Reader comments
Mormon Media Monitor: Time to grade LDS coverage
120 comments | Read story
Dr. Dean L Thomson | 7:45 a.m. Dec. 31, 2007
Some of these authors who excel in Yellow Journalism have certainly vindicated
Rush Limbaugh's label of "Drive By Media". It causes one to
doubt the veracity of even their day-to-day reporting.
Ken Baguley | 9:10 a.m. Dec. 31, 2007
Fair and balanced reporting would include the correct meaning of the the word
MORMON=More Good.
SFC RET DENNIS | 9:11 a.m. Dec. 31, 2007
A long time ago I leaned that you can not trust what a reporter has to say. It
seams that all the news people care about is what will sale their paper or who
will watch their new brodcast. It like they don't care about truth
anymore, and this is a said state of afairs.
Comments continue below
Jeremy | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 31, 2007
"I've been critical of reporters who depend solely on sources outside
the LDS Church for information. I believe good reporters will not allow others
to define LDS beliefs but instead go to genuine, believing church
members."
I wonder if Mr. Campbell applies this same logic to stories that appear about the FLDS church, its leaders and practices.
News isn't about finding out how biased parties think of their own religion. It is about getting actual facts about how that religion affects a candidate or the issues in the presidential campaign in the stories linked here. I care a lot less about fair coverage for the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints than I do about an accurate story that accurately portrays the affect of the church on the election.
Quit whining and get back to the business of providing useful news instead of propaganda for the church.
I wonder if Mr. Campbell applies this same logic to stories that appear about the FLDS church, its leaders and practices.
News isn't about finding out how biased parties think of their own religion. It is about getting actual facts about how that religion affects a candidate or the issues in the presidential campaign in the stories linked here. I care a lot less about fair coverage for the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints than I do about an accurate story that accurately portrays the affect of the church on the election.
Quit whining and get back to the business of providing useful news instead of propaganda for the church.
Biased Grading | 12:54 p.m. Dec. 31, 2007
A teacher's grading says a lot about that teacher's integrity and
character.
I generally think that this is a good article except for some of the explanations of why he graded some of the media as he did.
I generally think that this is a good article except for some of the explanations of why he graded some of the media as he did.
Kevin Black | 1:06 p.m. Dec. 31, 2007
Mr. Campbell,
I would also suggest for your course two recent N.Y. Times editorials commenting on Romney's "Faith in America" speech. Coming from a prize-winning editorialist, Maureen Dowd's article is remarkable in that she admits to getting most of her information from a single, biased and non-expert source (Jon Krakauer). By contrast, David Brooks's editorial, though also critical of Romney, was at least balanced in its sources, and I think it represents good journalism.
I would also suggest for your course two recent N.Y. Times editorials commenting on Romney's "Faith in America" speech. Coming from a prize-winning editorialist, Maureen Dowd's article is remarkable in that she admits to getting most of her information from a single, biased and non-expert source (Jon Krakauer). By contrast, David Brooks's editorial, though also critical of Romney, was at least balanced in its sources, and I think it represents good journalism.
Ed Clinch | 1:25 p.m. Dec. 31, 2007
It's hard to be objective when it comes to these matters.
I have noticed that even our apostles argue differently than some of the people in the political world.
It makes for tough calls all the way around.
I am glad we are an officially neutral church when it comes to politics.
Thanks for giving us this review. I find it worthwhile and insightful.
LDS Member, Baptized 1978
I have noticed that even our apostles argue differently than some of the people in the political world.
It makes for tough calls all the way around.
I am glad we are an officially neutral church when it comes to politics.
Thanks for giving us this review. I find it worthwhile and insightful.
LDS Member, Baptized 1978
RB Scott | 9:39 a.m. Jan. 1, 2008
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Brigham Young University's journalism department is certainly entitled, if not obliged, to assess news media coverage of its sponsoring organization-- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One would expect these periodic reviews to be as comprehensive as they are thorough and thoughtful.
Your introductory piece overlooked a number of important reports -- in the "New York Times," "Boston Globe," "Washington Post" and "LA Times, " publications that heavily influence the reportage of other journalists. Moreover, it missed the point that "Editor & Publisher's" misbegotten interview with cartoonist Steve Benson was a rather shameless example of a trade rag attempting to manufacture real news by deliberately provoking a controversy. It would have been informative to read E&P's official explanation for such irresponsible and unprofessional tactics.
RB Scott
Boston, MA.
Brigham Young University's journalism department is certainly entitled, if not obliged, to assess news media coverage of its sponsoring organization-- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One would expect these periodic reviews to be as comprehensive as they are thorough and thoughtful.
Your introductory piece overlooked a number of important reports -- in the "New York Times," "Boston Globe," "Washington Post" and "LA Times, " publications that heavily influence the reportage of other journalists. Moreover, it missed the point that "Editor & Publisher's" misbegotten interview with cartoonist Steve Benson was a rather shameless example of a trade rag attempting to manufacture real news by deliberately provoking a controversy. It would have been informative to read E&P's official explanation for such irresponsible and unprofessional tactics.
