I prefer the obituary written on her well-read blog by my daughter, Amy Rees
Anderson, entitled "An Exemplary Life. Proof That One Man Can Change the
How would the New York Times have written the obituary for Jesus?
I no longer read nor trust the New York Times. The days of its "All the news
that's fit to print" motto are long past.
Not even close to an obituary.This should have been in the opinion
section of the NYT. I didn't see anything directly false,
although it does imply what Mr. Monson's motives were, which obviously no
one can know. (hence it should be an opinion piece).An obituary
covers a person's life. About 95% of this article covered the last 3% of
his life. A real obituary would have emphasized a lot of what Mr. Monson
did during the 70s and 80s.The NYT should correct and actually write an
@PacificCreekRE: "I read the obituary and wasn't
offended"...---I wasn't offended either.It just
surprised me how little the obit author bothered to learn about Pres Monson
before writing his obit.I think Mr McDonald would be surprised to
learn that Mormons aren't just in Utah thing. And they are probably all
around him (even working at the NY Times, and in Washington DC).I
would be surprised if he knew the difference between FLDS and Mormon. I bet he
sees Pres Monson as just another Warren Jeffs. That's the stereotype
outsiders have of the church. Shows how little they actually know.You can't really blame somebody for not knowing something. It's
impossible to know what you don't now. But if you are so oblivious about
something... should you be writing about it?He should have consulted
somebody who knew more about Mormons in general, and President Monson as a
person (not just a stereotype) IMO before writing the obit.Pres
Monson was about much more than SMS or women wanting to be bishop. And he
couldn't change those things even if he wanted to. He doesn't tell
God what to do. It's the other way around. Doubt McDonald realizes that.
I read the obituary and wasn't offended by it. President Monson upheld the
standards of the church and didn't bend to the will of popular opinion and
political correctness. For people who value their opinions more then they value
God's laws this can be highly offensive. People who are offended struggle
to see the good in the person that has offended them or their cause. Some of
the people on this comment board are experiencing the same phenomenon. Prophets
of God usually ruffle a few feathers in the world. I'm sure there were
lots of biased obituaries written about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as well.
It's probably impossible to write an obituary for a spiritual leader which
will please all of the Believers or followers of his organization.Perhaps
LDS people reading it could take a lesson in seeing how the outside world has
viewed the church and its members in recent decades. Whether we're
speaking of a church, a business or a bridge club, the folks on the inside are
going to have a different opinion than the folks on the outside and one group is
not likely to understand the other. The leader of any of those Worthy is he or
she might be is going to be portrayed in terms of the outside views of the
organization, not the inside views.There is at least one op-ed (and
many comments) in the present Edition that portrays President Obama and
Democrats in a life that no Democrat would recognize, for instance. Sorry.
p.s. It is not okay to be disrespectful.
When Mitt Romney ran for president, articles in most newspapers said things
about "Mormons" that they would not dare say about "Jews". I
would read aloud and substitute "Mormon" instead with "Jew"--
and it was stunning. Our religion is the last that it's okay to malign. The
Right has done it since the 1980's and now we're getting it from the
Left. Let's take a lesson from our Jewish brothers and sisters.They
speak out against anti-semitism and have the Anti -Defamation League .They don't see and ignore. They call it out. It isn't okay to
disseminate prejudice. Against. Anyone. Period. And that goes for us too.
For those who are not followers of political dialogue, the NYT is the poster
child of the mean-spirited politicization of everything, even that which is
nonpolitical. President Monson was a spiritual leader whose lifelong mission was
to ‘go to the rescue’, helping all people in all circumstances.
Since he did not align himself with the NYT politically, we find him demeaned in
a publication that finds no value in good works outside their narrow political
viewpoint. The fact is, a negative obituary about a wonderful man like President
Monson reflects more negativity on the New York Times than on him.
Could they possible mention how he west into East Germany to bring comfort to
people, against all odds, and left without a coat or shoes?? Or the thousands
of other kind deeds the Church has done during his Presidency? "Mr."
Monson! Garbage...not fit for wrapping fish.
I find it interesting that in the NYT response, to the "PUBLIC" forum on
Facebook that had 100,000 signers to the petition, they refered to their
obituary as being how he was known publicly.Apparently, they are not very
well informed of the worldwide service that he performed in multiple countries
around the world that aided those who are not members of the church. I also
believe that the proportion of those who object to the "churches" stand
on gay marriage and women holding the priesthood, not knowing that it is not his
personal, private decision, when compared to the 16 million worldwide members is
very small. But, the NYT will not stand on facts when they chose to turn
his death into a platform for their political agenda.
I could care less what the NY Times publishes. Most of it is "fake news"
anyway. If this is your preferred reading, you have my sympathy. Ignore it and
@ GiveMeLibert - You claim that Pres. Monson was often unkind and
stern because he appeared to be "irked" because he waited forfood
to be served at a temple dedication? How do you know something else wasn't
on his mind?You also claim that Pres. Monson was unkind because he
chastised church members at a meeting. How do you know they didn't deserve
it? The Savior wasn't crucified for "only" handing out milk and
cookies to everyone. He was crucified because He often said things that angered
wicked people. Was Pres. Monson a perfect person? Nope. But he was
probably the most Christ-like person among the 7 billion of us here.
