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

[rongo]

8 hours 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! 

What do you think about their obituary of Fidel Castro vis a vis Monson's obit? Or even the obituary of Gordon B. Hinckley compared to their one of Thomas S. Monson? 

Even the paper, in responding to the petition, acknowledged that they could have touched on the personal (like they do for everyone else) instead of making it solely about the perceived political and social "issues" that percolated during his administration.

 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 1/12/2018 at 4:58 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... Mormons are having a "crisis of faith" because we don't see the world the way The Times does?

Kenngo, whether you like it or not there are thousands of members who supports LGTB types of initiatives, while they are members they see the world with liberal outlook, in turn Church does not start a purge...How could it, especially liberal States like California...I'm sure it is a painful coexistence but what can they do? 

[why me]

If an important Muslim cleric died who would be on the same level as Pres. Monson and the NYT wrote an obituary, I can assure you that nothing negative would be said about Islam and its attitude toward gays, women etc. It would be a glowing tribute. Elites in the West are attempting to deconstruct christianity and also Mormonism. It is to attack any christian faith that is conservative in social ethics, especially such a power bloc as Mormonism.

It is hypocrisy but the elite do get away with it. When it comes to California, mormons and catholics were attacked on the Proposition. But the Muslims, who would also be against gay marriage, did get a free pass from the liberal elite.

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Kenngo, whether you like it or not there are thousands of members who supports LGTB types of initiatives, while they are members they see the world with liberal outlook, in turn Church does not start a purge...How could it, especially liberal States like California...I'm sure it is a painful coexistence but what can they do? 

They will sooner or later have to come to grips with the fact that political ideology does not — cannot — transcend the inspired and doctrinal teachings of the anointed prophets and apostles. 

I don’t see a “purge” in the offing immediately, but I do see perhaps an ever-more stark contrast between the ways of the world and the covenant people of God. But it won’t be the Church of Jesus Christ that is dislodged from its position. 

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They will sooner or later have to come to grips with the fact that political ideology does not — cannot — transcend the inspired and doctrinal teachings of the anointed prophets and apostles. 

I don’t see a “purge” in the offing immediately, but I do see perhaps an ever-more stark contrast between the ways of the world and the covenant people of God. But it won’t be the Church of Jesus Christ that is dislodged from its position. 

Scott, Whomever is a gay, lesbian or a transgender, it is not their political agenda, it is their lifestyle...They live as a gay, lesbian everyday....The saddest fact is religious oriented minds cannot accept this scientific reality that these people are not volunteering gay or lesbian by choice....... Either side have to live by the consequences of their actions.

Do not derail this thread into a debate over gays.

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/12/2018 at 3:58 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... Mormons are having a "crisis of faith" because we don't see the world the way The Times does?

 

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Kenngo, whether you like it or not there are thousands of members who supports LGTB types of initiatives, while they are members they see the world with liberal outlook, in turn Church does not start a purge...How could it, especially liberal States like California...I'm sure it is a painful coexistence but what can they do? 

For me, it's not about what I like, or about what anyone else likes.  One need not investigate beyond your screen name to note that God is, a priori, not part of your paradigm, so it's not surprising that you would side with the Times in its criticism of "Mr. Monson."  If the buck stopped with "Mr. Monson," then perhaps the Times's criticism of him would be legitimate.  God, on the other hand, doesn't care if we think (or if the Times thinks) He's racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, or otherwise politically incorrect.  As He tells us in the Book of Mormon, "I am able to to mine own work."   

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

It was under his leadership that Prop-8 and related decisions were made. While it's possible Monson wasn't involved, I think most people assume he was making the decisions. Those decisions were arguably as polarizing and perhaps more so than anything Pres. Benson did. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The saddest fact is religious oriented minds cannot accept this scientific reality ...

As I have noted on this board before, your 'scientific reality' is completely ahistorical. But to each his/her own.

[Darren10]

On 1/12/2018 at 5:58 PM, Duncan said:

Based on comments i've seen on FB I wonder and wish that people would read their scriptures with such scrutiny

Assuming they get them in a timely manner by not sending money orders from a foreign country.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Darren10

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Assuming they get them in a timely manner by not sending money orders from a foreign country.

