Deseret News | Mormon Media Monitor: Time to grade LDS coverage

Reader comments
Mormon Media Monitor: Time to grade LDS coverage

120 comments | Read story

Ex Mo in New England | 9:53 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

"Polygamy is nobler than Promiscuity"

Close, but should read "Polygamy is Promiscuity by men and sanctioned under the cloak of a priesthood."

Also, let's say I marry, divorce, marry, divorce, and then marry. If, while married, I was true to my wife at the time, am I guilty of being promiscuous?

Canadian Postmo | 9:56 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

I like the Rotary Club Four-Way Test to evaluate the merit of news media coverage and believe these would serve the LDS Church well if they would apply them honestly with real integrity.

Is it the truth?
Is it fair to all concerned?
Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"

Unfortunately, the public perception of LDS Church media coverage from the inside is not trustworthy or fair. Actions speak louder than words and the historical actions of the LDS Church continues to be denied by LDS authorities, covered up, whitewashed, revised and otherwise misrepresented to both members and the rest of the world.

If you want the non-church media to give more honest balanced reporting of the LDS Church, perhaps it's time for the LDS Church itself to do likewise in it's own coverage and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Dalesse | 10:02 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

What an interesting way to look at the national (and international) media coverage of the LDS faith. I hope this will become a regular "report" throughout Mitt's campaign. It helps alert readers to other pieces of media that may or may not be interest to them. I give an "A" grade to this article.

Comments continue below

WhyEvangelicals | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Why the media goes to Evangelicals is because the Mormons don't tell the truth. Recently the Fox News asked some important questions to the Mormon Church to answer. The answers that came from the Church were simple lies - one answer for multiple questions to evade further questions. The Mormon Church does not tell the truth - it is called cover up. Suprisingly, the thoughtful Evangelicals know more about Mormon scriptures than Mormons. Ask a Mormon where it is mentioned about Jesus had three wives. 90% will say they dont know.

Non-LDS view | 10:29 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

We judge the LDS the way we have been raised, for that is what we know. Around my hometowns (4 since childhood) people switched churches just because they liked another pastor or it was nearby or the boss went to church there. For most of us the doctrines were secondary though sometimes churches would split over some detail.
The "Mormons" we knew were nice Christian folks and treated me nice. We learned to understand wards, bishops, and such. We noticed back then and even now here in Utah, that some people expect more of Mormons, though I don't know why. The local papers would mention if a Mormon got a DUI, or got kicked off the football team. It never made sense.

If I understand your claim, it's that God has created (you say 'restored') his perfect church, and that you did not just get together and set up a bunch of rules. IF you are right, we all ought to be grateful you told us, and join in. IF you are wrong, you're just another Christian sect. Someday it will get important to me and I'll look into it.
Best wishes, Jemal Warner

LIVE IT AND LEAVE IT! | 10:34 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Polygamy is not commanded by God or Jesus. It is something some guy thought up to gratify himself with. I come from a polygamy family and there was nothing holy and wonderful about it. Actually it was the worst possible situation a person could ever live in.

to Canadian Postmo | 10:47 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

So, the Rotary Test applies to everyone but you?

Noggin | 11:08 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Your myopic journalistic accounting astounds me. It's far too trusting. Examining your recommended 'good' marks, it appears you would advocate that there be no outside source attempting to "define" what Enron did a few years back, or say... Reagan/ Oliver North's implication in the Iran Contra affairs of the 80's, and so forth. Just trust the original and key players, you say... good grief! Yes, let's let Enron fill us all in with the for reals TRUE details of their goings on. After all, who knows Enron better than Enron execs? How dare we assume that Enron execs could be disingenuous! Certainly you would not dream of doing this... yet you give the LDS church this very pass!

Please, for the sake of better Journalism everywhere, Joel, get your myopic journalistic eyeglass prescription fixed. get a clue.