Sophie 62 posted:=To marginalize those children was a cruel and
indefensible position, many=believe, including some members.Many people believe that, but it's not true. People who criticize the LDS
Church over this appear to think that LDS baptism is just a rite of passage, and
it really isn't. Every child baptized into the LDS Church gets assigned
home teachers. The LDS Church had to choose between watering down baptism (a bad
idea), watering down home teaching (also a bad idea), sending home teachers to
the children's home to tell them their parents need to split up (a very bad
idea), reversing its position on gay marriage (something it can't do until
it gets revelation from God on the matter), and the policy it actually took
(which doesn't look too cruel or unkind when compared to those
Sophie 62 posted:=“Teachings holding homosexuality to be
immoral, bans on sexual intercourse=outside male-female marriages, and an
all-male priesthood would remain=unaltered”=Which part of this
statement is not true?=Nothing. It's all true, and members of the
church are proud of it, so what's=the problem?That first
one, teachings "holding homosexuality to be immoral," is not true, at
worst, and deceptive at best. The New York Times authors should have used a
different word instead of homosexuality. It sounds like Monson considered
homosexuals immoral, and that's simply not the case.
ADJ:Newspapers, this one included, respond to feedback. 100,000 is
a very large number that translates as a number 10 times bigger. Yes, the NY
Times cares a great deal about this. As I wrote below, they need to do
something to save face.As to LDS faithful, true, he was a prophet of
God, a great man who lived a full life that mattered in things of eternal worth.
He doesn't need the praises of men. We love him and clearly know much of
the actual example he set and his place as one in modern times who emulated the
Master we follow.Getting this "right" in the main
publication of the largest city is the chance to let Thomas Monson's light
shine one more time on a large population and readership.
To the Times, the title "President" probably seems more like something
from the business or political world, rather than a name with religious
significance, such as rabbi, bishop or pope.In its obituary of
President Gerald R. Ford, the Times dropped the president label in favor of Mr.,
which, by the way, still sounds respectful to me.Sort of a tempest
in a teapot, if you ask me.
Second chance NYT. Funeral/memorial is this Friday. You don't even need
to physically send a reporter to Utah -- the proceedings are online via the
Church's website. You can appease all the petitioners, fellow journalists
(lame excuse of retraction aside, the classless, poor journalism of the obit is
pretty obvious) and the LDS community amongst your readership by finding some
prominent space to cover the event and say the things (qualify them is you must)
that really represent the man's example and character.
I'm at a loss to understand why any critically thinking LDS would care what
the NY Times says about anyone in this church. Over 100,000 people complained
about Pres. Monson's obituary!?! If the Times said it is sorry and
retracted the obit, would it make any difference? Would the obit writer's
heart and opinion be any different? The signers must be like parents who force
a child to 'apologize' to a wronged sibling--as if the cause of the
problem has been rectified with a coerced apology. I always prefer knowing who
my enemies are so I'm not taken unawares and taken advantage of. The
signers would be better served developing the gift of discernment, rather than
clamoring for an empty, insincere apology.
@Silver Stingray:Good! Glad the world sees the Church's
leaders and our beliefs the way you said.
Get real: this NYT obituary was intended to be nothing but a hatchet job on
Pres. Monson. And given the source, I am not surprised. In the end,
"fools mock, but they shall mourn."
If the NYTimes writes kindly about you as a religious leader, you probably
weren't religious at all.A little criticism from the NY Times
should be worn like a badge of honor.
“All the News That's Fit to Print” When will the editorial
staff at the NYT get around to correcting their most egregious typo? Then again,
by now doesn't everyone know that the real motto is "All the News That
Fits (our world-view) We Print".Mr. Bretski, while most or even
all the assertions in the obituary may be factual, so is the statement "The
Bible says 'eat, drink, and be merry'". Selecting which facts to
cite and which to leave out is one of the more tried and true propagandistic
misinformation techniques. In these days when anyone can set up a blog and call
it journalism the NYT has a moral responsibility to set the bar at a much higher
Question: Do you have an unshakeable testimony that the Prophet/President and
Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints receives revelation
on the direction the Church needs to go in? Recommendation: watch Truman G.
Madsen's 5-part series on YouTube "The Dawn of The Restoration"
““Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and
weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for
the right to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend,” the
obituary read. “Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on
sexual intercourse outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood
would remain unaltered”Which part of this statement is not true?Nothing. It's all true, and members of the church are proud of it, so
what's the problem?This is a big city newspaper in a completely
different culture than here in Happy Valley. Being offended because they
referred to him as Mr instead of President is a valid point, I think, but people
who care about gay people were not in love with him after the leadership decided
to exclude children of gay and polygamous people from full membership in the
Church. To marginalize those children was a cruel and indefensible position,
many believe, including some members.That action will always call into
question their view of the prophet as a kind person.Most church members
overlook that decision, but other people do not. In terms of PR, it negatively
affects our image.
It’s a bit ironic that the Savior taught that we should neither seek nor
be concerned with the praise of men, yet some of us express such disdain when
that praise is less glowing than we believe it should be.I doubt
President Monson would take offense, or spend much time thinking about, what the
NYT chose to write about him.
