The death of the President of the Mormon Church and the NY Times

[Maren]

To give a bit of background, the President of the Mormon Church, Thomas Monson, died last week. There were a number of nice obituaries in the national press, but the NY Times started theirs off, "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." Some also compared how people like Fidel Castro, Hugh Hefner, and even Charles Manson got nicer obituaries from the NY Times.

I thought it was interesting that the Times did that and didn't care for it and thought about posting about it here. However, what finally made me decide it was an article in The Federalist, that ends, "That fact is what the Times apparently finds most troubling and worthy of their contempt, so much so that they took the opportunity of Monson’s obituary to smear not just the Mormon president and prophet, but also all Americans of faith. For that reason, the Times should be held to account not just by the millions of Mormons in America, but other religious Americans as well."

I'm curious what people here feel about the obituary. Was it fair, merely reacting to key issues that Pres. Monson dealt with during his time leading the Mormon Church? Or, is it more of an attack (similar to what The Federalist is saying) on churches in general (who are largely against same-sex marriage and split on female clergy)?

Also, does this change your opinion of the NY Times?

 

[Doug Melven]

It definitely does not change my opinion of the NYT.
I always thought they had an agenda that was set to take away the fundamentals of Christianity.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Hmm.
It isn't a smear if the statement is correct.
I don't expect non religious periodicals to uphold or not attack any religion.
My views of the NYT have not been affected.

 

[mala]

nobody owes you a nice obituary when you die.

 

[Doug Melven]

The problem with the headline was not that it was mean, the problem was that they used that mans death as an oppurtunity to promote there agenda of promoting same sex marriage and women in ministry (I personally do not have a problem with female clergy but I won't push that belief on others).

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

The problem with the headline was not that it was mean, the problem was that they used that mans death as an oppurtunity to promote there agenda of promoting same sex marriage and women in ministry (I personally do not have a problem with female clergy but I won't push that belief on others).

If any large group is public about a belief that goes against the majority of the public; it is news. If a large group faces dissention within their ranks about an issue that many similar groups are dealing with; it is news.

I can't imagine what the obituary for the current head of Scientology will look like...

 

[Jane_Doe]

To give a bit of background, the President of the Mormon Church, Thomas Monson, died last week. There were a number of nice obituaries in the national press, but the NY Times started theirs off, "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." Some also compared how people like Fidel Castro, Hugh Hefner, and even Charles Manson got nicer obituaries from the NY Times.

And did any of us really anticipate the NYT to do anything else? Not I. Even using a obituary to push their agenda, rather than talking about the deceased or their work.

I thought it was interesting that the Times did that and didn't care for it and thought about posting about it here. However, what finally made me decide it was an article in The Federalist, that ends, "That fact is what the Times apparently finds most troubling and worthy of their contempt, so much so that they took the opportunity of Monson’s obituary to smear not just the Mormon president and prophet, but also all Americans of faith. For that reason, the Times should be held to account not just by the millions of Mormons in America, but other religious Americans as well."

Way to go Federalist! 5 points for them!

I'm curious what people here feel about the obituary. Was it fair, merely reacting to key issues that Pres. Monson dealt with during his time leading the Mormon Church?

Actually neither of those were main issues. Manson had been an LDS leader for 60+ years, and both of these (happening <5 years ago) were not main issues.

 

[Liza B.]

To give a bit of background, the President of the Mormon Church, Thomas Monson, died last week. There were a number of nice obituaries in the national press, but the NY Times started theirs off, "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." Some also compared how people like Fidel Castro, Hugh Hefner, and even Charles Manson got nicer obituaries from the NY Times.

I thought it was interesting that the Times did that and didn't care for it and thought about posting about it here. However, what finally made me decide it was an article in The Federalist, that ends, "That fact is what the Times apparently finds most troubling and worthy of their contempt, so much so that they took the opportunity of Monson’s obituary to smear not just the Mormon president and prophet, but also all Americans of faith. For that reason, the Times should be held to account not just by the millions of Mormons in America, but other religious Americans as well."

I'm curious what people here feel about the obituary. Was it fair, merely reacting to key issues that Pres. Monson dealt with during his time leading the Mormon Church? Or, is it more of an attack (similar to what The Federalist is saying) on churches in general (who are largely against same-sex marriage and split on female clergy)?

Also, does this change your opinion of the NY Times?

