SL Tribune Does It Again

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Too bad a man would let it. 

You'd have to know my dad, to think that he wasn't worthy to enter those doors, not that you are. But you're sounding very letter of the law right now. My dad was the epitome of a christian man. It helped ease my dad's extreme chronic pain stemming from many surgeries because of a very high fall from a tree while in his youth.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My dad was a huge coffee drinker. He was sealed to my mom before I was born. When I was married in the temple, he was only able to renew his recommend if he drank caffeine free coffee. So that's what he did in order to get it renewed. Of course he went right back to regular coffee soon after. 

But I always think it funny that the caffeine now isn't what the problem is. But according to the bishop that was how he helped my dad get a recommend. I guess it was lucky our bishop did that for my dad, to have my dad at my sealing! Too bad a plain ole cup of joe could stop a man from being at his daughter's wedding.

I agree.  I’m glad we have leaders who realize people are more important than rules or that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law sometimes.  If a Bishop or Stake President receives inspiration from God to make exceptions at times, they may know more than we do about a particular situation too.

I’m glad your Dad was there for your wedding, Tacenda!!

[esodije]

In my observations, both of the SLC papers have recently tried to moderate their coverage of the church. The Trib actually seems somewhat less critical, whereas the DN doesn’t seem quite as glowing in its coverage. I suspect it’s all due to the ongoing death throes of print media and different outlets’ efforts to stay afloat. I’ve had numerous comments disallowed by the DN’s moderators for no apparent reason other than that they might have offended some segment of nonmembers (or U. Utah fans, or some combination of both). And I’m not sure I’ve yet to have a comment approved with the DN’s new moderation system.

[esodije]

Duplicate.

Edited August 30, 2019 by esodije
Duplicate

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, esodije said:

In my observations, both of the SLC papers have recently tried to moderate their coverage of the church. The Trib actually seems somewhat less critical, whereas the DN doesn’t seem quite as glowing in its coverage. I suspect it’s all due to the ongoing death throes of print media and different outlets’ efforts to stay afloat. I’ve had numerous comments disallowed by the DN’s moderators for no apparent reason other than that they might have offended some segment of nonmembers (or U. Utah fans, or some combination of both). And I’m not sure I’ve yet to have a comment approved with the DN’s new moderation system.

With regard to the Deseret News, your observation strikes me as odd. I have not observed that the coverage of the Church therein has been in any way more  muted than in the past. If anything, since the beginning of the presidency of Russell M. Nelson, it is more robust than ever (maybe that's not what you mean by "glowing").

And since the bulk of your post is about the online reader comments (which I regard as expendable, if not a blight on the publication), I really do wonder if the extent of your observation is largely on those reader comments sections of the websites as opposed to the actual news content of the respective papers.

[longview]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And since the bulk of your post is about the online reader comments (which I regard as expendable, if not a blight on the publication), - - -

You don't like hearing from the "deplorables" ?

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, longview said:

You don't like hearing from the "deplorables" ?

Have you read the anti-Mormon comments found in the cesspools that are the Trib's Comments sections to news items?

There are few places in the world more laden with expressions of hatred and animus against the Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2019 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Have you read the anti-Mormon comments found in the cesspools that are the Trib's Comments sections to news items?

Never read any newspaper or news magazine's comment sections. They keep them just because the trolls keep returning and driving up their page views. But they're all an unmitigated disaster of racism, misogyny and worse.

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With regard to the Deseret News, your observation strikes me as odd. I have not observed that the coverage of the Church therein has been in any way more  muted than in the past. If anything, since the beginning of the presidency of Russell M. Nelson, it is more robust than ever (maybe that's not what you mean by "glowing").

A lot of the news reporters on religion at DesNews aren't members. I think they're still good reporters, but the topics and way they cover things is noticeably different with less of a Mormon slant. Again, I don't think that means direct coverage of Nelson or other things typically are affected. But the overall religion beat certainly has shifted somewhat over the past 5 years. I'd never say it's taken the turn towards sensationalism that the SLTrib had adopted due to thier own fiscal issues. Although there were a few surprising articles such as the disucssed "outing" of Ed Smart that seemed more like the sort of things we'd expect from the Trib. And again, I hasten to add that I think the non-member reporters are good. I follow many of them on Twitter. There also are also members reporting as well. I rather like Kurt Manwaring's stuff for instance - although he also covers pop culture. (He also lets us at T&S post some of his 10 Questions stuff)

Edited August 30, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Never read any newspaper or news magazine's comment sections. They keep them just because the trolls keep returning and driving up their page views. But they're all an unmitigated disaster of racism, misogyny and worse.