I think it is considerate that his death was mentioned at all. The Church is
everything in Utah, but it isn't as well known around the nation or the
world as we like to think it is. Only about 2% of the adult
population in the United States is Mormon. The church's own statistics on
Wikipedia put it at 2.04 percent in 2016.Can't we just be
pleased that his passing was mentioned, and gracious in our response?Nothing the author said was untrue. They didn't call him names or try to
disparage his character or the church. The author just didn't say all the
things that Mormons would have said, in the way Mormons would have said it. He probably doesn't have much knowledge of the church or personal
experience with it's people. What does he think of us now? I
can't believe people are making accusations about the authors character,
slamming the paper, and demanding an apology. Is that the example the Savior
"Since when have we decided to demand respect and sensitivity out of
media...?"Well, there was that one timeRegards,William Law
When Rabbi Yeldin dies he is referred to as Rabi Yeldin out of respect for the
man and his followers. To call him Mr. Yeldin shows a lack of respect and a
lack of sensitivity toward him and his followers. The same goes for President
Monson. Since when have we decided to demand respect and sensitivity out of
media who appear as a whole to be in favor of demonizing religion? It's
going to happen sooner or later anyway, just let it go.
Seriously...what did you expect from the NYT? Everything is political with
@ERBI, too, have heard members, in various congregations throughout Utah
make less than flattering comments about people from other religions and races.
Unfortunately it happens. We're not perfect people and I don't feel it
is helpful to pretend we are. We try hard to improve, but we're not
The world has never loved, honored or revered Prophets...why would they start
now? I think it would be a good thing for us Mormons to lose our
obsession with trying to get good "PR" all the time. Let's put the
Lord first, listen to and follow His Prophets, and not be distracted by what the
world does or doesn't write about us.
I wonder how much actual research this guy did on President Monson's life
before he wrote his obit...Doesn't sound like he knew Pres
Monson at all. Probably not the right person to write his obit.Seems all he knew about President Monson was some stereotypes and news stories
about the church. I wonder if he tried at all to get to know Pres Monson and
his family before writing about him.redhat said they wouldn't
write a complimentary obit for the Pope either. I don't know why. He
seems like a very fine man.Guess you have to be a Democrat to get a
complementary Obit in the NY Times. Don't believe me... Google and read
their obit for Ted Kennedy. Now there's a guy with some major character
flaws (Chappaquiddick, alcoholic, nasty temper, etc) and they wrote pages and
pages of complimentary things for him at his death.I just wish the
writer tried to get to know Pres Monson before writing his obit. Or had someone
who knew him write it.
Just to add my two cents...in the long run, I don't think what was wrongly
misrepresented and what was wrongly omitted from the NYT obituary on the leader
of a worldwide religion, is the thing rubbing so many of us the wrong way. It is the fact that our religion as a whole, since the time it was reorganized
on the Earth, has had Satan constantly pounding at it's truth through so
many slanders and misrepresentations. He once again influenced a laughable
attempt to dig at our Church by those who have an opportunity to report on the
positive but choose to highlight the controversial. Freedom of religion and
fair speech took a hard hit.What hurt the most is that a leader who is
loved, admired, and revered worldwide was not given the proper respect and
review he should have received or that any other religious leaders would have
received.We just want the example of President Monsen's life's
work to be acknowledged and shared to everyone in the manner both he and it
For all those claiming (including the NYT Editor) that they "always refer to
men as Mr. instead of by their title" please go review the NYT Obituary on
Pope John Paul II. He was referred to several times as
"pope", "Pope John Paul II" or "John Paul II", which are
all titles. Not once was he referred to as "Mr. Paul II" or "Mr.
Karol JÓzef Wojtyla" (which was his real name) or "Mr.
This is a storm in a teacup. Heavenly Father and the Savior know President
Monson and his role as prophet. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, we don't need to try to steady the ark.
A sign of the "Times" ( pun intended ). In the headline, the word "
former" should have been appropriately " late ". Good editors are
hard to find, obviously.
What a gracious response from McDonald on his lame, politically motivated
obit... NOTMaybe the editors and reporters at the NY Times need
sensitivity training and diversity training.Just because he was
different from McDonald, or didn't agree with McDonald on Progressive
issues... You don't disrespect or diminish him in your obit.==RE: “A faithful accounting of the more prominent issues
that Mr. Monson encountered and dealt with publicly during his
tenure”...---What about Pres Monson ordering resources to come
to the aid of the hurricane victims in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico and
around the world. Not public?==RE: He later
acknowledged those who feel the obituary “did not provide a more rounded
view of Mr. Monson”...---How sweet.==RE: “I’ll concede that what we portrayed was the public man, not
the private one, or the one known to his most ardent admirers”...---He assumes only Mormons admired Pres Monson. Has he not read any
tributes from mon-Mormon leaders from the USA and other countries?This guy lives a cloistered existence at NY Times and was biased against Pres
Monson IMO. Pres Monson did lots of service in life. Not just church
The Times obituary on President Monson is just what one might expect from a
newspaper that chooses to publish opinion over facts. Fortunately the goodness
and greatness of a man like President Monson rises far and above one obituary.
The failure of the NYT to use the proper name of the LDS church showed the
intent of their editorial on Thomas S. Monson. It was a hit piece, not an
Having read the NY Times obit, you could say that they made it clear that
President Monson stood in a holy place and was not moved. Personally, I'd like to see more of President Monson's
"toughness" discussed -- too many have been content to focus on his
smile, his warmth and gentleness and not really get to know the man himself.
