Wow...talk about a biased "obituary." Perhaps the NYT should retract it, call it an opinion piece and publish an actual obituary instead?
Still, if we are to "blame" President Monson for all that happened under his leadership, then perhaps we should also "blame" him for the massive humanitarian efforts from the LDS Church to natural disasters in the U.S. and elsewhere? How about their efforts to assist communities in dire need of fresh water, or immigrant, maternal and infant care programs? Immunization and vision programs? Huh....no "blame" in the "obituary" for those things, so I guess the writer was a little short on research.
Oh well....I'll gladly accept that this man, a leader of an international religious organization, lived his faith and encouraged others to do the same. Agree with his faith or not, I hope that the readers will acknowledge his life-long commitment to his religion and humanitarianism while pitying the author for his pettiness.
173
to all of you Mormon commenters who are complaining about this obituary, can you deny one historic fact reported? Monson *might* have had a benevolent heart, but he still was prejudice to a fault/sin. Since when has the church truly honored women, or gays and lesbians (even celibate ones) or for that matter, blacks? I know in 1978 Mormons allowed blacks into the church, Maya Angelou spoke in the temple about this during the time, but how racially diverse is the Mormon church in 2018? Ask Maya?
33
As a deist, I am opposed to many of the views of Monson but he certainly has a right to express and believe them.
Where I think Mr Monson is a hypocrite is that he never spoke out against Trump as being a bigot, rabble rouser, pathological liar, ego maniac demagogue and most horrible an admitted sexual predator.
21
“Unless we lose ourselves in service to others, there is little purpose to our own lives.”
-- Thomas S. Monson, 1927-2018
-- this is what he lived, this is what he taught --
80
Basically this article is the opposite absurdity from #TrudeauEulogies. Thomas S. Monson was the most selflesss public figure since Mother Teresa, but you put him on blast because he did not conform to your secular liberal bigotry. You should have just titled this article “New York Times Still Disagrees with God’s 4,000 Year Old Polices.”
Doing this to a man’s obituary is the pseudo-journalistic equivalent to the Westborough Baptist Church’s funeral protests—only you think you are better than them because you happen to be on the opposite side of the same issue. But both sides display the same self-righteousness and lack of respect for one’s fellow-men.
Persecution is par for the course of a prophet. After a life filled with so much adoration and accolades, one can only hope that the Times still has enough readers to earn President Monson a modicum of respect on this measure when he enters the ranks with Jeremiah, Paul, and Joseph Smith.
84
This is why so many in our social media driven era find it hard believe the Old Gray Lady. It's disheartening to see the once influential NYT fall so far from grace and prominence and become no different than a bottom-feeding buzzfeed-styled media outlet (...it's hard to really consider it news with nothing but heavy, slanted, leftist-opinion oozing from it's pages.) It's condescending, one-sided reporting can't seem to break free from the click-bait hole it's dug its way into. Imagine if it could tell us the full story as it once did in a different time. Unfortunately, this may be too much to ask since it now relys solely on inexpensive 20-somethings lacking in life experience to fill its pages with words and concepts they don't even understand. It can no longer afford real journalists. Thinking through this aloud... why should I expect anything more other than just another subpar piece, lacking in understanding when trying to eulogize such an amazing human. Your overhead is high and your days are numbered and that won't be soon enough.
57
I too am deeply offended by this article. I refuse to call it an obituary because it is not. As a long time reader of the NYT, I'm very disappointed. This is mean-spirited and in no ways captures Pres. Monson's legacy of love, kindness, compassion and forgiveness. This journalist could benefit from studying Monson's actual words. Monson's continually reminded us to take care of one another regardless of faith, race, sexual orientation. He said, "all are our brother and sisters." He was a remarkable champion and exemplar of grace and charity. We are a better people for having been led by him. (This said by a faithful, progressive, feminist in Brooklyn)
127
Whether you agree with the doctrines taught by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or not, this article in no way should be described as an obituary. The fact that a man who dedicated his life to serving others got 4 sentences at the end of the article explaining his humanitarian aid contributions to the world shows that this article completely missed the mark. To include polygamy in an article about President Monson when he never participated in it goes to show you that the author was looking for hits more than truth. I can’t believe an newspaper publication as well respected as the New York Times would publish such slanderous things as about such a wonderful man. I hope people will seek out the truth about him on lds.org, Mormon.org, mormonandgay.lds.org, or on every of the many other sites that demonstrates what the church actually believes.
108
This reporter and the NYT should be ashamed of themselves. They didn't even use the actual name of the church in the article. While praising Hugh Hefner as a visionary, they put down a man who has dedicated his life to helping others and living his life the way he believed God would have him live. Not to mention the blatant disrespect and anti-mormonism shown in this article. They used this obituary as a platform for bias. They owe an apology to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Monson family.
97
Classic one-dimensional piece of writing from the Times about the oh so thrilling and scandalous fact that upper Mormon leadership isn’t 20 something entrepreneurs. The discussion of gerontocracy is a journalistic cliche when it comes to discussing Mormonism. We get it, they’re old. They also happen to be incredibly experienced, thoughtful, reasonable, and relevant.
53
It is distasteful for a well known newspaper to turn an honorable man’s legacy into a political agenda. Shame on you New York Times. Take your political agenda elsewhere. There is a time and place to express our political beliefs. An orbituary is meant to celebrate the life and legacy of the person that passed. It is not the platform to express biased opinion that slanders the character of someone that spreaded messages of positivity, love, charity and redemption.
88
Wow. President Monson was literally one of the most selfless, caring, and compassionate people that America has produced in the last century and the NYT can't do anything except pile on some half-truths and negativity. Heavily biased and poorly-researched doesn't even begin to describe this political hit piece masquerading as a faux-obituary.
He was a champion of the underdog, an advocate for the poor. He took care of the widows and orphans of this world, and inspired millions more to do so as well. You'd be well served to update this article with some accurate and relevant content that reflects this.
78
Wow! I’m surprised at the lack of research the New York Times has completed.
52
Wow, so you are taking a lifetime of humanitarian service (billions of dollars of aid under Monson) and just throwing it out the window and instead are publishing a hit piece against a church's policies disguised as an obituary. Your contempt for the LDS church is obvious.