Ernest T. Bass | 11:10 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

So what is the writer supposed to do about the source of the Book of Abraham?
The source we've been told to believe in is not the actual source. That writer handled that part well. Anything else is just spin.

DAN | 11:34 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

TO Candian POSTMORTEM,

No! it applies to guys like to YOU.

To Stop Pulling My Leg | 11:47 a.m. Jan. 3, 2008

So Spencer W. Kimball's father in law - Edward Kimball was a polygamist - Spencer W. Kimball's father in law's last name was Eyring. At least that is the last name he gave his children.

Thoughtful | 12:18 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

If an article purports to outline what the LDS Church (or any organization) believes, then the LDS church is the only source that needs to be quoted. If someone wants to know what I believe, I am the only person who can tell them, not my neighbor, not my enemy, not my friend. Balance is not an issue.

If an article wants to portray commentary or opinions about what the church teaches then it should be presented as a commentary, not as news, and should include a balance of opinions. Good balance, of course, should include the opinion of the church itself, and the church source should be properly identified. If a person who has a vendetta about the church is quoted, the person should be identified as such.

reliable info on the war? | 12:43 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

How can we trust our media to inform us accurately on ANY topic eg. what is really going on in Iraq, when they cannot even make the simple trek to SLC without falling into all kinds of stupid stereotypes??

Jerry | 12:56 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Obviously If you want to know more about Toyota you should talk to FORD right?????????

DaveN | 1:54 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

To Jerry:
If you were considering a Toyota, would you really just listen only to the Toyota salesman? I would talk to BOTH Toyota AND Ford. And probably a few others while I'm at it. Call me crazy.

To Thoughtful:
This was about journalism, which supposedly includes fact checking, independence and objectivity. What you are proposing (one-sided sources) is called PR or propaganda, not journalism.

Religious institutions have doctrines, scriptures, claims, leaders and a history. These are facts. Journalism requires researching and reporting the facts, not just repeating what you're told.

Ernest T. Bass | 2:12 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Thoughtful: I understand what you're saying but the source in your scenario whitewashes historical fact and ignores important parts of its history. It's not like it is objective, in fact the most accurate description is that the info it provides is false advertising.

Anonymous | 2:15 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

OH NO!
Not another Rush Limbaugh "drive-by media" wacko!
12:43
Don't these people EVER listen to music rather than than their neocon guru?

T-mugg | 2:40 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

DaveN

He never had a problem with the "Ford Salesman" discussing a Toyota, he has a problem that the "Toyota Salesman" was never approached or given a change to rebut the words of the Ford Salesman.
A good journalist won't just talk to church leaders, he'll dig up some dirt AND talk to church leaders.
By the way, what kind of reject asks the ford salesman about a toyota. Ask the ford salesman about the ford and compare it to the toyota yourself. The Ford Salesman is likely to be very ignorant (and even deceptive) about the Toyota.

Ralphie | 2:50 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

"Polygamy is not commanded by God or Jesus. It is something some guy thought up to gratify himself with. I come from a polygamy family and there was nothing holy and wonderful about it. Actually it was the worst possible situation a person could ever live in. "
If you did, you would have been smart enough to say you come from a polygamist family

Amber | 2:52 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

I just have to go on faith that I am living as Jesus Christ has taught me to, by example. We all believe different but that does not mean we do not have the free agency to be different. Why the need to bash any religion or people is beyond me. Let us all choose
to be Christ like in our actions and deeds so that when the day comes to meet him we can say with a clear mind that we have treated others as we want to be treated and as He himself our loving Savior would. Make sure we are not living in a glass house when we choose to throw stones. "As I have loved you love one another" Christs perfect example.

Anonymous | 3:44 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Good grief everyone.... you don't ask the Ford Salesman about Fords... or the Toyota guy about Toyotas. You ask, say, Consumer Reports. You get the low down from whatever third party tester you deem to be the most reliable. If the logic displayed on this forum is any indication of True and Accurate American thinking then we are truly doomed.