RB Scott
Boston, MA.
Kristin | 6:45 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Thank you for an interesting article. It was refreshing to read something
actually put in print, a "grade" for the "drive-by media".
I become more disgusted with the reporting that is done - not particularly to
impart truth but to color the issue - both in print and television/radio
reporting. Thank goodness for talk radio which lends some credibility to
reporting the issue you have raised as well as news in general.
Wilma Aebischer | 8:44 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
I enjoyed your article. I guess us Modern Day members of the church will have
our testimonies strengthened. My ancestors, gave their all for the gospel,
including crossing the plains, burying their dead on the plains. Helping the
Handcart Companies on their last leg into Utah. I have lived away from the
center of the Church all my life. Regardless of what other people think, the
Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored, and with this sinful world, they just
don't want to understand it. Good luck to any member of the Church who
will put themselves through the trials of running for public office.
Alf O'Mega | 9:00 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
"Several academic articles available on the Web at the Neal A. Maxwell
Center for Religious Scholarship at BYU explore this issue and give evidence of
pre-Columbian horses."
This evidence ranges from extremely weak to spurious. It is certainly insufficient to overturn the scientific consensus that pre-Columbian horses were absent in the Americas after about the end of the last ice age. I don't think citing the Maxwell Center's scholarship on this subject would be doing the LDS Church any favors.
This evidence ranges from extremely weak to spurious. It is certainly insufficient to overturn the scientific consensus that pre-Columbian horses were absent in the Americas after about the end of the last ice age. I don't think citing the Maxwell Center's scholarship on this subject would be doing the LDS Church any favors.
David Wardell | 9:02 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Most articles and editorials published in The Economist appear without bylines. You might want to consider rewording future references to uncredited material appearing there, as this does not carry the same negative implications it would in other major publications.
Most articles and editorials published in The Economist appear without bylines. You might want to consider rewording future references to uncredited material appearing there, as this does not carry the same negative implications it would in other major publications.
JMR | 9:08 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
dennyG-
1. Mr. Campbell's point had nothing to do with what the reporters saw.
2. Reporters aren't supposed to write about what they feel. That's bad journalism all around.
3. Research - the whole point of the article was that many reporters either didn't research, or didn't research well.
4. Truth - there are many sides to truth. Mr. Campbell just pointed out the multi-faceted stories of some reporters, and one-sidedness of others. It's a fair argument.
BTW, is this story "fresh" because of its content, or because of its origin? If a professor from the U wrote the exact same article, would you stand by your guns?
1. Mr. Campbell's point had nothing to do with what the reporters saw.
2. Reporters aren't supposed to write about what they feel. That's bad journalism all around.
3. Research - the whole point of the article was that many reporters either didn't research, or didn't research well.
4. Truth - there are many sides to truth. Mr. Campbell just pointed out the multi-faceted stories of some reporters, and one-sidedness of others. It's a fair argument.
BTW, is this story "fresh" because of its content, or because of its origin? If a professor from the U wrote the exact same article, would you stand by your guns?
Mike Johnson Fallon, NV | 10:13 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Dr. Campbell, I appreciate your grading system. It is understandable that those
who rely on sources that if exclusively used by a reporter would warrant an
"F" in your grading system would not be happy about it. A similar
grading system could apply to any religion--Catholic, Evangelical Christian,
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. When one relies only on ideological opponents of
a faith as the source of knowledge about the faith, one should be criticized for
being biased. The truth is that they probably don't know that they are
biased.
I love how anti-mormons, based on incredulous stories by people who persecuted the early church and also based on cherry picked statements out of the Journal of Discourses, without understanding what that is or the context of the statements, but decide that it is the doctrine of the church, which it never has been, present a very distorted view of what the members of the church believe. The Journal of Discourses is a compilation of thousands of public talks designed to encourage and motivate and occaisionally reveals notions peculiar to the time, but never presented as doctrine. Most Mormons are not familiar with them, because they have never been so taught.
I love how anti-mormons, based on incredulous stories by people who persecuted the early church and also based on cherry picked statements out of the Journal of Discourses, without understanding what that is or the context of the statements, but decide that it is the doctrine of the church, which it never has been, present a very distorted view of what the members of the church believe. The Journal of Discourses is a compilation of thousands of public talks designed to encourage and motivate and occaisionally reveals notions peculiar to the time, but never presented as doctrine. Most Mormons are not familiar with them, because they have never been so taught.