76
What a pathetic piece of writing, clearly laying out the author's biases against the Church. Thankfully, I rely on the WSJ for accurate journalism and they published an appropriate obituary today. Please go to any source but the NYT if you would like to know more about this selfless, devoted leader. Unfortunately, I find myself finding the NYT more and more irrelevant, bent on their own agenda. This "obituary" clearly falls into that category.
52
This is the first time I have ever been disappointed by the New York Times. I do not support Trump or believe that the media only spreads fake news, but this was a hateful piece meant to bash and destroy. The press release by Trump was short and incredibly respectful, unlike this. President Monson served and loved others for his entire life. How many of us can say that we have done the same? None of us can, because none of us have a caring and loving heart like President Monson did. He held true and strong to his religion and had to make the decision as the President for the church to do the same. You state the Monson failed to recognize women at the same level as men in the church, but praise Hugh Hefner in his obituary as one of the greatest champions for women? Wrong, Monson respected and loved the role women play in society, Hefner degraded and objectified.
New York Times turned an obituary into a political piece and highlighted controversy over the accomplishments that Monson helped create. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the largest humanitarian organizations out there and as a liberal woman who is a member of this church, I have nothing but love and respect for this man and will always turn to the words of comfort and guidance he has given.
84
The only reason I know Thomas Monson's name is that it's in the song "I Believe" from The Book of Mormon on Broadway, and I'm dying to when they'll change it, if they change it. Or maybe they changed it tonight!
3
I am not a Mormon and had neither heard of this man nor aware of some of the issues that he faced.
Here is my one impression of these young missionaries that now helped me understand more by reading this obituary.
I just finished living in London, England.
Traveling extensively by public transport brings you in contact with many.
And young Mormon missionaries stand out no matter where.
I enjoyed meeting them because I knew most would be Americans.
So, while it was indeed pleasure talking to these very polite men - I was surprised by their lack of curiosity around them.
They knew very little about England, happenings in London or even news from home.
They did tell me that they are prohibited from the web, smart phones etc.
To me, that seems such a waste of a golden opportunity to learn about others, other faith and even making friends from foreign lands.
Some came to my apartment where I was happy to share meals with them.
But it was an evening short of any fun of being with young people.
This obituary helps understand these strictures - about not recognizing dissimalirities in the human race.
Finally, though may not be accurate, but it appears this man occupied a post like the Pope. I expect a NYT obituary of a pope to discuss conflicts - political or religious - during his reign.
18
I feel this article is very biased and has many holes in its story. I would know, considering I'm a member of the LDS Church. Thomas Monson was an amazing man who dedicated most of his life to serving God and his fellow men, no matter who they were or what they did. He was selfless and a great leader of the Church. The decisions on not allowing women to have the priesthood and excommunicating those who fight against church policies are not unfair. They were led by God and were prayed about heavily. Changing rules placed to benefit people just to please them is highly illogical. Thomas S. Monson was firm in his decisions. Why have a leader if you're not willing to follow? Yes, it's true many were mad because the Church was not made to be more lenient, but the article left out that many were also okay with it. Many people actually live by and agree with their church and the standards placed by it. If anyone has a problem with the church's morals, they can leave or investigate the motives of these choices.
There's so much more I could say, but I won't. I just know that this is a very vague and biased obituary that leaves out many great acts performed by a wonderful, selfless, and righteous man.
35
Having known a few Mormons in my time, I have found that their community a provocative one. This article is meant to be an obituary. As such, one must pay due respect & condolences to Mr. Monson's family & the wider Mormon community. I would not address doctrinal differences which are obvious between Mormons & other Christians as well as with Jews & Muslims. That is not a topic for today.
Rather, let's consider the persecution that Latter Day Saints suffered in their early history. Let's consider their focus on strong families & strong communities. Let's focus on the outreach that Mormons attempt both beyond their proselytizing activities (admittedly a character-building activity) as well as their interfaith activities. Let's focus on Mormon defense of immigrants, religious minorities, refugees. Let 's remember Mormons such as George Romney, Harry Reid, Bruce Babbitt an Morris Udall whose efforts for the environment, civil rights & other worthy causes have built their esteem beyond their numbers.
Based upon their history, I can only imagine that Mormons will do the right thing when it comes to defending rights of racial & sexual minorities. I would expect that there will be female Mormon clergy in the near future. Such has been the Mormon trajectory.
Mr. Monson could have done more but he did something to advance the welfare of society. And by all regards, he lived a good & virtuous life.
39
Thank you for writing an obituary that provides a complete portrait, both good and bad, of this person’s accomplishments. As an LGBT person of faith and Catholic who supports women’s ordination, the inclusion of his persecution of families headed by same-sex couples and his opposition to women’s ordination shows that you have written this obituary for a much wider audience than just the vocal minority who demand this individual be put on a pedestal instead of being looked at from all angles.
Mormons have a difficult path ahead of them. If they continue to discriminate against families headed by same-sex couples, choosing to believe that is God’s will, they will fall further out of step with their fellow Americans. If they embrace the Mormon families amongst them that are headed by same-sex couples, then the vocal minority of Mormons in opposition will cause them great grief. Either way, this is the bed that their church leaders have made for them, and they will now sleep in it.
20
As someone who has watched President Monson's actions and heard him speak for 24 years, I don't feel like this article accurately reflects President Monson's life. I'm really upset that the NYT chose this moment to display their beef with the Mormon church, rather than honoring a good and kind man for the life that he lived.
I am not opposed to bringing up controversy in an obituary, but I am opposed to politicizing an obituary for no reason other than the only things the author knows about the Mormon church is that they don't believe in same-sex marriage or having women in the priesthood.
There is a lot more to the Mormon church than that, and there was MUCH more to President Monson's life than those two issues. Honestly, if that is all that this author knows, choose another author to write this obituary. I am disgusted in the NYT.
51
I was extremely disappointed in this negative article about a great man who dedicated his life to service and just passed away. The author is clearly biased. This makes me very sad.
42
I'm a member of the LDS Church, and believe this article grossly represents President Monson's life and legacy, as many other readers have already expressed.
His life was given in selfless service to all those around him. He taught, upheld and supported every point of doctrine of his proclaimed religion. In a country where we claim to support religious freedom, why would one criticize a man who has sought to uphold his beliefs? While being an exemplary defender of what he believed in, he yet offered the same privilege to those of other religions and beliefs, and didn't infringe upon their rights to freedom of expression and religious freedom, as long as they supported principles of basic morality. He would never treat another person poorly who believed differently from him, and he taught members of the LDS church to do the same.