Jane | 3:55 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Ralphie,

You are a polygamist it is obvious! BAH!

There is a tribe in Africa where woman practice polygamy and these woman have more than one husband. They have done this ever since biblical times. Pretty cool huh?
There are too many really old guys out there who still live in the past! Sorry guys! no more polygamy. Live the laws!

Anonymous | 4:48 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

The article was good and the biased against the author is running rampant. There is no question that what ever the subject, it is turned into how bad The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints is. It would seem to me that so many out there are not informed on most of the subjects they attempt to show their expertise in. The ones that really amaze me are those who say they have been members of the church for 40 years and yet do not understand its doctrine. They are so sure of themselves they won't add their name to their message. It would appear to me they have a motive that does not line up with the saints. Again it was a great article and more need to be forth coming! Fred Barrett

Why not? | 4:58 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Hey everybody!
I've got a great idea!
Since we're at it, why not offer an explanation as to why black people could not get the priesthood until only 30 years ago?

Post-Mo Oregon | 5:06 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

To Anonymous 4:48pm

"They are so sure of themselves they won't add their name to their message"

And where is your name? This has not become 'how bad the LDS church is'. Those of us who do not agree with the Mormon way of things are the ones trying to stick to the actual topic of this thread. The validity of information conatined in this article.

What are your specific examples of 40 year long members not knowing the doctrine? What is the doctrine according to you? Obviously you claim to be the expert, or you would not be criticizing your fellow "brethren".

Again, if you knew what you were talking about, you would have added your name. Hypocrisy has no place here.

Phil | 5:16 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

After enjoying this article and then after reading a number of the comments by other readers, I think a good way to sum all of this discussion up is to say: "Just be kind and fair in your judgements of others". This holds true for anyone, Mormon or otherwise. This is really the "golden rule" and is all that the author of the article is really asking for in those who report the news. Mormonism, throughout its history, has evoked some very intense opposition from certain people, and to me it just really reveals the true feelings of others towards their neighbors: if a person is judgemental and negative toward Mormons, then they likely have issues that they need to resolve with regards to tending to be quick to condemn and criticize others without taking the time and effort necessary to make a more sound judgement call & this can affect their family & co-worker relationships as well. The same would be true for a Mormon who was judgemental towards a person of another faith. If everyone was more kind and appreciative of others' beliefs, then this world would be a much different place.

ME | 5:21 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

I'm not L D S and I am not going to publish my name here. It is none of your business! There are too many polygamists on here. They steal wives, Do you think I want them coming after my family. This really is a very strange blog. It really give me the heebie-jeebies!!

Winchester | 5:21 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

We actually had a guy here in Washington with 5 wives, he was not any religion. However, everybody was laughing about it and thought the guy was nuts to want to be married to more than one women! Has anybody taken a close look at some of the women taken in plural marriage. Mark Twain said the Mormon men were doing society a favor for marrying these women. So lets all get a life and concentrate on the real issues like illegal immigration, terrorism and the global ecomony. President Hinkley is no sooner to tell Mitt what to do than the man in the moon,

Shelton McKay | 5:39 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Consumer Reports, eh? I'll take the quality of journalism in the New York Times (NYT) over that of Deseret News on any subject, bar none. But let's return to "sourcing". When Mr. Huckabee mentioned to NYT Sunday Magazine: "Don't Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?", I chose lds.org as a source to substantiate. Indeed, in weasily words, but it's there. The NYT piece on "Fear...Doorbell" was spot on: how many of us close the door in horror after an interview with glazed-eyed Mormon missionaries. To have a President that reminds us of those encounters is really frightful.

My dogs face a nice sight | 5:41 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

I am with Winchester. This post is too weird for me! Lets find something more intelligent than polygamy to talk about. Polygamy is for losers and wimps! I agree my dog has a better face than these woman. Desperados!

Eddie T | 6:06 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Jane, I believe the word is polyandry when it works in that direction.