Three experiences:Boise Idaho Temple dedication -- I was privileged
to serve the apostles and their wives lunch between sessions one day. The ONLY
one to take time out to recognize and thank us for our service was Hinckley. I
could see other the GAs (including Monson) were irked at waiting.My
brother served his mission in Europe late 80s and President Monson spoke at a
stake conference close to, but outside, of his mission. He was disappointed
missing out, until he heard that "Pres. Monson was not nice like he is in
general conference." Apparently he did some calling to repentance.I was interviewing for a job at LDS headquarters -- interview question:
"How will your testimony survive after President Monson rips you a new one
in the elevator in front of others?"He had to be tough to do
what he did, but he did it with grace and a smile.
Well do not count out that all the criticism from social media was orchestrated
because most in the Mormon population do not read nor care about what the NYT
prints.As a non-Mormon the Times was never going to make a saint out of
President Monson nor would it do it for the Pope.
What do you expect from a liberal media outlet such as this one? They are trying
to sell newspapers(advertising) and they will write what appeals to the majority
of their readers. They support "the philosophies of men mingled with
scripture". They do not understand that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints is directed by Jesus Christ. It wasn't President Monson who
decided the LDS church would hold fast to their beliefs. There was no revelation
from Jesus Christ directing him to change LDS doctrine. We know, from past and
present prophets that same sex marriage is an abomination before God. We know
that Man and Woman must be as one through celestial marriage in order to obtain
the highest degree of glory. We know that all men and women have the right to
their own opinions and to direct their own behavior and that they will be held
accountable for what they do while on earth.
I read the obit in the NY Times. IMHO, I would only say to the folks ripping
into the paper, thou doest protest too much.
The NY Times can try to spin their story to justify what they wrote but as the
saying goes... "It is hard to talk yourself out of problems you behaved
yourself into".The fact of the matter is... the Obituary was a
cheap shot directed at the church, members of the church and conservative
values.If you applied the same NY times standard for Obituary
writing to Michael Jordan The headlines would focus on not having championship
teams as team owner, cigar smoking, gambling, not making his high school
basketball team, and then at the bottom of the article where many people fail to
finish reading mention the MVP trophies and NBA championships.... and then try
to hide behind the statement that everything written is true....If
the mainstream media want to regain the respect they once enjoyed they must do a
better job of reporting news rather than creating the news.
“Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and weathering
demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right to
be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend,” the obituary read.
“Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on sexual intercourse
outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood would remain
unaltered.”Well, President Monson was all about persuading a
person to make better decisions, rather than be in your face about it! However,
if the writer wants to see the truth as something dangerous, bigoted, or
damaging to his sense of right and wrong, then so be it. God is not an angry
God, but he doesn't budge on His commandments. The commandments are there
to show His love.
@cougs108 Would you also be offended if Warren Jeffs were referred to as
simply 'Mr. Jeffs'? I doubt it.
Of course it definitely could’ve been far worse. For all I know, they
could’ve portrayed us the same way the creator of September Dawn did. And
we all know what happened when that happened. In the end, I think the most
important thing to consider is to just continue doing good things. I mean,
after all, you don’t need to have your good works known to the world to
get to heaven. You just simply need to do the work.
I regret reading this interview and comments but feel I must comment. Both show
a lack of understanding of newspapers and our Church. The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints is a world-wide organization dedicated to teaching the
principles of Jesus Christ. The comments of both the paper and our members seem
to not undrrstand that. The decisions made by the First Presidency were not
made by President Monson alone. They were made through inspiration and
revelation from God for the world and not for a newspaper in the U.S. to apply
the attitudes of the liberal NY press to understand! Many media outlets were
very understanding. Responding with anger and petitions does not show a
Christ-like attitude that Presidents of our Church would want.
We loved our Prophet President Monson with all of our hearts. He held no malice
in his heart no matter what was said to be negative. He was a man of honor,
integrity, honesty, love, kindness and forgiveness. He was always helping others
without being asked. He loved our Savior Jesus Christ with all of his heart.
President Monson knew what was right and lived that until his death. He will be
missed so deeply.
After skimming through some of the text in the New York Times article, I can
definitely agree this is far from balanced. Even Wikipedia does a better job at
being neutral in writing about the church than this article and that’s not
even a source I’d recommend using to learn about the church.
This is baloney. The editor is obviously trying to cover his butt. I find his
inference that Thomas S. Monson is held in high regard only by members of the
church especially laughable. President Monson was held in high esteem by many
individuals and organizations both inside and outside the Mormon church.
So Cal LDS, in my 50 years of going to church, I can't think of other
churches and leaders even being mentioned more than a couple of times. Now of
course I don't go to the same ward you do, but most people I've
talked to about this subject have the same experience I have. Unless
you're counting The Joseph Smith story of when he was a kid and trying to
figure out which church was true.
This is an example of why nearly half the country now has almost no trust in
most media sources. President Packer described President Monson as
probably the most Christlike person he ever knew.
Could not agree more with jahenders-Co sps. Although a pretty nice obit, the
NY Times "discounted" the Mormon (LDS) Church by refusing titles of
President and/or Prophet., while at the same time, making sure the Catholic
"Cardinal" was properly addressed.. Perhaps the NYT needs the old
question, "What do you know about the Mormon Church? Would you like to know
more?" I can just see it now: "Mr. Francis addressed the huge Easter
crowd from the balcony of the Vatican, today." Hmmmm! In that case I
suspect the NYT would lose all NY Catholics as subscribers, who probably would
storm the NYT building. Oh, I'm sorry! President Monson probably would
have asked us to "Be kind. Just show them love." We thank thee Oh
God for a Prophet.
Why is anyone surprised? This is typical mainstream media. New York Times,
Washington Post, AP.....take your pick.