I agree with the above | 11:21 a.m. Jan. 2, 2008
By Mike Johnson. But I would like to point out that although the "Journal
of Discourses" is not what most people believe now; it is what the people
believed then! The LDS church and it's beliefs very much comes from these
past beliefs. I agree that the strange things people used to believe needs
re-evaluated (very much so). But it should not be denied that this is where
your church came from! Instead of denying it you should be moving forward and
saying "this was a mistake....let's fix it and move on.
to I agree 11:21 am | 12:14 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
The Journal of Discourse has never been taught as church doctrine. for you to
imply such and that the church denies this is false. Just because someone
believes something doesn't make it church doctrine or true.
Both sides distort the truth... | 12:49 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Yes, we as Mormons do get grossly unfair press treatment, including much that is
just not true. But to be fair, the LDS church is a propoganda machine that
certainly is adept at spinning things in its favor. Most LDS folks simply do
not know the real unsavory parts of their history, because it is simply not
discussed, anywhere, in official Mormon histories, yet it constitutes a large
swath of the history. Many people outside the LDS church know this history, and
are repelled by it, which translates to a mistrust of LDS people today. This is
the "elephant in the living room" which is seldom discussed by the
church or it's spokesman. To overcome the biases against the Church, the
Church needs to come clean and actually talk, in depth, about its history.
Maybe now, during a political campaign is not the right time to do this. But it
needs to be done. There are many out there, like myself, who WANT to believe,
but can find NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION of the weird stuff that went on in the
early days. Whenever we ask questions we get nothing, or gobledigup answers.
We need much more.
Some do teach it | 12:58 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
I was a member of the LDS church for 40 years and heard a variey of beliefs
which has now been "taken back" (of sorts). People get confused about
what you really believe because there's a large variety of people within
your church who don't know for sure what to believe! Of course, you can
find the talks and the advice now, but the "old timers" have a hard
time sometimes. These teachings that are not doctrine and are obviously not
true need to be gone through one by one and officially declared fallible by the
church leaders. They even need taken out of your scriptures (such as section
132 of your D & C).
MikeW | 1:26 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
I agree with [Both sides distort the truth... | 12:49 p.m.]. To me, there
should be some economy to the truth. My LDS ancestors were asked to believe in
and do things that I don't have to believe or do now. Where is the truth
in all this? The trouble is that Church doctrines and practices affect
people's lives and decisions. When those doctrines change, it makes you
wonder why *God* made you do something for so long when apparently it
didn't matter.
Focus on our own actions | 2:01 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
I also believe we as latter-day-saints need to be accurate describing other
faiths and their beliefs. Some of us describe a Catholic belief as "commit
any sin as long as you confess it later," or a Protestant belief as
"be saved, and then it doesn't matter what you do." This implies
that other Christians don't care at all about keeping the commandments. As
I understand the Protestant belief, as you sincerely accept Christ into your
life, you feel His love and naturally have a desire to serve Him and keep His
commandments. The vast majority of Protestants live wholesome lives, and the
hecklers at conference and temple dedications are not indicative of the
Christian community in general. If a member of a Protestant faith would like to
correct me or provide their own description of their faith, please do so. Of
course, there are doctrinal differences, but let's focus on our own need to
be accurate if we try to portray other beliefs.
stop pulling my leg | 2:51 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
�So isn't 117 years since polygamy was renounced long
enough for copy editors to stop putting it in
headlines?�
Well, it might be if if such a thing really happened 117 years ago. But the Manifesto was not a renounciation of polgyamy. It was merely a public announcement that �mainstream� Mormonism would no longer publically sanction polgyamy in the United States. It continued to secretly perform new polygamous marriages in the US until about 1904. It publically sanctioned new polygamous marriages outside of the US after the Manifesto. Only after the second Manifesto in 1904, in the wake of the Reed Smoot hearings, did the church make any attempt to end new polgymous marraiges. 1904 was less than 117 years ago.
Well, it might be if if such a thing really happened 117 years ago. But the Manifesto was not a renounciation of polgyamy. It was merely a public announcement that �mainstream� Mormonism would no longer publically sanction polgyamy in the United States. It continued to secretly perform new polygamous marriages in the US until about 1904. It publically sanctioned new polygamous marriages outside of the US after the Manifesto. Only after the second Manifesto in 1904, in the wake of the Reed Smoot hearings, did the church make any attempt to end new polgymous marraiges. 1904 was less than 117 years ago.
stop pulling my leg II | 2:53 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Polygmists whose marriages were entered into before that date were allowed by
the church to contitue to cohabit. A noteable example, as documented by his
namesake and grandson, was Edward Kimball, father-in-law of Spencer W. Kimball
and grandfather of current Mormon apostle Henry B. Eyring. The elder Kimball
continued to live with his two wives and hold a temple reccomend until the first
of his wives to pass away died in the 1950s. The 1950s were not 117 years
ago.
Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants remains �mainstream� LDS scripture. From the time of its first publication until the second half of the 20th century, it was preceded with a statement that it was �a revelation regarding plural marriage.� The second half of the 20th century was not 117 years ago.
