Comments about ‘LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article’

Hard to comment on this one. I have had doubts about that part of our history for years but no one can give a good explanation.

The N.Y. Times gets a story disastrously wrong.

The real story here is that someone, somewhere continues to read the Times at all.

I say that as a former subscriber to the Times. I subscribed for several years until the Times decided to declare itself a member of the executive branch with full power to disclose national secrets recently. I have not picked up a copy of that paper since.

Perhaps when Times stock holders awake from their slumber and oust Pinch, there will be something of worth in the Times. At the moment, however, it is difficult to distinguish the quality found in the "gray lady" with that of your average blogger - only I fully expect bloggers to have an agenda, and bloggers at least admit to it. The Times, however, hides behind its pseudo-journalistic wall of obfuscation.

Just because former FLDS members used to be LDS members, doesn't mean that the FLDS sect has retained the old LDS ways.

The FLDS seems to have evolved into a cult-like entity that has drastically changed over the last 60 years. The leaders have been reduced from seven to one. Recent leaders have made bizarre and untrue pronouncements. Members seem to worship the current leader rather than Jesus Christ or even Joseph Smith. Whereas, other Christians and Mormons would have pictures of these two hanging in their homes, the FLDS members hang pictures of Warren Jeffs. The sect has become mean spirited. It has abandoned many of its boys and separated fathers from their families. Control, indoctrination and obedience have been stressed to the max. Some members have more recently moved into compounds surrounded by tall walls and guards. Rules change on the whim of one leader. Yesterday included sports, access to media and minimal dress rules. Today sports, toys, books, television and the color red are not permitted.

The FLDS sect is unlike anything ever seen on American soil.

What would you expect from the New York Times? The current version of the New York Times is one of the most dishonest publications in the history of American journalism. No wonder their subscription rates are dropping and they are continually "blasted" by clear thinking and objective readers and other members of the media. I feel sorry for the casual reader that looks at an article in this paper and actually believes it - and this is true for news articles in addition to opinion/editorial pieces. It makes you wonder if they can even get the sports scores right. With so many choices for us to obtain information from, why would anyone choose the New York Times?

The New York Times knows they can get away with this kind of reckless, irresponsible form of journalism, if you want to call it journalism. All they have to do is hide behind their interpretation of the First Amendment and they can say and do, pretty much anything. But go after them? Forget about it!

The same is true with many critics of the LDS Church. People like Ed Decker have been writing inflammatory and disgusting works against the LDS Church for years, knowing full well if the LDS Church attempts any kind of lawsuit, all they have to do is cry "First Amendment" and they win.

This whole thing is nothing short of spitefulness on the part of the those who despise the LDS Church. The New York Times would like nothing more than to have the LDS Church come after them. That way, the LDS Church will be made out as the bullies, while the Times will be seen as "Champions of Free Speech."

What garbage!

Correct me if I'm worng, but I'm prety sure that the FLDS does not allow LDS into their church. There are other groups that follow polygamny that do.
(these LDS then are ex-LDS at that point).

So any connection with the church is severed and gone.

My great grandmother was the recent second wife of my great grandfather when the manifesto came out. She made the decision that if new plural marriages weren't being granted, she wanted out. Though pregnant, she divorced my great grandfather, married a previous sweetheart and raised my grandfather with a stepfather and half-brothers and sisters.

With the support of his mother, stepfather, and birth father, my grandfather served a mission to England, and remained faithful to the church throughout his life.

We from a distance have our questions, but these people were all intimately familiar with polygamy and had strong testimonies of the LDS Church. A testimony is an act of faith, and their faith is part of what enables me to take a leap of faith on this issue.

I also cancelled my Subscription to the New York Times ages ago. The Bias of their "news" is beyond the pale.

Some of the Church's objections are true, but some are not. Women did marry younger, for example. In most states such young marriages were still legal well into the 20th Century.

Was polygamy more about sex than revelation from God?

1) Many of Joseph Smith's 40-some wives were already married - to other members of the Church.

2) While mos polygamists had only a handful of wives, there was certainly a large accumulation of wives at the top of the Church hierarchy, with Heber C Kimball, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all having 40 or more.

Mormons back then didn't have federal welfare to lean on to support their kids if they couldn't do so themselves, and they needed young men to help build "Zion," so they couldn't afford to drive them away.

The history of polygamy in the LDS Church is not as ugly as the FLDS example, but that does not make it perfect.

To Anonymous:
It is pretty easy for you to find out the true history of the period. There are volumes written about it. Take a little time and educate yourself.

As to the FLDS having ANY connection to the LDS Church, consider this:
The FLDS "Church" is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Satan to destroy the true Church. The LDS Church is the kingdom of God on earth, with Christ at its head. The FLDS is characterized by adultery, blasphemy, child abuse, lies and hypocricy. They are as different as Christ and Satan. That's not intolerance, it is simply the naked truth.

The official historian for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and ordained Seventy, has provided an exemplary "explanation."

Sadly, millions have read and believe Egan's hateful, dead wrong, and profoundly disrespectful venom disquised as an opinion "piece." Few will see the reasoned response from the church.

I love The New York Times, and know reporter Timothy Egan as one of the best in journalism. His most recent article was right on the money.

As a matter of fact, the coverage of the LDS Church in the New York Times has been incredibly positive, at least in the past nine years I have been reading it daily. I challenge the above NYTimes bashers to go to paper's webpage, type in "LDS" or "Mormon" in the search box, and then read the results. In the sports section of today's paper is this about a US Olympic contender:

In December 2005, Roach, a Mormon, went to see her bishop.
This is not what I signed up for, she said.

This is exactly what you signed up for, he replied. That message not only changed her outlook about [her autistic son], it changed her outlook about weight lifting."

Or read the major articles from last year about Mitt Romney's missionary work or about the Hill Cumorah pageant. I would be you would be hard pressed to find a newspaper outside of Utah that has given more positive coverage of the LDS Church in recent years than the New York Times.

An no, I don't work for the NYTimes!

Tap dance around this. The NYTimes was pretty close historically. Good reporting....it would never come from the Utah media.

I would love to and will comment on the stuff Egan said to the Times. It's all so wrong!! My 4th great grandmother is Patty Bartlett Sessions (known as the Mormon Midwife). And she always spoke up when she knew things were wrong. She worked and not just cooking and taking care of her husband either! I have read her journals and those of her daughter. So Egan has painted a picture that is so very wrong and misleading. There is absolutely no comparison to the FLDS Women to the 1800 Mormon women - ABSOLUTELY NONE! Except in his own imagination!

New York Times,
Keeping bigotry bright for a 2012 offensive against the Mormon candidate. They will lose if Mormons associate with their neighbors. That is the only way the average american will know that these articles are purposely deceitful.

The media sources and some people associated with this story continue to portray FLDS members as "former" LDS members. This is blatantly false.

It may be that former ancestors of FLDS members were LDS at one time, but that would have been over 75 years ago.

For the most part, LDS loves to hide their past. What part of the story is incorrect? Don't blame the Times for your past.

I am not a big fan of Spiro Agnew, former VP of the United States. However, I have always appreciated his description of some news media reporters as being "an effete corps of impudent snobs posing as intellectuals." That description fits the New York Times and Timothy Egan perfectly. Egan isn't interested in being a true scholar of past history. He merely wants to take a few fragments of history, place his own "politically correct" interpretion on them, and draw quantum conclusions in order to satisfy his own arrogant ego.