From the view of the politically correct, ultra liberal mind set of the NYT,
their obit was accurate.They could have mentioned that there were about 6
women who were demanding the priesthood.As for same sex marriage, that is
an obvious oxymoron. I believe the good book says something like: For
this cause shall a man and a women leave their parents and they shall become one
flesh.So President Monson, a Prophet of God, stuck with the Biblical
definition. The Nerve.
Why are Mormons so easily offended. I hear my fellow members every week at
church say something less than pleasing about other churches or their leaders.
NYT article was from an outsider's point of view. Lets not forget there are
only a few million Mormons in this country compared to over 300 million
population. NYT serves the whole of the population and not there to please a
very small minority. Indeed President Monson held the title of the
president of the church. But that's to us the members, not the average Joe
who does not even believe we are Christians. If we want others to be
balanced in their thinking about us, then we need to be balanced in our thinking
I completely agree with the sentiments expressed by those who are outraged over
the obituary of Pres. Monson. However, since the reality is that we live in a
world where PC rules the day, it probably should have been expected. Those who
loved Pres. Monson should wear as a badge of honor the disdain of the world, and
particularly the leftist media, and dread the day when such rags start praising
us. Then we would really have something to worry about!
@Tony1941Your Statement: "The Times is a liberal rag that is
best used for lining bird cages and housebreaking dogs. " couldn't be
more true. What they printed was true but only one sided. You don't hear so
much controversy with other religions or leaders, and that only strengthens my
testimony that he was a true Prophet. Satan wants nothing more than to malign
good men. So all that editor did was do Satan's bidding to attempt to smear
a good man. Did they describe how President Monson sent more aid than other
organizations to those countries that were destroyed by floods, earthquakes etc?
The Red Cross totally respects the LDS Church because of the good we do. So go
ahead NYT comment away... We know the truth.
In my experience, most media outlets focused more on what President Monson
didn't do than what he did. He didn't change the church's stance
on homosexuality or women and the priesthood, and that was a large part of their
media coverage. I guess that's to be expected, but it is still sad to see
so little made of such a great man and the life he led.
Lest anyone be surprised.This has all been experienced before in
history and scripture predicts in the future."An evil shall be
called good, and good shall be called evil"What a great capstone
to the life of a Prophet than to have the NYTimes and liberal thought police
criticize you. Well done President Monson. Their hatred and
persecution is evidence that you've done God's will.
My reading of the obit from the NYT about President Monson filled me with pride
for our recently deceased prophet because of the things they mentioned.
Specifically, President Monson DID NOT buckle to public pressure for the issues
raised, specifically chastity and priesthood ordination for women. President
Monson was a man who was noted on multiple occasions always to respond to a
prompting as soon as he could. That is also what he did with regard to leading
the Church: If it was the mind of the Lord, Tom Monson was there to carry that
His explanation makes it even more obvious that this was a hit piece. "We
don’t stop there, of course; we also try to trace the arc of a life, from
birth — in part to suggest what may have driven a person to succeed, to
achieve, to find fame (or, in the case of the infamous, to upset the social
order)." He says that is what they do, but there is absolutely NO arc of a
life in the piece on President Monson. "And we try to give a flavor of the
man or woman — something of the personality and personal impact."
Didn't do that at all.
...they know not what they do...and what else would one expect from those who do
know know...the work goes forward...
i think President Monson would have been proud of the nyt saying *he did not
bend* .. we all should be this strong and faithful and loyal and honest! peace .
be still and know that i am God!
President Monson didn't capitulate. I was well-versed in the New York Times
as a journalism undergraduate at Southern Utah University in the
mid-2000's. I know their methodology and they have every right to their
opinions. To those who don't know what we LDS know, yes, from their
perspective, the Church's ideology seems bigoted and prejudiced. Of course,
journalists are supposed to find the real truth and I'm proud to say that
I'm one who does take the time to do so. The "social media mob" as
Elder Christofferson has called it previously, isn't interested in what we
LDS are all about in many instances. Still, on Twitter, I do my best to change
the narrative. All Father in Heaven wants us to do is leave the temporal world
better than we found it. Did President Monson not do this during his time in the
temporal world? Of course he did. Thus, may our angst be assuaged fellow LDS. We
know the truth.
Of the 100,000 who signed a petition about this I wonder how many are Times
subscribers? I would guess less than 10.
It is simple. Wordsmiths have a choice of words to use to state facts. The
writer chose to use the harshest and most inflammatory words. But then, that is
the "news" leaning..."Wave a red flag and get attention."
"If it bleeds, it leads." Incite the emotions of the reader... If they
had chosen to use kinder, gentler tones and wording as President Monson used
throughout his beloved life, it wouldn't have garnered them the attention
they seek. Let it go. Consider the source. It is sad that it will perpetuate
negative feelings toward the church in those so inclined, but then Satan has
always challenged us, has he not? It's time to pray for the writer and
publication and hope their errors will one day become obvious to them and
others. This is a missionary moment my brothers and sisters; not a time to
prove The Times right in our potential militancy. Be as gentle as President
Monson's voice which still sounds in my heart. He would want it. Be
gentle, but stand firm. Our Brother would do the same, would He not? A tree
which bends with the wind lives longer than one which is brittle and snaps with
a strong breeze.
Just anotherDem/Liberal view to please the world! A COLD and inaccurate
knowledge of who Predident Monson was. What more do we expect in this immoral
nation! President Monson, your life was immeasurable with the GOOD!