He was a good man. If you want to learn more accurate information about his life and teachings I would encourage you to visit this article instead: https://www.lds.org/people/thomas-s-monson/memorial?cid=HP_3_1_2018_dPAA...
50
Except that he did infringe upon others' beliefs. In being a bigot towards LGBT people and continuing to breed a patriarchal culture inside the LDS church that treats women as second class citizens, he harmed countless people and supported the hateful words of the church leadership. Those with questions or concerns about the sketchy history of the church were met with mockery and admonishment to "give Joseph Smith a break", as if he ever deserved one.
Monson deserves every bit of criticism thrown at him. Being dead doesn't make him above criticism, and it certainly doesn't make him a better man than he was in life, and he was a horrible man there too.
20
I am very disappointed in the New York Times for this distasteful obituary of an exemplary leader of the LDS church, Thomas S. Monson. This "obituary" ended up being an opportunity to cover the most controversial topics of the church throughout his tenure, not coverage of his life. I know what Religions believe is not popular among the mainstream population, but this was not the time and place to cover these topics, a separate time and place would have been far more appropriate and respectful. Monson was a man that dedicated the majority of his long life in service to others. He became an apostle at age 36, so for 54 years of this man's life, he volunteered full-time service to God, to his church, and to the community. He was a man that humbly led by example, spending countless hours serving others. He was also a great advocate of the Boy Scouts, including being awarded the highest recognition by the organization, the Bronze Wolf. If you'd like to read an incredible article on his life, please seek out today's Deseret News article by Tad Walch. I am grateful for the wonderful example of Thomas S. Monson. The world needs many more people like him.
60
Except he wasn't a volunteer. Mormon apostles are paid; their base living allowance is at least $120,000 as of 2014, which does not include other benefits such as healthcare and travel. They also sit on the boards of the many for-profit companies that feed into LDS, Inc.'s coffers. If I perform many hours of service per week, but I was paid for performing service, is that volunteer service or is it paid labor? Because that sounds an awful lot like a JOB.
Now, is that a lot for the work these men do? Personally, no. I believe all of them would make more in the private sector--certainly most of them did! I think it's on the poor side for those kind of hours, personally. But it is disingenuous to say that they are volunteers.
6
"volunteered" to the tune of 120k per year plus expenses.
24
Poor writing and research. This is not a well-written obituary. He was remarkable human being with global influence. He deserved credit for the inspiration he provided to millions worldwide with his guidance, words, and sincerity. As a fifth-generation practicing Mormon and liberal arts college professor I will miss Pres. Monson’s love for classic literature and poetry used in his conference talks. He inspired Christ-like attributes in others quoting Joseph Smith, Lewis Caroll, or Dickens. Learning from him helped me to become a better father, spouse, and member of the various communities in which I’ve lived. My well-adjusted children are better young adults because they've taken his counsel. He has taught me, a political economy professor and internationalist, that my identity as a faithful LDS member is not a political act but a religious one, an identity in which morality and decency is unbounded by left or right political ideologies or America's shameful politics and endless news cycle of ethical failures from Wall St. to Main St and across the religious spectrum itself.
38
As a Mormon, I should be used to the mischaracterization of my faith. It's been happening since the Churchs establishment in 1830. But it's still difficult when the obituary of a Mormon leader, who by all accounts lived a nearly selfless life and encouraged others to do likewise, is merely a side note after a list of the authors grievances against the church.
I love reading the Times. As a left leaning individual in a sea of conservatism, I've felt fought hard to legitimize its reporting to countless skeptical friends. However, this article will stand as the case in point to those who disagree with me.
I understand the need to ask tough questions about the church's policy and history. We do it more than many like to think. But give credit where credit is due. Thomas Monson lived an exceptional life.
60
I am not and have never been a Mormon. To those that say why not speak the truth: an obituary is traditionally meant to highlight a person life, family and funeral. It is not meant to be an interpretation of how someone perceives this life nor their affiliations. Many times truth is what we want to make it because what is truth, is what the culture believes and honors. Where additional information is present, this not only detracts from, but degrades the intention of any communication. This is where the press turns itself from a fact-based agency, into an attempt at driving cultural in one direction. There are many more negative 'achievements', than any positive connotations to the article. Because of this, it is at its base, a ploy-based article. It is an attempt to make the reader believe what the author does. On religion, the Mormon faith is just that. It is a principled belief, and widely accepted I might add, based on historical records and accepted norms and values. It is not and should not be based what an outside culture, that might or might not have faith, believes it should be. Furthermore, it should not be coerced to believe it either. This would be an attack on our own rights. Remove this article and post two separate articles: a proper obituary and an Op-Ed.
88
This totally sounds like a Mormon pretending not to be Mormon, but I do agree it reads more like an op-ed than an obituary. I don’t think many people outside of Mormonism believe it is based on a historical record. It isn’t an attack on anyone’s rights to have someone disagree with their beliefs. That being said, the Nytimes could have been much more balanced in their coverage of this.
12
Thank you! My thoughts exactly.
1
Thank you for your comment, James! I am a Mormon, and I appreciate your thoughts.
11
The writer of this obituary obviously has a negative view of the L.D.S. church, and he decided to air it in a exemplary man's obituary. He had many errors (see the other comments for examples), and it's plain to see what he was trying to do. Another example of the liberal world trying to tear down other's faith. Where is the tolerance and acceptance that the liberals are always crying about? It also bothers me that they try to blame Monson for the churches stance on LGTB-ism. It's not up to him, it's up to God. And when the liberals don't like it - they go out and vandalized our property and persecute the believers - because they are so tolerant and accepting of others... Seems hypocritical - right?
43
Who specifically vandalized your property?
6
You believe it's from god, and he may have believed it was from god. But there are over 300 million people in America and the vast, vast majority do not believe that Monson was a prophet of god or god's mouthpiece. The November policy was released as "revelation". So to every person that is not mormon, the November policy IS from Monson. So yes, he is to blame.
PS
Nice straw man with the "liberals" comment. +1
17
Thomas S. Monson was truly one of the most selfless, caring, devoted, faithful, charitable men. He dedicated his entire life to the service of others. His uplifting words are powerful because he lived them wholly, without hypocrisy. I am grateful for Thomas S. Monson as a true disciple of Christ. I look forward to reviewing again his life and teachings because it lifts me up and inspires me to do more for the benefit of others.