Polgyamy is not as far in the LDS church�s past as Joel Campbell, LDS PR and Mitt Romney would have us believe.
Campbell�s grade for reporting on Mormonism and polygamy: F
Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants remains �mainstream� LDS scripture. From the time of its first publication until the second half of the 20th century, it was preceded with a statement that it was �a revelation regarding plural marriage.� The second half of the 20th century was not 117 years ago.
Polgyamy is not as far in the LDS church�s past as Joel Campbell, LDS PR and Mitt Romney would have us believe.
Campbell�s grade for reporting on Mormonism and polygamy: F
RLB | 3:03 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
I cannot help but wonder at the inconsistency of men who honor the laws of
the polygamist Moses, bask in the wisdom of the polygamist Solomon, sing the
songs of the polygamist David, and pray to enter the city wherein are written
the names of the twelve polygamist sons of the polygamist Jacob, and seek to go
to the bosom of the polygamist Abraham, and then curse Brigham Young for his
polygamy. (Author Unknown)
Polygamy was/is | 3:44 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
A LIFESTYLE. It was never a commandment of God! The results of it have never
been good from the early scriptures. Just look at all the problems the men in
the scriptures that CHOSE to practice this endured. I read something about
Joseph Smith starting to regret it right before he was killed (not sure if
it's true or not). But regardless it has always caused problems. There
will always be people interpreting it as having been "commanded"....so
ok for you. Whatever you believe, always remember the problems it has caused
in the past and right now. Always remember that the leader of the LDS church
was killed, in part, for this belief. And lastly, remember that the leader of
the FLDS church is currently in prison (not for this directly, but because of
the law breaking it causes).
It was not and will never be o.k with most people.
It was not and will never be o.k with most people.
Did all the above men above | 4:05 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Have good experiences with it? (Or disasterous ones?) Did all the men consider
it a "commandment" or a just a lifesytle? Did the pioneers
"have" to practice it? (Did other pioneers practice it?) What was the
reason that Utah could not become a state for so long? And finally, does our
Utah state have a good experience with it now?
hht | 4:07 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Nice work Joel Campbell. I don't read all those papers but read Dallas
Morning News for years and realize their bias against Latter Day Saints. Thank
you for helping me be informed about what is being written everywhere. I depend
on good reporters like you.
Point Taken | 4:18 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Interesting article on the media, and reporting, in regards to the LDS
church.
It is amusing how many of the posters have strayed from the actual topic, and taken many of the points out of context. This seems to be the exact point of the article, well done Mr. Campbell.
It is amusing how many of the posters have strayed from the actual topic, and taken many of the points out of context. This seems to be the exact point of the article, well done Mr. Campbell.
Back to the topic | 7:57 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Reading media coverage, watching these blogs --- several 'constants'
always show up:
1--Most writers, including the LDS-negative bloggers, clearly hold LDS to higher standards than other humans, and loudly proclaim their observation of perceived imperfections, especially in leaders.
2--They don't understand that it's the gospel that's perfect; the members are sinners still working on living it. (Or not, since they are exposed to worldly distractions like other mortals.)
3--Somehow they think they've been told that prophets/apostles/BYU professors are puppets that God controls, never allows to make mistakes. That's never been claimed by real prophets; only quotes out of context lead to such a belief.
4--The biggest fallacy is measuring the church by their world's standard, or science, or the dominant religions, because of...
5--...The Biggie: wanting to see the Church as just another man-made creation, like the churches people otherwise know, and drag the discussion down to a political level. Even calling it "MormonISM" (rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ) is a common giveaway.
6--The proud "Exes" just wanted to stop living chastity, tithing, etc, and found an excuse.
Easy solution: Read historian R. Davis Bitton's cool article "I Don't Have a Testimony of Church History." It's easily Googleable.
1--Most writers, including the LDS-negative bloggers, clearly hold LDS to higher standards than other humans, and loudly proclaim their observation of perceived imperfections, especially in leaders.
2--They don't understand that it's the gospel that's perfect; the members are sinners still working on living it. (Or not, since they are exposed to worldly distractions like other mortals.)
3--Somehow they think they've been told that prophets/apostles/BYU professors are puppets that God controls, never allows to make mistakes. That's never been claimed by real prophets; only quotes out of context lead to such a belief.
4--The biggest fallacy is measuring the church by their world's standard, or science, or the dominant religions, because of...
5--...The Biggie: wanting to see the Church as just another man-made creation, like the churches people otherwise know, and drag the discussion down to a political level. Even calling it "MormonISM" (rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ) is a common giveaway.
6--The proud "Exes" just wanted to stop living chastity, tithing, etc, and found an excuse.
Easy solution: Read historian R. Davis Bitton's cool article "I Don't Have a Testimony of Church History." It's easily Googleable.
Carol Hess | 8:12 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
As a Mormon, I hardly recognize some of the descriptions of our church.