Binomial nomenclature!!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It was under his leadership that Prop-8 and related decisions were made. While it's possible Monson wasn't involved, I think most people assume he was making the decisions. Those decisions were arguably as polarizing and perhaps more so than anything Pres. Benson did. 

To the extent that President Benson was a polarizing figure, it was not due to decisions he made or presumably made, but rather, strident, politics-tinged statements he made in public speeches and writings. 

In addition to being a religious figure, he was a political figure as the secretary of agriculture in Eisenhower’s cabinet. And even after that, he continued to be passionate about politics and express his views vociferously for many years. If one is going to be a prominent political figure, he is going to have foes. It goes with the territory. 

Nothing like that ever characterized the life of Thomas S. Monson. Even activists who hated the Church for its positions on gay rights and feminism didn’t attack President Monson directly for them — until the end, when some writers chose to use obituaries about him as platforms to yet again express disapproval of the Church. 

If you cannot see — or if you refuse to see — the contrast here in your assertion about one being as polarizing as the other, then I’m afraid we are at loggerheads on this matter. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

Still not seeing how objecting to how the NYT wrote shows that we were suffering from existential doubts

[Waylon]

Existential doubts?  Or separating the wheat from the tares?

[Waylon]

Sadly, about half of the missionaries in my old mission have left the church over the LGBT stuff.  While it makes me very sad to see this, we have been told repeatedly that in the last days, even among church membership not everyone would make it.  We have seen a sifting before our very eyes . . .

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Binomial nomenclature!!!!!

This is the best I can find you my friend but the price seems a bit high. 

https://www.amazon.ca/Bible-Mormon-Doctrine-Covenants-Pearl/dp/B000EHV5D0/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515982859&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=lds+scriptures+quad

[Stargazer]

20 hours 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! 

;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.  

Do you really think being mainstream is all that important?  The mainstream in this case is polluted.  The mainstream in the case is full of people who have no truck with you, either, because I'm pretty sure you don't abide gay marriage.  My apology if I'm wrong about that, by the way.  If I'm not, be advised that you would stand condemned for your refusal to agree with gay marriage by this mainstream publication, if you had as high a profile as Thomas S. Monson.

No, it's not Mother Jones, but it loves to praise communist mass-murdering dictators like Fidel Castro.  If they have oh so nifty real estate and entertainment sections, so freaking what?  Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm sure Castro loved his mother and cried when she died.  That doesn't redeem him from his hellish sins.  Or does it somehow?

Oh, and by the way, my opinion of the NYT didn't sink this low recently.  I've thought this lowly of it for a long time now.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Still not seeing how objecting to how the NYT wrote shows that we were suffering from existential doubts

It does reflect a bit of confirmation bias. 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nothing like that ever characterized the life of Thomas S. Monson. Even activists who hated the Church for its positions on gay rights and feminism didn’t attack President Monson directly for them — until the end, when some writers chose to use obituaries about him as platforms to yet again express disapproval of the Church. 

I understand the distinction you are making, and I've even made the same distinction. With Benson it was his expressed views that concerned people not policy when he was President. However I'm simply not as convinced people make the distinction in practice. That is most people don't know Monson except as head of the Church and thus emblematic of the policy. So you might somewhat be right in terms of those in the Church who are well informed. (I suspect even the typical member doesn't pay attention to most of these things) For non-Mormons they were just always attributable to Monson as head.

For example The Human Rights Campaign:

"After the January 2008 death of President Gordon B. Hinckley, the mantle of leadership fell to Thomas S. Monson. In the past he has not spoken specifically about LGBTQ issues, but his views became clear within a few months. In late June of 2008 the church’s First Presidency, which Monson leads, sent a letter to all congregations in California asking members to give their time and resources to a coalition of organizations supporting Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot initiative aimed at altering the California State Constitution in such as way as to define marriage as a legal act between two members of the opposite sex."

A quick search finds most groups doing this. So while I understand the point you're trying to make, as leader if the church takes actions that are seen as divisive then Monson is seen as divisive. In the same way that even if we point to Benson's rhetoric as divisive, it's his rhetoric of traditional gender roles (women at home raising children) along with things like the so-called September 6 that made people see him as divisive externally.

Now more sophisticated voices might point out traditional views as well as figures with clout among the 12 (Packer in the 90's, Oaks and Nelson under Monson). But I just don't think most people get that nuanced in how they view leaders.