In contrast, this 'obituary' is shamefully not representative of this man and his life. Truly the worst obituary I have ever read. Poor journalism.
42
For some reason I have always tought highly on The New Your Times and their reports, not any more. This writting is obviosly trying to fish some points from the antimormon world. This is not an OBITUARY of a great man, this is an attac against his religion! WHY does NYT use an OBITUARY where it is supposed to be about the deseased and his life to attac his religion? Person who wrote this has obviosly very little knowledge on LDS and his sauces have been onesidedly anti. Someone should write a REAL OBITUARY instead of this bashing! If someone wants to dsicuss the things that are given a lot of negativity in this writting, it SHOULD NOT be done in an OBITUARY of a great man! I suggest you ask LDS Church to pardon you and try again, this time about the man who always was ready to help, serve and show love to those less fortunate! Shame on you!
18
Everything in it is true, but it should have included some positive things as well.
7
For all those that believe this is accurate information and a correct representation of this man’s life, I challenge you search out the truth.
22
Why does this article frame him as the champion of female oppression but when Hugh Hefner died, the NYT framed him as a visionary, boundary-pushing progressive?
Thanks Robert McFadden, really love the unbiased reporting here on someone who is behind literally millions and millions of dollars in aide to the poor, oppressed, and needy.
58
He could have spent another $30 million on aid but he just wanted that Book of Mormon manuscript so bad. Shame on him for building a shopping mall downtown. And a dozen expensive, self-aggrandizing temples that do nothing to help the physical welfare of their communities (besides maybe padding the pockets of some well-connected contractors).
8
No mention of the Mormon role in the same sex marriage ban brouha in CA? Thought that happened on his watch.
25
Readers cry biased view on the life of this man because it was not 'biased' to fit the LDS worship of their leader. As someone outside of the LDS church, I thought it was fair and enlightening.
42
That's the point. Obituaries are not a place for a biased view. Just facts...like the man died, had family, worked, did this - did that. Not opinions - like "should have or was viewed as..." That's all opinion stuff. People are just looking for an obituary on this religious leader. The author gets to choose what facts are worthy of print. Here's a poor example to exaggerate a point - ' "Ghandi died recently, BUT he wasn't that great". When do you insert "BUT" in the first sentence of a person's obituary. News articles are supposed to be facts, opinion articles opinion, obituaries (from dictionary.com) - noun - a notice of a death, especially in a newspaper, typically including a brief biography of the deceased person. What you may be missing here is this has nothing to do with bias - it has to do with respect. Even bad people get some level of respect when they die - for them and their family. Thomas Monsen was a great person. Give him and his family some respect - is all folks are asking.
18
" weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right to be ordained as priests' ???? talk about hyperbole. Never happened.
7
Yes it did
6
I subscribed to the NY Times knowing I would read some breathtaking pieces of important journalism combined with other pieces of severe bias and questionable editorial control. I never thought, however, that I'd read a politicized hit piece cloaked as a obituary of a public servant. The author immediately launches into a diatribe against Monson's failings which irrecoverably colors the rest of his piece.
36
Gee, I wonder why more and more people are discounting the press. This article is embarrassingly biased and the author attempted to disguise his dislike for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in the form of a Obituary. Sad that we loosing an unbiased press in this country. The fact is that President Monson who, as a lay minister, devoted his life to helping people gain an understanding of spirit and our purpose. If one uses a search engine and checks out a photo of President Monson's home, you would see that he truly understood what Christ taught us. He lived small on this earth, but his spirit is huge. I will pray for the author and hope that one day he will be blessed with a modicum of understanding and gain earthly and eternal joy.
22
You responded much more mature than I did. Thank you for bringing me to see my shortcomings. Really - no sarcasm or anything.
3
This article is a disgrace, this author should be ashamed. No matter what you believe or what your political opinions are, this article is disrespectful and small-minded. How could a professional writer for such a large newspaper be so ignorant? To quote another's comment, "When did it become okay to disregard all of the wonderful things people contribute to this world because you disagree with some of their controversial decisions?"
32
If the writer had taken the time to actually learn about this man then he would have realised that this was one of the greatest men who lived an exempliary life. Using an obituary to push an agenda is pretty gross so I'll post my own here on the man himself.
He spent his whole life doing everything he could to help anyone he could. He was one of the longest serving leaders in the church becasue at such a young age he showed that he was dedicated to his faith and he stayed strong until the end. His leadership and example not only changed my life but the lives of millions of others. His influence and sacrifice reached across the whole world, not just to those in the church. He is someone the world should know and aspire to be like. Condolences to his family and glad that he is finally with his wife again.
29
Only the last few paragraphs of this “obituary” read like an obituary. The rest of this is drudging up drama and does not illustrate the life of this man to its readers, hardly mentioning him at all for most of it. Disappointed in the NYT; I thought they were above this nonsense.
23
Romney, now's your chance to be president.
3
Pretty negative,hit piece article. Come on NY Times, Thomas Monson was as good as they get. His humanitarian initiatives and kindess is legendary. This is how an article announving the passing of such a great person should be written: https://www.google.com/amp/www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/beloved-...
18
I've never read a more politicized obituary.
“Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved," Monson taught. For all that knew him, his life was one characterized by love and service, not by political controversies. A shame that this obituary is so incomplete and puts focus in all the wrong places.
An obituary that more accurately reflects the prophet's life is found here: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-thomas-monson-passes-away
30
"Some critics, including the website OnceDelivered.net, which identified itself as an expression of the Baptist faith, said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had previously contended that Smith had been happily married to only one woman, and that the new teaching had used Scripture to “address the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.”"
I graduated from high school in 1968. Much as I would have preferred to sleep in, for me this also meant attending Mormon Seminary classes before school started. In those seminary lessons, I clearly remember Joseph's Smith's plural marriages being discussed, along with the fact that his first wife, Emma, was not always too pleased about it.
Much earlier than this, as a child growing up under the tutelage of a very devout Mormon mother, I also learned that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. I myself descend from a Polygamist whose father sometimes hosted Joseph Smith overnight and who, as a youth, would make daily visits to Smith during a period of incarceration in Missouri. According to the record, my ancestor had 7 wives and 63 children.