Can't we be the ones to describe our articles of belief instead of the
disgruntled X? Every church as some practices and/or rituals that would sound
weird to those of another faith just for the very fact that they are unfamiliar.
Let's hope that we have made progress since 1960, when JFK had to defend
his religion to run for President. If you knew, what I know about the Mormon
church, you would be so proud of all that this church does in humanitarian
causes around the globe, the good it does in supporting families and faith, the
good it does in establishing sound values in communities, and the good it does
in making me & 13 million better persons. All we ask is fairness. We will
stand up for what we believe, if it can just be somewhat accurate. We are the
furtherist thing from a "cult" that I can imagine, and we certainly do
not believe that Jesus and Satan are literal brothers. They are brothers only
in the sense that God is the father of all our spirits. Thanks for your
consideration.
russ | 8:21 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
As neither a Mormon nor a Baptist, I have to say this: you two groups are
awfully lot alike. Both of you are sure that you have all of God's
attention, are sure that only you are the chosen ones, and if you are rich, or
have shelter and food, are sure that God has blessed you alone. I wonder who is
going to represent the rest of humanity living within the US if you get elected?
You know, the other ... 85-90% of us? We are a political nation, not a
theocracy. Leave that to the Iranians. Let's leave America in the hands
of... the people. The White House is not a temple, nor a church, nor a
synagogue, nor a mosque. It is the political center of the greatest nation on
this earth. Do you think we could leave it that way for a while, and not follow
Iran's lead?
Let's go political in this political race... worth a try.........
Let's go political in this political race... worth a try.........
Man Made Practice | 9:46 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
THE EVIL DESIGNS OF MEN:
Polygamy is not for a normal man. It is not a practice given to any man by God... No way in H--L! It is though, a practice given to oneself to become a potentcial monkey in the RANGATANGE world. Not a Godly practice.
Polygamy is not for a normal man. It is not a practice given to any man by God... No way in H--L! It is though, a practice given to oneself to become a potentcial monkey in the RANGATANGE world. Not a Godly practice.
A Latter-Day Saint | 10:18 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
I'm an LDS film graduate, "kid" at 33years old. - I'd just
like to state for any reader that I. anyone who practices a faith based on the
Bible, also must acknowledge that THEIR church at one time practiced
"polygamy". II. My middle name happens to be "Christian"
and I've been outright shocked at how frequently I've heard from
viable sources "blog heads" at the New York Times and weird people out
there who somehow imagine that members of "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of
Latter-Day Saints" is not a "Christian" church. - The same Jesus
Christ who was crucified and who resurrected and who our calendar system is
based on lives today and stands at the head of his church. To say that his own
church is not Christian is to say that this writing has not come from the
author. Learn more and I agree with the article - go to the source - . Being a
film graduate there's a lot more I could say about a lot of things but I
appreciated the article. Thank you for writing it.
If you "hardly recognize" | 10:21 p.m. Jan. 2, 2008
Some descriptions, might I suggest finding out! I haven't seen anyone deny
the good things that the LDS church does around the world....this is not in
question. I have seen valid points made that need to be explored so that they
can be solved. It never does any good to put one's head in the sand!
Be happy and do the good you are taught. But also be realistic and learn the things you do not know and help change them. Unfortunately, they are "true" too.
Be happy and do the good you are taught. But also be realistic and learn the things you do not know and help change them. Unfortunately, they are "true" too.
What I find very intresting | 1:07 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
is that in our society, it is normal and widely accepted for a man (or woman) to
live with or marry someone, have children, leave them and live with or marry
someone else, leave them and sleep with unknown numbers of people having
children with more than one and having little to do with any. On the other hand,
EVERYONE shouts and shudders when they hear of a man like Joseph Smith having
more than one wife at a time and supporting and caring for all of his wives and
children (not to mention numerous other people) Who is worse? Is it just bad to
have more than one wife if you are married to them at the same time but alright
to be married to several in succession, or not married to any of them at all?
Not that I am in favor of polygamy, just wanted to put that thought out there.
Not that I am in favor of polygamy, just wanted to put that thought out there.
Section 132 | 1:29 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
The beginning of verse 1 says: "VERILY, thus saith the Lord".
I suppose there are some that believe that polygamy was a revelation from the Lord and than there are others that don't believe it.
And than again, there are other revelations in the D&C or other documents that people believe or don't believe. i.e. did John the Baptist; Peter James and John, Moses, Elijah, and other great prophets really restore an assortment of priesthood keys; how about the Word of Wisdom? Is abortion or is the gay life style acceptable? How about the Book of Mormon, irrespective of the horses or for that matter, the DNA just doesn't match.
But in the end, we all have the Free Agency to pick and choose which revelation maybe true, or maybe what we believe maybe true, or maybe they are all really false-hoods. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here-a-little, there-a-little.
I suppose there are some that believe that polygamy was a revelation from the Lord and than there are others that don't believe it.