DaveN | 6:19 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

T-mugg said...
"He never had a problem with the "Ford Salesman" discussing a Toyota, he has a problem that the "Toyota Salesman" was never approached or given a change to rebut the words of the Ford Salesman."

I beg to disagree with you, T-mugg. Mr. Campbell said..."I believe good reporters will not allow others to define LDS beliefs but INSTEAD go to genuine, believing church members." (CAPS added by me). He didn't say ALSO go to members, he said INSTEAD go to members. He is advocating using members as the ONLY source.

As far as the Ford guy being deceptive about Toyotas, that may be. But don't you think it's possible for the Toyota guy to be deceptive about Toyotas as well? How naive to assume otherwise.

The journalist's job is to get ALL the facts from ALL the sources possible and let the reader make up their own mind based on the facts.

Otis Spurlock | 6:20 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Thanks Dr. Campbell for producing this report card. It is very helpful for those of us who do not have the time to read and scrutinize all of the material.

The depressing thing is the horde of ill-informed folks responding in the comments section libelling the Church with all kinds of nonsense. It makes me laugh and turns my stomach at the same time. They unwittingly and convincingly prove the very point that Dr. Campbell's was making.

If you want to know what someone thinks or believes, you ask that person or organization. You don't go to their neighbor for it unless you want to know what their neighbor believes or thinks. You don't go to their enemy for it unless you want to know what their enemy thinks. The only way to know what the person(s) of interest thinks and believes is to ask THAT person. It is really quite simple.

To "ex mo in new england" | 7:21 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Are you really attempting to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that LDS women are uneducated mothers of 11? I live in San Diego and the LDS women with whom I associate are doctors, lawyers, writers, and educators. Many have attended prestigious universities (several attended Harvard and/or Harvard LAW School) and most of these women hold advanced degrees. I have repeatedly heard Church leaders advocate the importance of education, but I have never heard the caveat that this advice was appropriate for men only.

While I am not arguing the existence of uneducated LDS women, I would counter that there are uneducated women of virtually EVERY religious denomination if you search the appropriate socio-economic demographic. To assert that LDS women are not only uneducated but encouraged to be so, is not only completely untrue, it is bigoted and small-minded.

From Guatemala II | 8:31 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Unfortunatly the press all they want is selling newspapers, It doesn't matter if it's true as long as it represent better profits, here you can watch cnn, fox news, all the american channels, but we don't trust the news. They don't have good and credible sources, all the press wants to do is create a conflict.

Thank you Dr. for this good article.
P.S. I agree with Ex mo in new england we're working hard to educate everyone, Every single boy and girl members of the church here are attending school, thanks to the Educational Perpetual Fund, every young men and Women are going to the University if they want to do it. The stakes and the wards have great teaching programs for older people men and women who want to learn, start bussiness, and provide for their families.

I apologyze for gramatical errors that my opinion might have.

To both sides... | 9:30 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

I have an idea, how about you all put away your knives guns and clubs, and go out and "Love thy neighbor", since that is supposedly what (most)all of you believe is priority #1 or #2?

Jamie | 9:37 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

In oppressive regimes, only one source of news is allowed.

In democratic countries, all sources of news are allowed.

Choices always have consequences...

John Cicero | 11:45 p.m. Jan. 3, 2008

Thank you for this refreshing article. I appreciated very much your emphasis on the importance of fairness in news reporting. It helped to level the playing field.

Think for Yourself | 1:40 a.m. Jan. 4, 2008

Where does it say that every article written has to give a positive review of the LDS church? Is all truth only contained in the LDS point of view? How arrogant to suppose that.