None of this was taught to me as being shameful, but being the way God had ordained it to be before the laws of man made it impossible.
To put my comment in context, I have not been an active Mormon and, except for funerals of loved ones, have not attended a Mormon church service for a good 35 years.
8
What silliness.
Mormans came from a long discredited encounter in a guy's back yard.
15
It's spelled 'Mormons"
6
I think it is telling that when this newspaper refers to the leader of the Catholic faith, they refer to him using his honorific title of Pope Francis, instead of Mr. Bergoglio. However, each time this article refered to the leader of the Mormon faith, they called him Mr. Monson instead of using his title President Monson.
24
This obit focuses far too much on the things that had nothing to do with President Monson or his life and work. I'm not sure I understand why "Ordain Women" and topics of the like would be mentioned in his obituary at all. I can see mentioning the controversies that surround the LDS Church quickly but his good deeds are reduced to just a paragraph or two while those controversies suck up the entire summary of his life. A disgrace to a life well lived, a life spent entirely serving others.
25
I am shocked that the NY Times would allow such a biased and bigoted article appear in their obituary section, while completely disregarding the 90 years of dedicated service this prominent leader gave to his country, community, and church. This is clearly a bash against the Mormon church and not an obituary honoring a great man who spent his whole life serving others. Very disrespectful! You should be ashamed of yourselves!
21
The New York Times is using an obituary to promote liberal views?! It's a sad day in reporting. Shame on you. Thomas S. Monson was a lover of God, good and all people. His live was exemplary.
19
Meanwhile, you chose the obituary of a cult leader to cry the tired lies about the "liberal" media.
4
I am going to miss this good and faithful man. He was full of goodness, kindness, and sincerity. He loved the youth and cared very deeply about their well being. He dedicated his entire life to Christian discipleship. At age 36 he gave up a promising career in business and accepted a call to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and thereafter his full-time life's work was building the kingdom of God and serving his fellow man. His life and accomplishments should be recognized, celebrated, and will be cherished by those of us who knew him.
21
The phrase “Restrictions on the children of gay parents who are faithful church members" by Professor Bushman appears to be a contradiction in terms. There's a narrow scenario I can think of where a gay parent can also be a faithful member--and that's by disavowing the living of a gay lifestyle completely.
It's worth stating that of baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ is exceptionally huge. It is a commitment to follow the teachings of the Church's scriptures and prophets and apostles for THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, and that God will hold you accountable for that commitment. This is not something small. And for people who struggle with ANY church doctrine--be it gay marriage, ordaining women or even drinking alcohol, smoking or occasional drug use--pushing your children to accept a religion you, yourself have challenges with is a hard position to take.
I believe the policy is good because it preserves the child's right to choose when they are old enough, have more information and, in the mean-time, preserve the FAMILY as it is and not stress those family bonds thanks to a child making a commitment to a religion that their own parents have a challenging time with.
P.S. This policy about baptism when parents do not follow the church's teachings has existed for a long time and is regularly updated with precise language as new social challenges arise. This is not new, although it gets frequently recycled in the news and by trolls for its attention-grabbing power.
8
In 30 years time when the numbers are dwindling and it can't fill all stake and ward leadership positions with men, women will be given the priesthood.
TSM will be thrown under the bus by the same church, as Brigham Young was over Blacks not having the priesthood. The author of this got it, and it was of relevance to his legacy and events during.
The other topic of banning children from being baptised was also critical and could not be left out. The #1 instruction from Jesus before he left was baptise EVERY man, women AND child. The policy of TSM to restrict children of a gay parent from being baptised, and receive the gift of the holy ghost, so as to punish their gay parent, is humilating, hurtful, petty, and fundamentally anti christian and a light year change in both scripture and instruction. In a time when SSM is a worldwide discussion point, and the LDS church was the largest of activists to ban it, their Nov 2015 action against children is incredibly relevant and a legacy of his leadership.
These issues could not be left out of an obituary of the man who is the single most powerful person and regarded as not just "a" prophet, but THE prophet like Noah, Abraham, Moses.
This policy is NOT good and it IS new. Asking a person to disavow their parents lifestyle, AND move out of home before they can be baptised is repulsive
10
President Monson was fairly quiet on most of the negative topics mentioned in this article - you overstate his influence as believers know that he works with direction from God. If God did not tell him to change the Priesthood to apply to women, then he is not authorized to make that decision. Those issues are a very, very small part of the 90 years of service he gave. I can't imagine if the Catholic Pope died his obituary would be this negative. I find it offensive the NY Times would focus so heavily on the bad for someone who gave his entire being to serving others. If all of us chose to look outward as much as he did instead of selfishly at ourselves the world would be a better place.
9
As much as I respect the Times’s reporting, I found this article to be heavily one-sided. Only in the second-to-last paragraph is any mention made of the humanitarian aspects of his presidency, unfairly representing the sum of his time in Mormon leadership. And any practicing Mormon will tell you that his leadership has coincided with a remarkable shift in Mormon cultural attitudes towards same-sex attraction and relationships, as well as towards the role of women in the church (the article failed to mention, among other things, his changing the church leadership counsels to include women).
Thomas S. Monson was certainly human, as with any other leader in any area. But his impact on the church and on the world was far more positive than this article indicates.
18
I don't understand why it takes 22 paragraphs to get to the obituary proper. That controversy can be, and has been covered, in article format. It can also be mentioned in the obituary, but in summarized form. As a Mormon New Yorker, I'm disappointed in my local paper for the obvious bias that will give more conservatives a reason to distrust the articles I share with them on other topics.
19
I am a daily reader of the NYT, consider it some of the best reporting in this country, and am grateful for the balanced and thorough voice it provides in these difficult times. But if you are looking for reporting on President Monson as an individual, read the NPR obit instead -- it's a much better report on who he was as a human being rather than a criticism of the Mormon church in general.
19
Like many of those who have commented below, I found this article disheartening. It seemed to be less of an obituary and more of a laundry list of LDS Church-related controversies, with a perfunctory mention of Thomas Monson's life and legacy.
I found the NY Times obituary for Pope John Paul II to be in much better taste:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E1DE1E3FF930A35757C0A... was much
Even while mentioning criticism of his views on abortion, homosexuality, and ordaining women, the tone of the article showed regard for a man that many revered — it incorporated comments from his followers and admirers, and a description of how he would be mourned and missed.