And than again, there are other revelations in the D&C or other documents that people believe or don't believe. i.e. did John the Baptist; Peter James and John, Moses, Elijah, and other great prophets really restore an assortment of priesthood keys; how about the Word of Wisdom? Is abortion or is the gay life style acceptable? How about the Book of Mormon, irrespective of the horses or for that matter, the DNA just doesn't match.
But in the end, we all have the Free Agency to pick and choose which revelation maybe true, or maybe what we believe maybe true, or maybe they are all really false-hoods. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here-a-little, there-a-little.
To Jeremy | 4:59 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
Who is whining? This article merely states that we should go to the original
sources for accuracy. I would expect that of any reporter or even you.
Jeff | 6:01 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
To the poster that claims �Mormon[s] �
are sure that [they] have all of God's attention, �
that only [they] are the chosen ones, � that God has
blessed [them] alone�:
I�m sorry you feel this way. Do you happen to know any Latter-day Saints? I suppose there might be some that feel this way, but it�s in direct opposition to everything the Church has ever taught. It might do some good to have a frank conversation with a local member of the Church of Jesus Christ.
�Let's leave America in the hands of... the people. The White House is � the political center of the greatest nation on this earth. Do you think we could leave it that way for a while�?�
This is exactly why I�m voting for Mitt Romney. His track record as governor shows that he�s willing to put the will of the people above his own desires while still maintaining sound principles (and encouraging others to make correct decisions based thereon). I say this not just because I�m a Latter-day Saint�I voted against the LDS candidate in the last Senatorial election�but as someone that wants what�s best for this great country.
I�m sorry you feel this way. Do you happen to know any Latter-day Saints? I suppose there might be some that feel this way, but it�s in direct opposition to everything the Church has ever taught. It might do some good to have a frank conversation with a local member of the Church of Jesus Christ.
�Let's leave America in the hands of... the people. The White House is � the political center of the greatest nation on this earth. Do you think we could leave it that way for a while�?�
This is exactly why I�m voting for Mitt Romney. His track record as governor shows that he�s willing to put the will of the people above his own desires while still maintaining sound principles (and encouraging others to make correct decisions based thereon). I say this not just because I�m a Latter-day Saint�I voted against the LDS candidate in the last Senatorial election�but as someone that wants what�s best for this great country.
Ex Mo in New England | 6:31 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
It seems to me that if your church was truly overseen by a prophet, God would
tell him what is right and what is wrong. Polygamy is a good example of
something that is one or the other, not both based on "timing." As
for the comment that Ex Mo's are looking for an excuse to live unchaste
lives, nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us want to find a
reason to trust all of the nonsense we were taught by our "inspired"
leaders. We found none....
DaveN | 6:56 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
The writer said...
"I've been critical of reporters who depend solely on sources outside the LDS Church for information. I believe good reporters will not allow others to define LDS beliefs but instead go to genuine, believing church members."
So, in other words, if you use only outside sources, that's bad, but if you use only inside sources, that's an "A"? What about some balance? I think grade-A journalism would include sources from both inside AND outside.
As far as bringing up 117-year-old polygamy...
It was part of the beginnings of the church. It actually happened. It's unusual and therefore interesting. It will never go away as part of the church story. Get used to it.
"I've been critical of reporters who depend solely on sources outside the LDS Church for information. I believe good reporters will not allow others to define LDS beliefs but instead go to genuine, believing church members."
So, in other words, if you use only outside sources, that's bad, but if you use only inside sources, that's an "A"? What about some balance? I think grade-A journalism would include sources from both inside AND outside.
As far as bringing up 117-year-old polygamy...
It was part of the beginnings of the church. It actually happened. It's unusual and therefore interesting. It will never go away as part of the church story. Get used to it.
Learned | 8:08 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
"I also believe we as latter-day-saints need to be accurate describing
other faiths and their beliefs."
But half of you don't even know what you believe.
I was a Mormon, and when I found out what I "believed", I was outta there.
"Focus on our own actions", your comments on other religions are completely wrong, and you KNOW it is completely wrong! You said so yourself! If that is the case, you would research it! When you research a religion, you research both sides. You don't just ask members of that church. They are advertising!
But half of you don't even know what you believe.
I was a Mormon, and when I found out what I "believed", I was outta there.
"Focus on our own actions", your comments on other religions are completely wrong, and you KNOW it is completely wrong! You said so yourself! If that is the case, you would research it! When you research a religion, you research both sides. You don't just ask members of that church. They are advertising!
JeffO | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
I just want to point out that Polygamy was not illegal in the United States when
the LDS Church started practicing it. It was made illegal in the late 19th
century and it took some time to stop the practice of it (it is not something
you can just stop...you create a lot of single mothers if you just throw all of
the men practicing it into jail).