Edited January 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

On 1/14/2018 at 6:00 AM, rongo said:

What do you think about their obituary of Fidel Castro vis a vis Monson's obit? Or even the obituary of Gordon B. Hinckley compared to their one of Thomas S. Monson?

 

Interestingly, the NYT obituary for Castro does mention his brutal persecution of homosexuals in Cuba:

 

Quote

He established a sinister system of local Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, which set neighbors to informing on neighbors. Thousands of dissidents and homosexuals were rounded up and sentenced to either prison or forced labor.

But in contrast to the mention of Monson's antagonism to SSM in the first paragraph, the comment about Castros persecution of homosexuals doesn't come up until the 85th paragraph!

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I understand the distinction you are making, and I've even made the same distinction. With Benson it was his expressed views that concerned people not policy when he was President. However I'm simply not as convinced people make the distinction in practice. That is most people don't know Monson except as head of the Church and thus emblematic of the policy. So you might somewhat be right in terms of those in the Church who are well informed. (I suspect even the typical member doesn't pay attention to most of these things) For non-Mormons they were just always attributable to Monson as head.

For example The Human Rights Campaign:

"After the January 2008 death of President Gordon B. Hinckley, the mantle of leadership fell to Thomas S. Monson. In the past he has not spoken specifically about LGBTQ issues, but his views became clear within a few months. In late June of 2008 the church’s First Presidency, which Monson leads, sent a letter to all congregations in California asking members to give their time and resources to a coalition of organizations supporting Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot initiative aimed at altering the California State Constitution in such as way as to define marriage as a legal act between two members of the opposite sex."

A quick search finds most groups doing this. So while I understand the point you're trying to make, as leader if the church takes actions that are seen as divisive then Monson is seen as divisive. In the same way that even if we point to Benson's rhetoric as divisive, it's his rhetoric of traditional gender roles (women at home raising children) along with things like the so-called September 6 that made people see him as divisive externally.

Now more sophisticated voices might point out traditional views as well as figures with clout among the 12 (Packer in the 90's, Oaks and Nelson under Monson). But I just don't think most people get that nuanced in how they view leaders.

Sure Clark, but the HRC is known as a pressure group. (Quite apart from the fact that they don't seem to regard the free exercise of religion as a human right.) Nobody expects them to do anything different than harp on their particular ideological theme. They're not a "mainstream" publication that presents itself to the world as a journal of record.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Sure Clark, but the HRC is known as a pressure group. (Quite apart from the fact that they don't seem to regard the free exercise of religion as a human right.) Nobody expects them to do anything different than harp on their particular ideological theme. They're not a "mainstream" publication that presents itself to the world as a journal of record.

Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just using them as an example of not distinguishing between Monson and the Church. That's my only point. I don't in the least think that excuses the NYTs who are supposed to be doing research and reporting. That said when so many LGBT activists aren't distinguishing between Monson and the Church (completely understandably) and people are getting interpretations of the Church from the mainstreaming of such activists views, then it's fair for the NYTs to note that as an issue.  It's just that journalists are supposed to move beyond the perceptions to the facts behind them. Sadly with the current economics of media that's happening less and less.

Edited January 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Atheist Mormon]

On 1/14/2018 at 1:35 PM, why me said:

If an important Muslim cleric died who would be on the same level as Pres. Monson and the NYT wrote an obituary, I can assure you that nothing negative would be said about Islam and its attitude toward gays, women etc. It would be a glowing tribute. Elites in the West are attempting to deconstruct christianity and also Mormonism. It is to attack any christian faith that is conservative in social ethics, especially such a power bloc as Mormonism.

It is hypocrisy but the elite do get away with it. When it comes to California, mormons and catholics were attacked on the Proposition. But the Muslims, who would also be against gay marriage, did get a free pass from the liberal elite.

 

You are confusing NY Times with Fox news. Who are the elites deconstructing Christianity? It doesn't need much of a deconstructing anyways, since most of the facts are laid bare by the historians. A power bloc to ignore the plight of LGBT people is wrong and deadly at that (since thes young kids kill themselves out of despair). As for moslem religion; it is a huge killing machine gifted to us by a JudeChristian Ideology......,,,,,, If you want more compassionate information about those LGBT people (mostly kids) you can follow one of the best Mormons I know;;;;;;;Carrol Lynn Pearson.........