A lot of the news reporters on religion at DesNews aren't members. I think they're still good reporters, but the topics and way they cover things is noticeably different with less of a Mormon slant. Again, I don't think that means direct coverage of Nelson or other things typically are affected. But the overall religion beat certainly has shifted somewhat over the past 5 years. I'd never say it's taken the turn towards sensationalism that the SLTrib had adopted due to thier own fiscal issues. Although there were a few surprising articles such as the disucssed "outing" of Ed Smart that seemed more like the sort of things we'd expect from the Trib. And again, I hasten to add that I think the non-member reporters are good. I follow many of them on Twitter. There also are also members reporting as well. I rather like Kurt Manwaring's stuff for instance - although he also covers pop culture. (He also lets us at T&S post some of his 10 Questions stuff)

Could you explain what you mean by “a lot of the news reporters on religion” at the Deseret News? I’m aware of two. 

Tad Walch’s “beat” is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is a very active member of the Church and, last I heard, a counselor in a bishopric. Though I would never accuse him of slanting or bias, neither would I say his coverage of the Church is in any way unfriendly. 

The national religion reporter is Kelsey Dallas. She is not a member of the Church, but she doesn’t report on events or affairs regarding the Church. That is left up to Tad. 

Other than those two, I don’t know who you would mean other than the staff of the Church News, which is in a category by itself, being an official publication of the Church, unlike the Deseret News. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Could you explain what you mean by “a lot of the news reporters on religion” at the Deseret News? I’m aware of two. 

How many religious news reporters do they have? I can't imagine it's more than about four. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But that'd mean around half.

I follow both Tad Walch and Kelsey Dallas. I recognize she doesn't tend to do stories on the Church, but for people reading the Des News wanting a Mormon-centric slant that's an issue. (Again to make clear - not for me. I enjoy her stories a lot.)

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, longview said:

You don't like hearing from the "deplorables" ?

I share Smac’s low opinion of the Trib’s “Comments” sections. I can’t see how anyone would be enlightened or edified therefrom. 

The comments sections of the Deseret News are only a little better and only because they are more tightly moderated. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How many religious news reporters do they have? I can't imagine it's more than about four. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But that'd mean around half.

I follow both Tad Walch and Kelsey Dallas. I recognize she doesn't tend to do stories on the Church, but for people reading the Des News wanting a Mormon-centric slant that's an issue. (Again to make clear - not for me. I enjoy her stories a lot.)

 

I think you missed what I said. There are none beyond those two (except the staff of the Church News, which is an official, correlated publication of the Church). 

And what issue would there be for people wanting a “Mormon-centric slant” if Tad covers stories about the Church of Jesus Christ? 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you missed what I said. There are none beyond those two (except the staff of the Church News, which is an official, correlated publication of the Church). 

And what issue would there be for people wanting a “Mormon-centric slant” if Tad covers stories about the Church if Jesus Christ? 

Ah. I misunderstood. I didn't realize Kelsey was the only one. Maybe I was confused by the byline of something the DesNews syndicated from an other site. Which tends to be the same issue though.

As to your more philosophical point, the issue is ultimately the interpretive stance of whatever event is going on. Again not being of that mindset since I don't have problem reading non-Mormon reporting or analysis it's hard for me to get into what their concerns are. However heaven knows I've met people who want everything from their intellectual stance. (I should add that I find that a deeply problematic mindset but also a surprisingly common one)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Ah. I misunderstood. I didn't realize Kelsey was the only one. Maybe I was confused by the byline of something the DesNews syndicated from an other site. Which tends to be the same issue though.