The New York Times is of the temporal considerations of men, Pres. Thomas S
Monson, Prophet of God was a fulfillment of divine celestial order. The
attainment of true alignment, metaphorically, of this water to oil combination
will have to wait until the Lord Jesus Christ shall reign over the Earth ! As
the dark must reseed to the presence of the light, so will the only Son,
Begotten of the Father reestablish rule over His temporal House, even Jesus
Christ, the only Redeemer And Savior of the World, in His most glorious name,
I hate injustice of any kind and to not recognise this wonderful, kind, caring
man and prophet of God who did not bend to the wants of selfish man is injustice
indeed. Shame on them and not on President Monson
Was anything in the obituary not factual?
With respect to me previous post, and the sentiments expressed by many on this
thread, I refer them to the history of the Nauvoo Expositer, the Warsaw Signal,
and the early years of the Salt Lake Tribune. Thankfully those types of
comments have generally been moderated and better journalism prevails today,
although the NYT writes for their audience and doesn't necessarily examine
the truth in full view. That's to be expected I suppose and certainly is
no surprise. If they had been an organ of the Egyptians what do you think they
would have said about the Exodus?
On Feb. 23, 2005, in company with two BYU colleagues, I went to hear Ethan
Bronner, the deputy editor for foreign affairs for the NYT. There were still
after shocks at the NYT over reporters on their staff who were found to have
been manufacturing their stories. Bronner spoke to the ethical dilemma faced by
reporters who must share all they know even if it compromises the safety of US
soldiers. He was a little uncomfortable in acknowledging that. I asked him about
the tendency that the media has to report the news with predictions of what
would then happen. Then I asked: "How much do you need to guard against
trying to make happen that which you have predicted would happen?" Bronner
called it "a good comment" and then said in politics there is a definite
tendency to tell what they think will happen and then to explain how they knew.
He did not say what happened when they got the story wrong. I do not
subscribe to the NYT and have not read the obituary. In the case of President
Monson they have continued to write only that which they want people to know.
Their response is another inadequate attempt at damage control. Perhaps they do
not accept Christian nobility of purpose.?
Judging from the obituary writer's response to this criticism, perhaps we
could change the New York Times masthead slogan to read: "All the news
that's fit to print . . . and more!"
One need only compare it to the NY Times obituary on Cardinal O'Connor from
2000. Here's the beginning of it:"Cardinal John O'Connor,
the archbishop of the New York archdiocese's 2.37 million Catholics and the
Vatican's most forceful spokesman in the United States, died last night at
his residence around the corner from St. Patrick's Cathedral."Note, that the Cardinal is referred to by his Catholic-church given title, NOT
as Mr. The claims by some that they always refer to people as Mr or Ms unless
they're doctors and the article is related to medicine is false. In fact,
the article clearly refers to his role in this church so his church title is at
least as appropriate as the title Dr would be in a medical article.
When you are the leader of an organization - you will remembered for the good
and the bad that the organization did. The members of the Church tend to have
the insider only view, and as in many other aspects of the Church - (such as
Missionary Work), that view does not work well. Church members should be
grateful for the wonderful things President Monson did and try to emulate them
in their lives rather than take offense to what those outside the Church may
say. If you really want to have an effect on the outsiders perception of the
Church, stop looking at the Church as if there are no flaws, we can all do
better - I suspect even President Monson would have agreed.
The NYT article was one of the first I read. For an obituary, it was so lame.
I was not offended, it was on par for political agenda based publications.. It
was what it was. "No one cares," I thought.... wrong ... apparently a
lot of people cared enough to protest the article. Too bad the readers were
robbed of information that is truly amazing about an amazing human and the giant
of a leader and example of how to spend a lifetime. Yea, and more public
side??? really?? His more public side was exactly like his private side... He
wasn't two different people... he was the same. We call that being true.
That is one reason why he was a true prophet. He was true to God, to man and to
himself. He was a true prophet.
Once again, they did not bother to do a little research & print something
that would be a balanced obituary. But, we have been told & taught that in
the latter days, men's hearts would fail them. We can see this all around
us. Just look at the garbage on TV, in the news, in the papers, magazines, etc.
President Monson was the most humble of servants & the epitome of love for
everyone. He served more than any of us probably ever will in our lifetime! NYT
could have done better, but the most important thing is that WE, as members of
the Church KNOW better & that will never change our love for our dear
Prophet. May the Lord wrap his arms around his family during this time. We will
miss him, but know that he has returned home to open arms of our Savior, his
dear wife, parents & the many prophets who have gone before him that will
The casual reader if they never had heard of President Monson would of read the
NY Times article on him and thought he was one of the worst people on the earth.
They made it sound like he only had hate in his heart. They also made it sound
like he would never go out of his way to help anyone.And yet the
members of the church know the difference. The NY Times is showing more and
more it deserves the name our POTUS gives to them, Fake News.
Whether the NYT writes what President Monson did in his life, does not matter to
President Monson on the other side of the veil. I am sure he is busy reaching
out to souls who hurt, need peace, and gentle kindness. It was who he was in
this life and there can be no doubt that is who he is and what he is doing in
the next life.
I'm sure others have said this. . .it is simple stop supporting the New
York Times. This obituary was an opportunity taken by an individual to try an
set his ideals against the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As a people
we have no obligation to support groups or businesses who have no consideration
for our faith and doctrine to which we hold true and unchanging.