For those of you who give no thought to the subject and think that the men of the early church were just sex addicts, go and read some first hand accounts. This was not an easy thing to accept. But maybe, just maybe, there was an underlying reason that they did it. Seek to understand why they did so and to understand why so many people believe that it was a commandment. You don't have to believe it but at least do yourself the favor of giving it some real thought and honest effort. Church history is much more complicated than a soundbite about polygamy.
All in all, there is much more to the LDS Church than polygamy and to make it a headline shows bias. Period.
For those of you who give no thought to the subject and think that the men of the early church were just sex addicts, go and read some first hand accounts. This was not an easy thing to accept. But maybe, just maybe, there was an underlying reason that they did it. Seek to understand why they did so and to understand why so many people believe that it was a commandment. You don't have to believe it but at least do yourself the favor of giving it some real thought and honest effort. Church history is much more complicated than a soundbite about polygamy.
All in all, there is much more to the LDS Church than polygamy and to make it a headline shows bias. Period.
JeffO | 8:31 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
Learned,
And the other half know exactly what we believe and we still believe it. And most of that other half is also "learned". I know several doctors, lawyers, college professors, engineers, etc, people with advanced degrees that know it and believe it. And that is just in the small midwestern town that I live in.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that the church hides its doctrine. The Church encourages reading and studying (with an emphasis on scripture) but also there is a huge focus on worldly learning.
And the other half know exactly what we believe and we still believe it. And most of that other half is also "learned". I know several doctors, lawyers, college professors, engineers, etc, people with advanced degrees that know it and believe it. And that is just in the small midwestern town that I live in.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that the church hides its doctrine. The Church encourages reading and studying (with an emphasis on scripture) but also there is a huge focus on worldly learning.
Learned | 8:57 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
Maybe that is true. I never said that the church "hides" its
doctrine.
I found it didn't I? I am nothing special. I just wanted to know everything I could about the church.
It seemed kind of nutty to me so I left.
If you are like my dad however, you KNOW, and you just ignore it.
I found it didn't I? I am nothing special. I just wanted to know everything I could about the church.
It seemed kind of nutty to me so I left.
If you are like my dad however, you KNOW, and you just ignore it.
john gilmore | 9:03 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
there is no more a bias against the LDS church than there is or would be against
any new religion of comparable size. religions don't like new religions.
Catholics didnt like the protestants, protestants don't like mormons, JWs
are generally viewed as somewhat "cultish" -
- its not like a mormon, a protestant, and a catholic cant get along or be great friends- its just that as a large society the earlier religions have this pattern of fearing the new ones. I'm pretty sure the Jews didn't like pauls new religion much...i know the mainstream early christians weren't too fond of the gnostics, etc.
its easy for mormons to feel that they are enduring a disproportional amount of discrimination, but the funny thing is that the baptists think the same thing. I've heard the exact same lines in a southern baptist and mormon pew: "God's truth will always be at odds with the world." its persecution mania, and the believer tends to use it as evidence of truth.
if ultimate bias translates to ultimate truth, then i guess I have it right as an atheist, the least likely of all the mentioned groups to be elected president.
- its not like a mormon, a protestant, and a catholic cant get along or be great friends- its just that as a large society the earlier religions have this pattern of fearing the new ones. I'm pretty sure the Jews didn't like pauls new religion much...i know the mainstream early christians weren't too fond of the gnostics, etc.
its easy for mormons to feel that they are enduring a disproportional amount of discrimination, but the funny thing is that the baptists think the same thing. I've heard the exact same lines in a southern baptist and mormon pew: "God's truth will always be at odds with the world." its persecution mania, and the believer tends to use it as evidence of truth.
if ultimate bias translates to ultimate truth, then i guess I have it right as an atheist, the least likely of all the mentioned groups to be elected president.
Ex Mo in New England | 9:04 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
"but also there is a huge focus on worldly learning." Yep, as long as
the learner is not female. She is home having babies, cooking, baking, doing
laundry and driving the eleven children to their various functions at the
church.
john gilmore | 9:08 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
Jeffo-
the church encourages this to the extent that it leads to stronger convictions of the truth of the church. if someone tries to really bring a closet-skeleton to life he or she is likely to get excommunicated.
the church encourages this to the extent that it leads to stronger convictions of the truth of the church. if someone tries to really bring a closet-skeleton to life he or she is likely to get excommunicated.
Polygamy is nobler than Promiscu | 9:24 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
Genesis, Chapter 16 Abraham was a polygamist (Sarai and Hagar). Let's see
Abraham is considered by Jews and Muslims to be the father of their nations (a
polygamist). Is he not revered by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as a holy man
and prophet? Yes, he is.
So...The early religious founder of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims was a polygamist and so was the early religious founder of the Mormon faith. Big deal.
Muslims still practice polygamy when wars create widows and orphans and in certain locations like Africa where the gender ratio is not even close to 50:50. Hindus like Christians have called the practice primitive and stopped its support. Most Jews do not practice polygamy; however, it is still permitted in the non-European tradition. Mormons were forced by law to stop practicing polygamy by the United States and Mormons believe in being subject to the laws of the land.