It is unfortunate that a similar tone and commentary were not used for Monson, a man who was also highly regarded by many people around the world and whose legacy had no lack of reportable material.
19
It disgusts me that instead of writing a beautiful tribute to a man who spent a majority of his life in the service of others and strengthening his relationship with God, McFadden chose to take this opportunity to highlight controversial issues surrounding the LDS church.
President Monson did not only serve others through his church callings, but he served in the United States military. President Monson did not only speak of loving others, he exemplified it in everything he did. It is well known how much President Monson loved the Boy Scouts of America program and is probably one of the main reasons the LDS church is still affiliated with them to this day.
This article is a disgrace to the author, the publisher, and especially to the millions of people who adore President Thomas Monson.
14
As a female Mormon millennial, I'd like to honor Thomas S. Monson's life of service. His biography, "To the Rescue," details numerous accounts of how he genuinely cared for individuals--often going out of his way to do so. I'm struggling with why this article took such a negative and politicized tone. Every encounter I've had with Thomas S. Monson's teachings have left me feeling uplifted and more compassionate.
14
I was quite disappointed in this obituary of Thomas S. Monson, a leader who is beloved by millions of people worldwide. Mr. McFadden has portrayed President Monson as a controversial, weak and marginal leader. His perspective is narrow indeed! Thomas S. Monson was a giant of a man, a man of nearly unimpeachable moral character and deep compassion. He has been hugely influential for good in the church here in the United States and internationally. This "obituary" (actually just a negative news report) focuses almost exclusively on three of the challenging issues the church has faced in the last decade: women and the priesthood, same sex marriage and 19th century polygamy. A relatively small number of people have left the church over these issues. However, these are not the issues that frame the day-to-day experience of faithful Mormons like myself. These issues do not define our connection to or memories of President Monson. Over his decades of service as a general authority and president of the church, President Monson has traveled the world and gained the respect of heads of state and the love of the people. During his presidency church membership has grown rapidly and the church has practiced what President Monson incessantly preached: service, charity, compassion and respecting those of differing beliefs. Please read other newspapers to gain a more balanced perspective on the exemplary life of Thomas S. Monson.
13
"Mr. Monson faced another test when church members, increasingly scouring online sources, found apparent contradictions between historical records and church teachings..."
There was no single crisis when some Big Secret got out. Mormons have been doubting and questioning since the beginning, just as adherents of every other religion, philosophy, and ideology do. The article's example is a Baptist apologetic website saying the LDS Church previously claimed Joseph Smith only had one wife. That is false, and is apparently confusing the LDS Church with now-abandoned claims by the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church, a smaller, separate denomination that traces its roots back to early Mormonism), to the effect that polygamy started with Brigham Young.
The Mormon (that is, LDS) Church has always acknowledged founder Joseph Smith's polygamy, although until recently it usually avoided the subject. But it was never hidden—prominent publications by the LDS Church and its leaders have discussed that fact going back decades, including "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie (1958); "Answers to Gospel Questions," by Joseph Fielding Smith (1960); the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992), and even the Doctrine and Covenants, part of the Mormon scriptural canon.
The author should've known better than to rely a Baptist evangelical source for information on Mormonism. That's like relying on Sarah Huckabee Sanders as an authority on Hillary Clinton.
14
Having been married to a Mormon in the 70s and 80s, I regularly attended LDS services and was the subject of intense proselytizing. I vividly recall a nearly universal denial of Joseph Smith's polygamy. I would be wealthy if I had a dollar for every time I heard "that's anti-mormon propaganda." Furthermore, Church publications and media constantly depicted a monogamous Joseph Smith and his faithful and loving wife Emma. An example: the church made film "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration." Absolutely nothing to indicate he had some 40 wives, including a fifteen year old. The statue in Temple Square of a loving Emma casting her loving and approving eyes on Joseph is another case in point, there are not thirty nine other women. The same publications will show a Joseph Smith translating directly from gold plates with the urim and thummim, and not looking into his hat with the plates nowhere in the picture. I was also told how the witnesses directly saw the gold plates, and not just in a vision. These are just the lies the church has admitted to, they are just the tip of the iceberg.
6
To all the comments stating this is an offensive biased article, I ask, what is offensive about the truth? Is there something in the article that is false? And as to bias, are only glowing articles about Mr. Monson, unbiased? If so, I suggest you go to the LDS owned Deseret News website or seek every other LDS publication regarding Mr. Monson.
When someone is a public figure with the power to affect discourse and society both positively and negatively, it is the press' job to highlight those effects.
54
That is exactly right, it is the press' job to highlight both positive and negative. The NY Times here has taken a 90 year dynamic life and couched the actions within the narrow framework of a certain viewpoint of support for LGBT peoples and a narrow niche of feminism. His life work was not in LGBT advocacy or women's suffrage, so why frame it with that lens? To do so is akin to basing an obituary of George Washington on his views of feminism or Pope John Paul on Catholic positions on LGBT policies. It is not just biased, it's a false narrative. It misses the point of their lives.
President Monson led a global church in one capacity or another for several decades. His message was focused on kindness, preparedness, love, compassion, understanding, and helping the underprivileged. He taught by example and word. He frequently shared personal stories to illustrate. His goodness was constantly on display. His teachings were numerous. It's not sugarcoating to say that this was his life's work. As a tangent it can be worth mentioning that as president there have been concerns by some about the role of women in the church or the church's stances on LGBTq peoples, but that is not what defined him. As someone who has listened to or read his talks covering Monson's tenure as an LDS Church leader, I can unequivocally say that to relegate him to those issues is just plain sloppy and foolish.
If you want to know more about Monson, I suggest you read the book on his life "To the Rescue"
17
"To the Rescue" is Mormon propaganda which is not a critical biography at all. It is published by the Church's publishing house. Monson had a pious public face but could notoriously demanding and in private. Many of his "personal stories" were likely made up.
4
Yes a lot of false info in the piece. But the point is not about bias or false info - it's about respect. This is an obituary - not an article or op-ed. You can read many other news outlet's obits and see this one in the first run-on sentence was attempting to disrespect and disagree.
7
Wow, I’m really disappointed in this article. It mention almost nothing of Thomas Monson’s life! This man gave a full life of service towards others, inside and outside his church. He was one who focused on serving individuals and helping others when they had no one else to turn to. What a shame that the article and its author couldn’t put aside a clear bias to get to know this human being and all that he did during his time on Earth.
