- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The NYT published an obituary about TSM. Many have cried foul over it. Here is the obit: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html The basic complaint is that the NYT used the obituary as a platform to renew complaints against the Church. For example, in TSM’s obituary, the writer stated:
Quote:Mr. Monson displayed a new openness to scholars of Mormonism, … allowing them remarkable access to church records. But as rising numbers of church members and critics joined the internet’s free-for-all culture of debate and exposé, his church was confronted with troubling inconsistencies in Mormon history and Scripture.
Yet, while the first sentence is about TSM, the second is not about him at all and only serves to remind the reader that the Church has historical issues.
Later, the article points to
Quote:…weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right to be ordained as priests.
To which it says that TSM’s response was not to bend. Yet, TSM didn’t create the movement/demonstrations or really have anything to do with them other than to ignore. So, again, it is only obliquely related to TSM, but is used in his own obituary to remind the reader of the movement/demonstrations and the issue within the Church. Nowhere does the article mention the organizational changes enacted by TSM to include women in the top councils of the Church.Now, there’s an online petition asking the NYT to rewrite the obituary… detailed in this HuffPost article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-times-responds-backlash-mormons-212937422.html I’m not promoting or planning to sign the petition… I merely bring it up as part of this story. But I have to say, I found the ‘obituary’ to be pretty wrong-toned. I lament greatly that in our current world, no person with whom we disagree is safe from attack… apparently, not even in their obituary.
There was also a NYT reaction to the LDS reaction: Our Obituaries Editor on Coverage of Former Mormon Leader Thomas MonsonIt didn’t read much like an obit, the first 3/4ths read like a recap of what’s happened in the LDS church in recent years. The last fourth was more of a traditional obit.
Points raised:
TSM held the line by keeping church doctrines and policies in the against gay marriage camp. You’d think the orthodox member would view this as a positive thing. If this tipped scales towards the negative perhaps it’s an indication that the reader either isn’t comfortable with holding that position in the light of day or is uncomfortable with the criticism that holding that position might draw.
TSM held the line by keeping church doctrines and policies in the against ordaining women to the PH camp. Same story.
There was a rift between the church and the Boy Scouts. When that was going on I got a sense that most members rejoiced to finally be breaking with the scouts.
And what’s probably the two biggies:
1) Mentioning the growing problem of inconsistencies in history and scripture. IMO this is the growing elephant in the room that no one at church wants to openly talk about. Maybe it’s jarring to see it in print and be forced to acknowledge it as an issue of our day.
2) And the out of nowhere Joseph Smith probably had 40 wives. I’m sure that sat well with orthodox members.
Hopefully it will give the orthodox an opportunity to grow thicker skin or see something outside of their walled garden.
nibbler wrote:
It didn’t read much like an obit, the first 3/4ths read like a recap of what’s happened in the LDS church in recent years.
That was my reaction…and I stopped reading it.
I can understand having his leadership be summarized by things in the church, as would happen with a pope passing or other org leader, but it went right into it and was negatively toned, I thought.
I was disappointed. It could have been more respectful for the circumstances.
3/4rs surely? It certainly ran with the gay thing and was very one sided.
To me I do think it leaned a bit on the harsh-ish side, but where I live – this is how the church is seen. I saw the petition and my reaction was, “All those Utah Mormons in their bubble don’t seem to get how other people see them.” LookingHard wrote:
To me I do think it leaned a bit on the harsh-ish side, but where I live – this is how the church is seen. I saw the petition and my reaction was, “All those Utah Mormons in their bubble don’t seem to get how other people see them.”
I don’t disagree that it may be seen that way. But the focus of the obituary??? Is that what an obituary is for?
Heber13 wrote:
I don’t disagree that it may be seen that way. But the focus of the obituary??? Is that what an obituary is for?
My wife was pretty upset over the article. I fully agree with Heber. I’d rather they focus on the life of the man and the all good he did, rather than the policies of the Church he didn’t change.
Yep. That is my own reaction. I must be getting old – I am a Monson supporter in so many ways. Being a member I have no doubt many of the issues in the article had nothing to do directly with him. But if you are outside the church (or a deeply believing Member) you don’t see it that way.