[california boy]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I understand the distinction you are making, and I've even made the same distinction. With Benson it was his expressed views that concerned people not policy when he was President. However I'm simply not as convinced people make the distinction in practice. That is most people don't know Monson except as head of the Church and thus emblematic of the policy. So you might somewhat be right in terms of those in the Church who are well informed. (I suspect even the typical member doesn't pay attention to most of these things) For non-Mormons they were just always attributable to Monson as head.

For example The Human Rights Campaign:

"After the January 2008 death of President Gordon B. Hinckley, the mantle of leadership fell to Thomas S. Monson. In the past he has not spoken specifically about LGBTQ issues, but his views became clear within a few months. In late June of 2008 the church’s First Presidency, which Monson leads, sent a letter to all congregations in California asking members to give their time and resources to a coalition of organizations supporting Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot initiative aimed at altering the California State Constitution in such as way as to define marriage as a legal act between two members of the opposite sex."

A quick search finds most groups doing this. So while I understand the point you're trying to make, as leader if the church takes actions that are seen as divisive then Monson is seen as divisive. In the same way that even if we point to Benson's rhetoric as divisive, it's his rhetoric of traditional gender roles (women at home raising children) along with things like the so-called September 6 that made people see him as divisive externally.

Now more sophisticated voices might point out traditional views as well as figures with clout among the 12 (Packer in the 90's, Oaks and Nelson under Monson). But I just don't think most people get that nuanced in how they view leaders.

I have pretty much stayed out of this whole thread because I think it is pretty emotionally charged subject.  But I agree with you.  I think Mormons are expecting an obituary to be written from their perspective.  That didn't happen.  The obituary was written in the way most people outside the church view the actions that took place under President Monson's administration.  

It used to be that the world viewed Mormonism as that religion that once practiced polygamy and discriminated against blacks.  Under President Monson's time as leader of the church, Mormonism has now also become known as that religion that fights against LGBT civil rights.  After a very public Prop 8 followed by the October policy, those outside the church have now come to view Mormonism as being anti gay.  While the church's stance on the LGBT community may not have changed, it certainly became very public under President Monson's stewardship. 

Was that issue given too much prominence in the obituary?  Probably.  Should it have been a part of the obituary?  I believe it should have.  The impact both within the church and outside the church is significant.

[Five Solas]

On 1/14/2018 at 6:00 AM, rongo said:

What do you think about their obituary of Fidel Castro vis a vis Monson's obit? Or even the obituary of Gordon B. Hinckley compared to their one of Thomas S. Monson? 

Even the paper, in responding to the petition, acknowledged that they could have touched on the personal (like they do for everyone else) instead of making it solely about the perceived political and social "issues" that percolated during his administration.

When you use the language--

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.

We're no longer talking about a couple of obituaries, rongo.  We don't need to debate Castro vs. Monson because you've made this much bigger--you're challenging the integrity of the institution as a whole.  And you're being pretty mild compared to some of your compatriots on the thread. 

But it's really not helping any of you.  If our largest circulation newspaper in our largest city is chronically biased and lacking integrity--well, what does that say about the city and the people who sustain it?  It rubbishes them, doesn't it?  Trust me--what is clear to you is not "painfully obvious to everyone."  But what is obvious is that you and the NYT's patrons in that great city (and across the globe for that matter) can't both be right--and you've forced your reader to make a choice. 

Now can you see your mistake?   

--Erik

[SteveO]

56 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

But it's really not helping any of you.  If our largest circulation newspaper in our largest city is chronically biased and lacking integrity--well, what does that say about the city and the people who sustain it?  It rubbishes them, doesn't it?  Trust me--what is clear to you is not "painfully obvious to everyone."  But what is obvious is that you and the NYT's patrons in that great city (and across the globe for that matter) can't both be right--and you've forced your reader to make a choice.

So are you going to just continue pretending that the NYT and just about every other news source didn’t spent most of 2017 stepping on rakes when it came to their reporting of “facts”?

I take you at your word that not everything is “painfully obvious to everyone”.  But trust me, if you think the news media of 2018 doesn’t face serious doubt concerning their journalistic integrity...well, you weren’t paying attention in 2016 or 2017.