As to your more philosophical point, the issue is ultimately the interpretive stance of whatever event is going on. Again not being of that mindset since I don't have problem reading non-Mormon reporting or analysis it's hard for me to get into what their concerns are. However heaven knows I've met people who want everything from their intellectual stance. (I should add that I find that a deeply problematic mindset but also a surprisingly common one)

Straight news stories are intended to be largely free of “interpretive stance,” though I recognize there is a lot of adulteration that goes on today by organizations that have largely abdicated professional standards and become advocacy organs, such as CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

If by “syndicated” you mean wire stories, most every larger newspaper carries those. Each one is apt to appear in any of hundreds of outlets. They could not properly be regarded as having been produced in-house by the staff of the publication. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Straight news stories are intended to be largely free of “interpretive stance,” though I recognize there is a lot of adulteration that goes on today by organizations that have largely abdicated professional standards and become advocacy organs, such as CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

If by “syndicated” you mean wire stories, most every larger newspaper carries those. Each one is apt to appear in any of hundreds of outlets. They could not properly be regarded as having been produced in-house by the staff of the publication. 

I think news has gone downhill as economic models have collapsed. As you note even well regarded sites like the NYTs or WaPo have engaged in more advocacy and bias as their primary income becomes readers rather than advertisers. The need for clicks though has really distorted all sites IMO.

I don't just mean wire news stories but wired interest stories or commentary. Not sure of the in-house jargon for those. Looking at the faith section there's a lot of authors. Some like Dan Peterson are well known and long time contributors. Others are probably not as well known. I'm honestly not sure how many of these are regularly published in the DesNews and how many come originally from other outlets. Certainly many of the names repeat.

Edited August 30, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think news has gone downhill as economic models have collapsed. As you note even well regarded sites like the NYTs or WaPo have engaged in more advocacy and bias as their primary income becomes readers rather than advertisers. The need for clicks though has really distorted all sites IMO.

I don't just mean wire news stories but wired interest stories or commentary. Not sure of the in-house jargon for those. Looking at the faith section there's a lot of authors. Some like Dan Peterson are well known and long time contributors. Others are probably not as well known. I'm honestly not sure how many of these are regularly published in the DesNews and how many come originally from other outlets. Certainly many of the names repeat.

I think Dan would be the first to acknowledge he is not a newspaper reporter and it is not his role to engage in news coverage of any sort, religion or otherwise. Most every newspaper publishes the work of opinion writers, op-ed columnists and such, be they syndicated or in-house. These should not be confused with news reporters, whose role is to cover the news as opposed to engaging in commentary. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

On 8/27/2019 at 1:32 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

not to invite complicated people to church.

This made me laugh.  Orson Scott Card wrote a script for a New Testament dramatization, and he had the follow conversation snippet between Peter and Andrew (of the original Twelve).  This is partly a paraphrase:

Peter(wonderingly): I feel so blessed that He chose me, a simple fisherman, to be one of his twelve apostles.

Andrew (dryly): You were never a simple fisherman, Peter.

Peter (exasperated): Okay, a complicated fisherman! Don't quibble, Andrew!

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Dan would be the first to acknowledge he is not a newspaper reporter and it is not his role to engage in news coverage of any sort, religion or otherwise. Most every newspaper publishes the work of opinion writers, op-ed columnists and such, be they syndicated or in-house. These should not be confused with news reporters, whose role is to cover the news as opposed to engaging in commentary. 

The typical reader doesn't understand the differences that those in the industry do. Further most recent designs of web pages (including the Deseret News as the link I provided illustrates) don't clearly and easily distinguish punditry, op-ed and news. While those in the news industry make a lot of the distinctions it's pretty clear that in presentation the outlets do. Honestly I'm aware of the distinction but I find the distinctions blurry at best at most sites.

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/29/2019 at 11:21 AM, JulieM said:

I agree.  I’m glad we have leaders who realize people are more important than rules or that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law sometimes.  If a Bishop or Stake President receives inspiration from God to make exceptions at times, they may know more than we do about a particular situation too.

I’m glad your Dad was there for your wedding, Tacenda!!

What are some things that should or should not get a free pass from the bishop?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The typical reader doesn't understand the differences that those in the industry do. Further most recent designs of web pages (including the Deseret News as the link I provided illustrates) don't clearly and easily distinguish punditry, op-ed and news. While those in the news industry make a lot of the distinctions it's pretty clear that in presentation the outlets do. Honestly I'm aware of the distinction but I find the distinctions blurry at best at most sites.

I think I understood the distinction at the age of 10. I find it hard to believe that college educated adults can’t grasp it. 