If any liberals cannot see that they subscribe to modern Orthodoxy, I don't know what rock they're living under.

 

[FireDragon76]

People have every right to criticize religious institutions in this country, especially when their values run contrary to what most people consider acceptable.

 

[Jane_Doe]

People have every right to criticize religious institutions in this country, especially when their values run contrary to what most people consider acceptable.

But is an obituary the best place for such criticisms?

 

[Rion]

People have every right to criticize religious institutions in this country, especially when their values run contrary to what most people consider acceptable.

I agree, but if you're going to pull your punches on a dictator and mass murderer, I think it's odd to go hard on a relatively harmless cult leader.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

I agree, but if you're going to pull your punches on a dictator and mass murderer, I think it's odd to go hard on a relatively harmless cult leader.

I disagree that he was relatively harmless, but I do agree they shouldn't soft pedal on more egregious corpses.

Bad people don't become decent by dying. Obits should be truthful.

 

[mala]

Bad people don't become decent by dying. Obits should be truthful.

it's usually the most decent thing they can do.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Has anyone here actually looked themselves at the deceased? (I'm not talking literally look at a body, but I rather I mean read words, see deeds, etc)

 

[wing2000]

To give a bit of background, the President of the Mormon Church, Thomas Monson, died last week. There were a number of nice obituaries in the national press, but the NY Times started theirs off, "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." Some also compared how people like Fidel Castro, Hugh Hefner, and even Charles Manson got nicer obituaries from the NY Times.

I thought it was interesting that the Times did that and didn't care for it and thought about posting about it here. However, what finally made me decide it was an article in The Federalist, that ends, "That fact is what the Times apparently finds most troubling and worthy of their contempt, so much so that they took the opportunity of Monson’s obituary to smear not just the Mormon president and prophet, but also all Americans of faith. For that reason, the Times should be held to account not just by the millions of Mormons in America, but other religious Americans as well."

I'm curious what people here feel about the obituary. Was it fair, merely reacting to key issues that Pres. Monson dealt with during his time leading the Mormon Church? Or, is it more of an attack (similar to what The Federalist is saying) on churches in general (who are largely against same-sex marriage and split on female clergy)?

Also, does this change your opinion of the NY Times?

I agree with you.

It changes my opinion of the NYT Obituary Editor...

 

[Ironhold]

It was some years ago that an editor at the NYT publicly declared that in his eyes, when it came to certain social and political issues, the battle was "over" and his side had won. As a consequence, he didn't feel any need to give time to anyone who disagreed with him.

The minute that happened, it became clear that the NYT no longer deserved the accolades it had won over the years. The various scandals over the last decade-plus, like the Jayson Blair scandal, have confirmed this. Basically, the NYT barely qualifies as birdcage liner at this point.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I agree with you.

It changes my opinion of the NYT Obituary Editor...

Oh, after receiving over 160,000+ signatures to have the article revised and people point out the comparisons to other obits-- such as Castro, the creator of Playboy, and Cardinal Law (the guy who covered up the RCC priest scandal), the NYT obit editor wrote another article on (essentially) "why we're right and not going to listen to you all". It was actually much worse than the original obit with blatant falsehoods.

My conclusion *rolls eyes* Talk about a trash paper.

 

[Belk]

It was some years ago that an editor at the NYT publicly declared that in his eyes, when it came to certain social and political issues, the battle was "over" and his side had won. As a consequence, he didn't feel any need to give time to anyone who disagreed with him.

The minute that happened, it became clear that the NYT no longer deserved the accolades it had won over the years. The various scandals over the last decade-plus, like the Jayson Blair scandal, have confirmed this. Basically, the NYT barely qualifies as birdcage liner at this point.

Do you have a quote?

 

[Ironhold]

Do you have a quote?

This 'Kellerism' term is catching on, methinks

The Boston Globe veers into the doctrines of 'Kellerism'

It was former editor Bill Keller.

The second link is their original quote of his statements, while the first link is a more recent discussion of the matter that's hosted on the server the site transferred to.

 

[Belk]

This 'Kellerism' term is catching on, methinks

The Boston Globe veers into the doctrines of 'Kellerism'

It was former editor Bill Keller.

The second link is their original quote of his statements, while the first link is a more recent discussion of the matter that's hosted on the server the site transferred to.

Thank you. At a first glance I don't think their premise is supported by the statement he made but I'll look at it closer when i get a chance.