“'Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and
weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for
the right to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend,' the obituary
read. 'Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on sexual
intercourse outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood would
remain unaltered.'“'In 20/20 hindsight, we might
have paid more attention to the high regard with which he was held within the
church. ...'"It is not newsworthy that members of the LDS
Church hold their alleged prophet, seer and revelator in "high regard."
It is noteworthy that little children of a legally married gay couple cannot
have their sins forgiven through baptism, until they denounce their parents; and
it is noteworthy that women, who wear the holy robes of the priesthood in Mormon
temples, are denied the right to act as priests in actuality.
I didn't find the obit offensive at all. A journalist's job is to sum
up the public impact of any major event, including the death of a public figure.
The issues in the obit were the issues President Monson faced, were they not?
The Times also noted at length Pres. Monson's emphasis on a new
openness in the Church, which is a great legacy. BTW, the Times
refers to every man as "Mr." regardless of their position--even the
President of the USA. It's Times style and always has been.
The doctrine is not of one man.
IMO the approach to the Monson obit is no different than that taken to the
Falwell obit in 2007. And both are consistent with the Obit Editor's
description of how they determine what part of an individual's life
is/isn't covered in an obit.
Mr. McDonald should have told the truth and answered that his initial purpose
was to further the liberal leftist agenda at every opportunity, even in a
religious man’s obituary. The New York Times is so transparent.
When compared to the NYT obituaries of Hugh Hefner and Fidel Castro, it is
astonishing. They glorify those two. Isaiah 5:20 sums it up quite well.
The Times is a liberal rag that is best used for lining bird cages and
housebreaking dogs. The petition was a waste of time and probably was amusing to
the editors of the Times. Who really cares what the Times had to say
about a true prophet whose life was spent in the Christ-like service of others
both within and outside of the Church?
The NYT should, indeed, have reported on some of the key issues the LDS Church
faced during his tenure, but they could have done a better job of putting them
into perspective. As much a those who opposed him would have liked to have seen
a monumental uprising in objection to the church's stands, the protests
were small, and certainly didn't begin to represent the level of
participation or acceleration inferred by the article. For the most part they
were flashed in the pan.For me, the real shortcoming of the article
is that it makes no attempt to tell the real story of Thomas S. Monson, and the
incredible impact he had in both the one-on-one realm of personal ministry, but
also his simple, yet profound teaching, his powerful example, and his engaging
sense of humor. The real power of President Monson was his ability to move
people to action through love.
Noone should expect anything less from the NYT's.Of course the
MSM is going to focus on the controversial part of his life, but he didnt bend
and many people outside the church hated it and didnt understand why the church
takes such a strong stand against the secular ammoral society we live in
today.It is what it is, perhaps we should send the editor the
memoirs of pres Monson to give them a more clear understanding of the life he
Mormons who live in the Utah bubble and are offended by the obituary would do
well to take note that this is how the world not under the sway of the Brethren
sees the church and its leaders.
Brigham Young made a powerful statement about being offended. We who love Pres.
Monson must realize that sources outside of our world view do not see things the
way we do. I certainly thought the NYT obit emphasized the controversial too
much, but it is time to let it go and concentrate on the things we appreciate
about Pres. Monson. The rest of the week should be a time of reflection and
gratitude for the life of our dear prophet.
For me, I think it was the highest tribute to President Monson that the NYT
pointed out that he did "not bend" in the face of the various immoral
and shameful practices and protests that the obit alluded to.President Monson stood at the pinnacle of exemplary behavior and leadership in
following the commandments of God despite the ridicule and blasphemy of the
world. Praise to this great man who communed with Jehovah - our beloved Prophet
and President of The Lord's Church on Earth! You will be
I know that when I read it I was very disappointed with how they portrayed
President Monson. While there may have been some stuff that people may not have
liked, the fact that he would drop everything so he could help someone was
missing. The humane services that he would do were lacking.
It's like if an obituary of Pope John Paul II spent the entire time talking
about the controversies he and the Catholic Church had with the sedevacantists
and Society of St Pius X, and ignored his ecumenism, his pacifism, and his
opposition to dictatorship, communism, and apartheid.The NYT obits
editor claims that people are complaining because they didn't focus on
"the high regard with which [Pres. Monson] was held within the
church."That's absurd. People are upset because the
obituary barely touched on anything to do with who he was or what he did in
life. Instead, they chose to focus on a handful of objectors' and
outsiders' critiques of the church, and to act as though those dominated
his time in church service. For example, take all the talk dedicated
to "weathering protests" that demanded ordination of women. In a church
of 15 million, having 200 people show up to a couple isolated protests is barely
news, and issues like these neither dominated Pres. Monson's time nor were
decisive factors in his tenure in church service.
I thought the NYTimes piece was far and away the best accounting of his life.
Fair. Balanced. Truthful. An accurate accounting of the man and his legacy. What
I’m surprised about is the complete silence on the Newsweek article the
link to which the Deseret News also provided in the same story as the Times
link. The Newsweek piece I thought was the real ‘hit’ piece.
Especially in it’s layout with a strategically placed and titled article
to an FLDS story. Look it up. It’s all in that Deseret News article about
what others are saying concerning his death.
The New York Times always refers to people as Mr. or Ms. unless there is a
reason to do otherwise. Medical doctors are referred to as Dr. if
the article is about their medical career. Otherwise, they're Mr. or
Ms.Former president Barack Obama is referred to as Mr. Obama, as he
was for the eight years that he was president. Trump is referred to as Mr.