Joel McDonald | 6:10 a.m. Jan. 4, 2008

Journalists who only use "genuine, believing church members" for information will not be able to form a balanced, honest, or accurate representation of the church. Attempting to "ask any LDS scholars" to explain anachronisms in The Book of Mormon would lead to quite a dilemma, as it is doubtful an article attempting to provide an overview of the church has room for the long winded and round-about answers these scholars (aka apologists) would provide. Well researched, and balanced, reporting on the church is not going to help the church's image. It's the last thing church leaders want.

the C word | 6:34 a.m. Jan. 4, 2008

Er, um, "Think for Yourself" ...
the fact is, that by and large, LDS people DO believe there is only one truth (theirs).
Try to find compassion for them for this.
They know not what they do.

Detrick Cornelsen | 9:53 a.m. Jan. 4, 2008

All you critics and ex-mos are doing is making yourselves look petty and bitter. The man wrote his honest opinion, and you people are turning it into your own personal diatribes based on your own disappointments. He spoke of going to all sources, but especially to the ones most involved with the organization. Good reporting is going to multiple sources, yes, but without the adherents of the LDS Church the stories are at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or untrue.

Re: Detrick... | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 4, 2008

One of the worst arguments against logic is that those who have left the church are unable to be truthful about the church. In my experience, often they are more truthful than those still in the church. The main difference between the two groups is that those who have left the church allow themselves to be critical. Being critical doesn't mean the same as being negative. It's about thinking for yourself, rather than being told what to belief. The testimony of both followers and critics can allow people to better assess the church...it's better journalism.

Peter, Dallas, Texas | 11:57 a.m. Jan. 4, 2008

Dear Evangelical Competitors,

Members of the LDS Church can speak for themselves, thank you. I appreciate a respected scholar giving his opinion of media coverage and think his opinion is similar to that held by millions of others. The competition between our Christian religions doesnï¿½t need to resort to inept attacks and bitter name calling. I admire those who seek to further the dialogue between us without resorting to biased, competitive attacks.

I am grateful for my membership in the LDS Church, which I happen to believe is the only true church. When I die, if I am wrong, then the Evangelical doctrine sends me and my closest loved ones to HELL even if we lived an upstanding life. I donï¿½t believe the Lord works that way. If I am right, then the Lord has prepared a way for all those who are not members of the LDS Church to receive the same blessings as me. I like my side of the fence better.

They only THINK they're happy | 12:09 p.m. Jan. 4, 2008

When it comes to some LDS people criticizing former LDS people, even referring to them as "apostates" this comes to mind:
Misery doesn't love company - it DEMANDS it.

Think for Yourself | 1:32 p.m. Jan. 4, 2008

Our job here is to learn to love each other, with all of our differences. That's what He said. Nothing else really matters.

"In my Father's house are many mansions."

TO EDDIE | 2:01 p.m. Jan. 4, 2008

polyandry sounds good to me. It's a bright new world. If the Africans can do it for thousands of years it must work well. Those gals look happy and well to me.

Anonymous | 3:33 p.m. Jan. 4, 2008

Sure "TO EDDIE" -
Things are just peachy in Africa.

elgiew | 8:05 a.m. Jan. 5, 2008

If anyone is wondering, most of the anti-Mormon comments on this post come from an anti-Mormon website of ex-church members with an axe to grind. They keep reposting comments under different IDs until they get past the monitors. I don't understand all of their anger and hate nor do I want to. The mainstream media plays into their ignorance, hate, bigotry, and lies and passes it off as the truth against the Church. Their constant barrage against the Church just tells me how petty and pitiful they are as human beings. They come on sites such as this and make smug, disparaging comments against the church and talk about how happy they are now that they are "free" from the lies of the church and are so happy in their new lives. Yet, some of these folks left the church dozens of years ago and still cannot leave it alone. The media buying into the venom they spew is even more pitiful than these people themselves.

R.Gohjerta | 12:08 p.m. Jan. 6, 2008

R. Gohjerta
True principles may appear to stand alone in worldly cross-fires now as always, but defenders who have chosen to support that which is true, good and right will come to aid them. A duly tested people as Mormons continues to be abused as long as they neglect the solid structures that is essential for improving media communication. It is not always the media connections that is important, but the voice inspired.

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.