably hostile environment. For this reason, they will never pass up on any opportunity to slam and condemn the old order knuckle draggers they believe are standing in the way of progress toward their perfect secular paradise.

This strategy of continuous applied destructive presume will continue to be used against the Latter-Day Saints, and all advocates for the older Judeo-Christian order, until we arrive at the following momentous point in time described by the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson in his final General Conference address:

“I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God’s wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph. (President Ezra Taft Benson, October 1988)

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The reason why these people do what they do, and the reason why they will never change, is because they are filled with a mighty zeal that grows out of the fervent belief they actually possess the knowledge needed in order to create a perfect world of unlimited freedom, justice, mercy, compassion and economic egalitarianism, a non-religious, secular materialist version of the LDS Zion, if you will. The perfec world they envision is one in which there will be no acknowledged differences between men and women, the family will be redefined in many different ways, and many behaviors the scriptures  plainly condemn as being sinful, ungodly and misery-inducing will be normalized and fully accepted with open arms, and this in keeping with their ideas of a radical, anything goes freedom.

These passionate and fully-engaged missionaries for the new global secular Zion, a ‘New Age’ system they strongly believe is finally within their grasp, view Thomas S Monson and the Church he led as holdouts who advocate for an obsolete, unjust and hostile old order that will soon pass away, as long as they keep up the intense, incessant pressure that the are confident will eventually cause institutions like the LDS Church to either buckle under and change to fit in  or be forced to exist in unbearably hostile environment. For this reason they will never pass up on any opportunity to slam and condemn the old order knuckle draggers they believe are standing in the way of progress toward their perfect secular paradise.

This strategy of continuous applied destructive presume will continue to be used against the Latter-Day Saints, and all advocates for the older Judeo-Christian order until we arrive at the following momentous point in time described by the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson in his final General Conference address:

“I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God’s wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph. (President Ezra Taft Benson, October 1988)

I can’t rep this post, for some reason, so I’ll just express my “like” here. 

[Bobbieaware]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t rep this post, for some reason, so I’ll just express my “like” here. 

I believe there’s a good possibility that that privilege was taken from me. I can now neither give nor receive rep points. But thank you Scott. I deeply appreciate you for your wisdom and steadfastness.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t rep this post, for some reason, so I’ll just express my “like” here. 

If Bobby has been put on limited because she’s had too many posts reported, then it also seems to take away the ability to give rep points.

I think that’s just how the board software functions. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If Bobby has been put on limited because she’s had too many posts reported, then it also seems to take away the ability to give rep points.

I think that’s just how the board software functions. 

You mean “limited” automatically kicks in when a threshold for complaint reports is reached? I hadn’t known that.