9
I find this article very short-minded and heavily biased. Thanks NY times for sounding like a free-buzfeed article. Next time you write an obituary for a Mormon prophet, why don’t you ask an actual attending Mormon about him instead of relying on the opinions of ex-members or other people who disagree with church policy? At least strike a balance between opinions.
Thomas Monson was much more than controversial policy. Thanks times, for equipping America with tunnel vision.
39
I could not agree more. Mr. Monson’s lifetime of faithful service to mankind buried under a supposed cloud of controversial topics is simply not fair to a man of his stature and character. He gave his life to serve and care for the exact people this article claims he rebuffed. This is lazy “journalism” coupled with zero interest in researching one God’s most humble and kind servants to ever walk the face of the earth.
11
I should not be surprised that the NYT overlooks 45 years of service to instead complain that "Mr. Monson did not bend" to grievances launched against the church.
(For the record, the NPR obit was much better.)
33
Disappointed in McFadden and this article. I actually don't know what your views of the mormon church are, but from this article I can make a pretty clear guess. Sad you would let your views on the church put the wrong color on a great man and leader.
23
As a fellow liberal, I must admit that this article is more of a liberal pet-issue-based political analysis of LDS Church positions than it is an objective obituary of an outstanding human being. The individual who wrote it so blinded by their political lens that they don't realize the massive disservice this poor reporting is to the millions of people who admire this man for reasons wholly different than the tangential subplots to which this article dedicates itself. I hate Donald Trump, and it is widely established that most Mormons do, too, but if people want to understand why conservatives are fed up with institutions like the New York Times, this article should be placed as "Exhibit A". It took a life of 90 years and completely missed the point. If this write up can make it past the editors, I wonder how many other times the NY Times is indifferently deaf in their reporting and my removal from the situation causes me to be unable to sift through their ineptness.
135
This isn't an obituary. It's an opinion piece -- and a shameful one at that. It's sad that the New York Times would use the death of someone loved by many people as an opportunity to beat the drum of criticism against certain policies of the Mormon church. I usually respect regard the NYT as the highest standard of news writing, but this article felt callous and inappropriately political. Regardless of your opinions regarding certain Mormon doctrines, an obituary shouldn't be a place to air your grievances and advance your own political causes. I'm very disappointed this wasn't a more fair and unbiased piece of writing, especially considering it is about someone I respect, love, and mourn.
87
The very incivility and bigotry criticized regularly on the pages of the NYT has sadly crept into the writings of your obituary page. Thomas Monson lived a wonderful, hope-filled life through personal example and sacrifice while serving others. He followed and taught the teachings of Jesus Christ and worked deliberately to advance ecclesiastical, educational, social and humanitarian programs both in and outside the Church that helped relieve suffering, advance learning, bring men and women closer to the Savior and increase dialogue, understanding, tolerance and love among people around the world. Sadly, these lifelong endeavors of Mr. Monson were only footnoted at the end of this agenda-filled obituary. As a regular reader (and until recently, subscriber) of the NYT, I'm disappointed. The negativity is wearying.
46
This article is terribly bias towards the authors democratic view towards life and Mormonism. Look at the actual life and legacy of Thomas S Monson. He was an amazing man who did so many amazing and wonderful things. He had one of the purest and most genuine hearts out there. Mormon or not, if you actually read about his life you’d be able to see that. He was a very good man and if you are upset about some of the things stated about policies he stuck by in this article, please go to Mormon.org to try to better understand why these things are believed by members of that church. And remember those things are valued and cherished by their members
22
What a disgraceful and disrespectful article - I can't call it a tribute or obituary because neither of those it is not! Robert D McFadden should be ashamed of himself - is this the type of article he hopes is written about him after he passes away? No mention of anything good he ever did, just critiques based solely on political views, misconstruing facts and reality? Thomas S. Monson lived a great life of service and love of everyone that should be an example to all.
29
Correction and clarification:
1-"Facing vociferous demands to admit openly gay members to the church"...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does admit openly gay members to the church. (see Tom Christofferson's book "That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon's Perspective on Faith and Family)
2- It is true that women are not ordained to the priesthood, but we do hold priesthood power and authority. As a woman, and member of this Church, I participate actively in the laity leadership of the church. At the age of 27, I presided over a local Relief Society consisting of over 300 women. I was responsible for personally ministering to each woman and her family, tending to their spiritual and temporal needs. Recently, I served as a local president to a Primary consisting of 270 children and about 100 volunteer adults who served the children. My responsibilities included caring for the children and their welfare, visiting them in their homes, teaching them on Sundays and at other weekday activities, overseeing the cubscout and scout program for ages 8-11. In both of these responsibilities, I sat in council with other women and men responsible for our local organization. Women in our church sit in some of the highest councils. Our Prophets and Apostles ask them for their insight and direction. Women are held in high regard at every level of the Church.
Thomas S. Monson was a man who went about doing good, quietly ministering to widows, the poor and meek.
60
As someone born in a LDS family and who served an LDS mission, I disagree with your "clarification[s]":
1. An "openly gay member" means a gay member who lives as a gay man with possible gay relationships, marriage or a gay family. The Church does not approve of these people and would excommunicate them if it knew. The Church only tolerates "gay" members who renounce any actual gay relationships or the forming of gay families.
2. You say "we [meaning women] do hold priesthood and authority" and then go on to explain women organizations within the Church. However, none of these organizations allow any women to hold the priesthood. The Church has explicitly said that women do not hold the priesthood, only males can. This is Mormon doctrine 101. If I'm wrong, please point me to any Church authority that states otherwise.
I did not know Mr. Monson personally to judge whether he "went about doing good, quietly ministering to widows, the poor and meek." As many powerful religious leaders of various faiths and prominent secular individuals who have died, there is often a mix bag of good and bad that comes with their power to affect the public. I'm sure Mr. Monson did a lot of good deeds and perhaps he was even good-hearted. However, that doesn't mean that what this article states is not true.