My daughter just began her freshman year in high school and is taking a journalism class. As a class exercise, she wrote a news story last night about the Hello Assembly at the school and had me, her retired-journalist dad,  go over it before she submitted it online. I said it was generally fine work, but that one of the sentences was inappropriate for a straight news story because it amounted to what we call editorializing. I didn’t need to explain to her what I meant; she got it right off the bat. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I understood the distinction at the age of 10. I find it hard to believe that college educated adults can’t grasp it. 

My daughter just began her freshman year in high school and is taking a journalism class. As a class exercise, she wrote a news story last night about the Hello Assembly at the school and had me, her retired-journalist dad,  go over it before she submitted it online. I said it was generally fine work, but that one of the sentences was inappropriate for a straight news story because it amounted to what we call editorializing. I didn’t need to explain to her what I meant; she got it right off the bat. 

She's a chip off of the old block and the apple of your eye, I'm sure!

[2BizE]

On 8/27/2019 at 11:21 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you want to be a problem when you know fully well what the priesthood leader means when asking the question?

 

Because DC 89 is the only canonized guidance we have.  If it is not canonized, then it must not be that important. In short, for a doctrine or policy to be binding on the members, it must be presented  for common consent to the general assembly of the church and if ratified it becomes part of the canon and is entered as an addendum. Like Official declarations 1 and 2.  There is no additional binding policy on the WoW outside of DC 89.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie has stated that “the Word of Wisdom is not the gospel, and the gospel is not the Word of Wisdom.” Extremism in “obeying” the Word of Wisdom, like extremism in any aspect of the gospel, can distort our perspective and lead us away from our goal of eternal salvation.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/27/2019 at 8:23 AM, 2BizE said:

I usually respond to the temple recommend question on the WoW stating that I do not follow it.  And for some reason they are fine with it.

I explain that I do not eat meat sparingly as part of my Keto diet and that I do not drink beer as the WoW proclaims that we should drink mild beverages of barley.

 

On 8/27/2019 at 11:21 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you want to be a problem when you know fully well what the priesthood leader means when asking the question?

 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 12:18 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've been a bishopric counsellor twice. I would have appreciated such a clever response and would have laughed along with it.

 

On 8/28/2019 at 12:41 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess it's one of those you-had-to-have-been-there kinds of things.

 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 2:19 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Perhaps. I spent most of my adult life either studying at or working for a university, often with university-affiliated Church leaders. So when they asked me if I affiliated with any people or organisations opposed to Church teachings, I always used to ask, 'You mean other than the university, right?' That always generated a laugh.

 

On 8/28/2019 at 8:34 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I totally get the humor in that. I would have laughed appreciatively myself.

What I don’t get so much is deliberately answering no on a temple recommend interview question because you view the Church as being wrong or inconsistent in how it applies its doctrine or teachings or scripture and you’re trying to make a statement about it to some hapless bishopric counselor trying to earnestly fulfill his calling in the moment rather than argue — which is how the prior comment came across to me. I don’t believe a temple recommend interview is an appropriate setting to air one’s grievances about this or that doctrinal point.

But perhaps I did misunderstand. 

 

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Because DC 89 is the only canonized guidance we have.  If it is not canonized, then it must not be that important. In short, for a doctrine or policy to be binding on the members, it must be presented  for common consent to the general assembly of the church and if ratified it becomes part of the canon and is entered as an addendum. Like Official declarations 1 and 2.  There is no additional binding policy on the WoW outside of DC 89.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie has stated that “the Word of Wisdom is not the gospel, and the gospel is not the Word of Wisdom.” Extremism in “obeying” the Word of Wisdom, like extremism in any aspect of the gospel, can distort our perspective and lead us away from our goal of eternal salvation.

 

So Hamba, do you still think 2BizE is only being facetious when he/she does this during a temple recommend interview, or does he/she have an axe to grind? 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So Hamba, do you still think 2BizE is only being facetious when he/she does this during a temple recommend interview, or does he/she have an axe to grind? 

I will be able to answer that question if I'm ever called to serve in 2BizE's bishopric.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I will be able to answer that question if I'm ever called to serve in 2BizE's bishopric.

But you seemed fairly certain before it was just a display of light-hearted humor — like your own remark about working among university professors. I gather you are not so certain now.