So what? Why is everyone so uptight about polygamy and not multiple premarital/extramarital sexual relations? Polygamy is nobler than Promiscuity, not that I support either. But, if I had to evaluate them on their merits...let's face it.
So...The early religious founder of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims was a polygamist and so was the early religious founder of the Mormon faith. Big deal.
Muslims still practice polygamy when wars create widows and orphans and in certain locations like Africa where the gender ratio is not even close to 50:50. Hindus like Christians have called the practice primitive and stopped its support. Most Jews do not practice polygamy; however, it is still permitted in the non-European tradition. Mormons were forced by law to stop practicing polygamy by the United States and Mormons believe in being subject to the laws of the land.
So what? Why is everyone so uptight about polygamy and not multiple premarital/extramarital sexual relations? Polygamy is nobler than Promiscuity, not that I support either. But, if I had to evaluate them on their merits...let's face it.
Ernest T. Bass | 9:29 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
What other explainations are there for the Book of Abraham? Anything else is
just spin...
Early Christian Polygamy | 9:41 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
Saint Augustine wrote to the early Christians that it would be wise to follow
Roman law and give up polygamy. Roman law was one living wife at a time.
Martin Luther performed at least one polygamist marriage for Landgrave Philip of Hesse and wrote to Saxon Chancellor Gregor Br�ck, that he could not forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.
Martin Luther performed at least one polygamist marriage for Landgrave Philip of Hesse and wrote to Saxon Chancellor Gregor Br�ck, that he could not forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.
Carl | 9:45 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008
At least eight of my ancestors (4 men, 4 women -- do the math) lived the law of
plural marriage, all within the law, so I have a family feel for the results.
The men/women in our family took on the extra wives as real wives, providing for them, raising successful families, everyone worked together.
Certainly not what most writers are eager to project from their own value systems -- harems, lust, etc.
The irony in the U.S. back then, was the hypocrisy of legislators who passed laws against marriages by day and went home to their Washington DC mistresses by night.
Whatever you've heard, either in scripture or by fallible mortals, the real doctrine of the LDS Church is expressed clearly (it's clear IF you study it in context) in Jacob 2:22-35. The Lord values chastity extremely. When he wants his church to form extra families, he commands them to do so, to raise up seed unto Him, otherwise it's forbidden.
Yes, the LDS who obeyed the command were real people and some tampered with the system, and some still do but are outside the Lord's church.
(And "Back to the topic 7:57" was spot on.)
The men/women in our family took on the extra wives as real wives, providing for them, raising successful families, everyone worked together.
Certainly not what most writers are eager to project from their own value systems -- harems, lust, etc.
The irony in the U.S. back then, was the hypocrisy of legislators who passed laws against marriages by day and went home to their Washington DC mistresses by night.
Whatever you've heard, either in scripture or by fallible mortals, the real doctrine of the LDS Church is expressed clearly (it's clear IF you study it in context) in Jacob 2:22-35. The Lord values chastity extremely. When he wants his church to form extra families, he commands them to do so, to raise up seed unto Him, otherwise it's forbidden.
Yes, the LDS who obeyed the command were real people and some tampered with the system, and some still do but are outside the Lord's church.
(And "Back to the topic 7:57" was spot on.)
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Stocks climb after econ reports 11:57 a.m.
- Missionaries talk to Michigan paper 11:49 a.m.
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention 11:45 a.m.
- NBC sale to Comcast cleared 11:14 a.m.
- Palin book goes platinum 11:12 a.m.
- 2 arrested in Roy double slaying 11:09 a.m.
- Women's insurance to get first vote 10:52 a.m.
- Vandeweghe to coach Nets 10:51 a.m.
- Woods' wife asked neighbors to call 10:50 a.m.
- No fractures on Emery's foot 10:07 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
900 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Hall reprimanded by MWC393
- Max Hall issues apology385
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal328
- Utes won't respond to Hall268
- BYU says Hall incident resolved145
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies123
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
There's a chance the BYU Cougars could be without the services of...
Latest comments
This is such an awesome article! Thank you for posting it! It is so uplifting...
As a Ute fan with little money I would like to see the utes go to the vegas...
Social climbers. Why does the media devote so much time and attention to them?
Hey, this isn't Happy Valley. Why don't some people lock their doors?
Comments made by Max are not against the Honor Code so please stop the...
Seal off areas such as the birth canal where people get stuck frequently....
Diving on the floor is how players get injured...why does Sloan think it's so...
A friend of mine, who is a Arizona State Univ. fan. Told me that the fans who...
Mendenhall and Whittingham need to stand up and stop this mess. A friendly...
Human? | 7:36 a.m. YOU say, "I will be watching very closely next year to...
Advertisements