Trump. Governors are referred to as Mr. I'm not sure why you
have a problem with Mr. Monson.
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Having been a New Yorker this is to be expected for a liberal newspaper rag.
Love them to try saying that about an emam or pope. They are clueless when it
comes to spiritually.
President Monson was a good man who blessed many lives and performed numerous
acts of service. AND he presided over a church that hurt many with its policies
and practices. Both are true. And it is true that the obit could have been more
balanced in sharing more examples of the service and positive attributes.
Wait. People read the New York Times? Who knew? :-)
Newspaper writers and editors see what they want to see, not what is reality,
and they write what they want their readers to consume, not the entire truth.
This is a case-in-point for that.
I believe the AP guidelines suggest news articles written about the US president
use the title “President” the first time he’s mentioned, after
which “Mr” is used. I don’t know if the NYT first referred to
President Monson as such but I don’t see using “Mr” as a
slight. I don’t see the obituary as a hit piece, but it is
incomplete. The obit should have spent more time discussing the universally
positive things Pres Monson did during his lifetime but I assume the authors
weren’t familiar with these details. The editor’s claim that
people would assume those charitable acts is a bit of a cop out. I’m
betting most readers unfamiliar with the church would already be familiar with
the church’s stance on social issues and not the multitude of charitable
and humanitarian efforts the church engages in. Thus, an obituary that
highlights these deeds would be more informative to the NYT readers than what
was given. I’m perfectly fine if someone wants to mention
controversial parts of Monson’s life so long as they also highlight the
good he’s done. A speaker for the dead if you will.
It was a liberal gristmill piece. However, this makes little if any impact on
the wonderful legacy of Thomas Monson. He’ll laugh about it himself when
he finds out what was written. The NYT has truly become a tempest in a teapot
newspaper.My family loved President Monson.
It’s the New York Times...what do you expect? The truth? Hardly.
Red Corvette: The man was 90 years old - he became a Bishop at 22, an Apostle at
36 - I "met" him coming off an elevator, I was getting in - he smiled as
he saw me - didn't know me at all - I used to get 7 newspapers a day,
two from England - I know what they COULD have said, basically what the
outpouring from non-LDS said about him.
They call him whatever they want. Jesus the perfect man was above reproach yet
was crucified. President Monson was a giant. Those blessed to know him simply
know this. The world goes on it merry way but we will always honor Pres
Monson for his love, teachings, counsel and enthusiasm. He bas gone on to his
eternal reward. The opinion of the NYT is not even a blip on the radar. He was
a true Prophet, seer and revelator. God blessed him and we are his
beneficiaries. God is perfect.
It's the NYT, I mean come on, what else do you expect from a newspaper that
lost it's integrity along time ago.
How could they ignore the incredible Humanitarian service he helped put in
place? How could they ignore the service he gave to members and non-members of
the church? He did so much good for so many people. How could they ignore the
tributes given by other faiths? The NY Times focused on those things that would
create the greatest negative reaction.
I found the obituary to be spot-on. In fact, it was much kinder than what could
have been written.
The editor merely doubled down on the earlier flawed obituary. His response is
essentially a denial of any bias at the Times. He presents strawman versions of
reader’s complaints, and doesn’t seriously address well-reasoned
objections from readers. Have a look at the Times’ glowing tributes to
such men as Hugh Hefner, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez, and compare them to the
hit job on Thomas S. Monson. Despite the horrific acts of the three former, they
are given glowing praise, while the Thomas S. Monson’s life is subject to
a laundry list of liberal complaints.In the wake of several
scandals, some years ago, that exposed serial deficiencies in the Times’
journalism, the Times established a public editor position that provided an
independent voice within the paper. The public editor would be the proper person
to review the complaints in this case. The Times, unfortunately, recently did
away with the position.Perhaps the Times did not appreciate that
numerous public editors consistently confirmed that the Times has a strong
liberal bias. With that editor gone, the Times can go back to denying the facts
that are plain to see.
This is man who probably helped far more people that were not of the Mormon
religion. He is ultimately a saint in religion circles, he dedicated 71 years
of his life on earth to helping the poor and the hungry, and probably more than
that. To write a typical obituary for this man of faith is a travesty! I love
you PRESIDENT MONSON and thank you for your SERVICE.
Read the LA Times obit.It is a little softer at the outset, but I
don’t know how you don’t mention the major societal issues Monson
engaged inProp 8 was a thingThe policy about the
children of gays was realThe church split with the Boy ScoutsPlease realize there is a world outside of this paper and learn from
others viewes about the churchThat way you can understand how they
think and find common ground thereby
““Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and
weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for
the right to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend,” the
obituary read. “Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on
sexual intercourse outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood
would remain unaltered”This is a true statementShouldn’t Mormons be proud their leader didn’t bend?
Extremely disrespectful for addressing a prophet as Mr. Typical east coast
liberal mentality. What do they really know about a spiritual giant among men in
today's world? God bless President Monson our Prophet who is well deserving
of much more respect. RIP
The NY Times published only the two statements they did about President Monson
because that is the only thing they knew of the man -- or cared about. To say
that they told the public side and not the private side is a pretty lame excuse.
The public side included decades of public service within and outside the
Church. Think about this: Would the NY Times every print anything like this
about Muslims who hold about the same position as Mormons on marriage and gender