However, he’s gone. Our church is still backwards. I am letting it go.
It was a slow news day.
I also am weary of reading LDS Living and Meridian Magazines’ takes on how charitable he was. Not because he wasn’t, but because, damn it, we (his fellow 15 and Prethren) didn’t get on the stick and make that generosity, charity, outreach, etc. the center of his time.
I seriously believe his age and style allowed “others” to fill in the gaps.
It breaks my heart – obituary not withstanding.
Quote:we (his fellow 15 and Brethren) didn’t get on the stick and make that generosity, charity, outreach, etc. the center of his time.
That is exactly my greatest disappointment, as well.
😥 I don’t likw the church’s policies on this, but I’m sick of us being presented as a giant version of Westboro Baptist Church. Although it is looming in the background, this church doesn’t continually go on about gays from the pulpit. i reckon porn is mentioned more frequently. SamBee wrote:
I don’t likw the church’s policies on this, but I’m sick of us being presented as a giant version of Westboro Baptist Church. Although it is looming in the background, this church doesn’t continually go on about gays from the pulpit. i reckon porn is mentioned more frequently.
I do think we’ve lightened up considerably. In 2007, the Church removed the ban on homosexuals from BYU, so long as it wasn’t practiced. In 2011, under TSM, students were given the right to openly advocate for LGBT rights. Not to mention, homosexual identity was, under TSM, was redefined from a “sin” in itself, to more of a predisposition. Not perfect, but definitely a few steps in the right direction. And FAR better than the Westboro Baptist Church.
nibbler wrote:
There was also a NYT reaction to the LDS reaction:Our Obituaries Editor on Coverage of Former Mormon Leader Thomas MonsonThank you for this. I also felt the Obituary was not a fitting tribute. The NYT editor seems to be saying that paying tribute is not in the job description. This interview actually reminded me a lot of the interview with the Church PR guy (Overson? Oscarson?) in which he basically responded to criticism by saying that detractors misunderstand his job and how things work and that what they want is not in his job description. The NYT times editor said that an important element of what they do in an obituary is to rehash what made news about this person. I suppose that if you looked back to the newspaper stories that referenced TSM over the last 10 years and then cobbled them together this obituary would be something close to that. I appreciate the extra insight into how these obituaries get made.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
I don’t likw the church’s policies on this, but I’m sick of us being presented as a giant version of Westboro Baptist Church. Although it is looming in the background, this church doesn’t continually go on about gays from the pulpit. i reckon porn is mentioned more frequently.
I do think we’ve lightened up considerably. In 2007, the Church removed the ban on homosexuals from BYU, so long as it wasn’t practiced. In 2011, under TSM, students were given the right to openly advocate for LGBT rights. Not to mention, homosexual identity was, under TSM, was redefined from a “sin” in itself, to more of a predisposition. Not perfect, but definitely a few steps in the right direction. And FAR better than the Westboro Baptist Church.
Westboro calls heterosexual fornicators and soldiers “fags”!
There have been moves in the right direction but that announcement felt like three steps forward and two back.
I think – and I’ve said this before – the nastier end of gay rights activism didn’t help either.
I was interested to see while looking through Facebook that we have members and missionaries who have put the pride thing over their avatar.
Roy wrote:The NYT times editor said that an important element of what they do in an obituary is to rehash what made news about this person. I suppose that if you looked back to the newspaper stories that referenced TSM over the last 10 years and then cobbled them together this obituary would be something close to that. I appreciate the extra insight into how these obituaries get made.
I read what the editor said. Not convincing at all – at least they quoted some of the members, but that response was poor justification of a kind I’ve seen many a time before when someone’s screwed up but won’t man up and admit it.
The only convincing thing which comes out of it is that they contacted Bushman. There is a feeble excuse in there for referring to him as “Mr Monson” as well.
And I agree with the Hugh Hefner comment. Hefner did one thing right – he gave a lot of work to writers but otherwise the man was a sleazebag who treated women appallingly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.