9
Also, even if you are a woman in a leadership position, you still report to a man
5
As someone who was raised in a (still very active) Mormon family, but who has no affiliation with the LDS church, or any interest in religion in general, I found this obituary shameful. 75% of it is sensationalized controversy regarding church doctrine and little about Thomas Monson himself. Two points: Mormons believe that their prophet is both a man, and fallible, but also infallible when acting in his church role through direct guidance from God. Thus, it's God's will regarding church doctrine, controversial or otherwise, not Mr. Monson's. 2. My understanding is that LGBT members are "technically" welcome as members of the church, but not those engaging in homosexual acts (or premarital heterosexual sex). Just like many other "sins," the compulsion is not a sin, while the act itself is. This may be incorrect, but worth checking.
26
@CharlesOliver - The Church did stop using the 14-18 year old programs of the BSA but, in reality, Congregations in the Church rarely used either the Varsity or Venture programs as they were written prior to the announcement. BSA only had the official Venture program for all 14-18 year olds while the in the 1970s the LDS Church created the Varsity program for use by 14-16 year olds and gave it to the BSA. That announcement did very little to change how the Church used Scouting and altered very little the Church's financial contributions to BSA.
Thomas Monson was a salwart in his goodness and love of his fellowman. Tireless devotion to helping others is something the rest of us can only hope to acheive.
20
Thomas Monson was a kind and loving man. He lived a selfless life and taught others to be kind to those around them. When he was in East Germany he gave away his second suit, his shirts, and even the shoes off of his feet to those in need. This man was an example of someone who loved others. Even if you do not agree with the church policies that were implemented when he was president you cannot deny the service he has done to others. Disregarding religious and political beliefs, this man deserves to be remembered for the good that he accomplished. This article did the opposite of that.
116
I think he will be remembered for all portions of his life.
4
"Church members found apparent contradictions between historical records and church teachings" If that's not an understatement, I don't understand understatements anymore. Comparing Mormon scripture to historical records is an oxymoron because Mormon scripture is explicitly and intentionally a non-historical document. The teachings are literally unverifiable by design. You really can't critically analyze the Mormon faith without first suspending any literal belief in that faith.
The same problem repeatedly undermines efforts to modernize the LDS Church. The absence of a female laity is one prime example but there are others. The phenomenon is actually quite odd. If you've every spoken with Mormons, they tend to be friendly, outgoing, and progressive people on the whole. You hit certain subjects though and its like running into a brick wall. They have cultural blinders on or something.
Workplace sexism is one topic. I'm not talking about sexual harassment, just straight up sexism. I've witnessed behavior in the office that would make you think you'd gone back in time. The bad actors have absolutely no awareness of their gender insensitivity either. The experience is bizarre. Cultural sensitivity is another one. For an international church whose members regularly spend years abroad, there's often a giant void where you would expect to find some understanding of cultural relativism.
I given up trying make sense of it all. Take modernity and lag 50 years. That's my strategy.
12
The Deseret News writes this morning: "The man expected to succeed President Monson [age 90 at death], President Russell M. Nelson, is 93..."
That pretty much sums up the problem with the Mormon Church - its fossilized leadership possesses a total inability to contend with the modern world, especially the internet, whose culture of debate and disclosure is rocking it to its very core.
23
Actually, no. The leadership of the Church isn't defined by its prophet. He doesn't call all the shots. There are 15 men between 65 and 93 years old, and they make all major decisions with unanimous vote. If even a single person disagrees, they reconvene later after further prayer, discussion and thought, and still only make the decision unanimously.
11
I did a brief search and it has been since the 1920's that the LDS Church has has a president start their tenure before they were 70 years old. That is pushing 100 years it has been led by elderly rich white men, and will surely pass it when they elect their next president. Not that that is too different from most other Christian sects, but food for thought.
4
Brother Tom,
I testify to you that there is no problem with the LDS "Mormon" Church. I challenge you to get a hold of some missionaries to learn about the church and then pray to the Almighty God to ask if those things are true or not. If you humble yourself before God and truly want to know if it is true being willing to join the Church if its true then you will receive an answer that it is The only true and living Church on the the face of the earth.
If there is a God and has his one and only Church, "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" then God would not submit to "the modern world" and allow man to dictate what he, God, should teach. If you believe that God would submit to the teachings of man then you need to rethink who and what God is.
Again I challenge you to humble yourself and search for Gods Church. If you do this you will find there is no problem with the LDS Church.
I do hope you have a great now year Brother Tom
5
President Monson's legacy is one of service and love. I'd like to add some of his teachings to these comments.
"The rich satisfactions which come from loving our neighbor as ourselves are not ushered in at any age to the sound of drums and trumpets but rather the satisfaction grows upon us year by year, little by little, until at last we realize that we have it. "
"Death leaves in its cruel wake shattered dreams, unfulfilled ambitions, crushed hopes. In our helplessness, we turn to others for assurance. Men of letters and leaders of renown can express their beliefs, but they cannot provide definitive answers.
"The dim light of belief must yield to the noonday sun of revelation. We turn backward in time, that we might go forward with hope. Back, back beyond the silent generation, the beat generation, the lost generation. Back, back beyond the Space Age, the Computer Age, the Industrial Age. Back, back to him who walked the dusty paths of villages we now reverently call the Holy Land, to him who caused the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, and the dead to live, to him who tenderly and lovingly assured us, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6)."
“Our Heavenly Father is aware of our needs and will help us as we call upon Him for assistance. I believe that no concern of ours is too small or insignificant. The Lord is in the details of our lives.”
"We must develop the capacity to see men not as they are at present, but as they may become."
76
This tribute to Thomas Monson was shamefully disrespectful. Almost the entire article focuses on things he failed to do. When did it become okay to disregard all of the wonderful things people contribute to this world because you disagree with some of their controversial decisions? I also think it should be pointed out that the leaders of the LDS Church work together to make decisions in a formal process that is not easily circumvented; the prophet doesn’t make the decisions unilaterally like this article made it seem. This tribute showed a level of ignorance that was shocking for a news source of this caliber.
It’s like the reporter just used President Monson’s death to rant about everything he doesn’t like about the LDS Church. The last 7 paragraphs are the only ones that really even seem relevant to his life.
This wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t for the fact that President Monson has done SO much to make this world a better place that you couldn’t have even fit it all into one tribute if you had decided to focus on his accomplishments. For example, you could have mentioned how during the Cold War, he managed to cross into East Germany and eventually gained approval for missionaries to cross the border during a time when that seemed impossible.
Regardless of your political or religious views, this man lived a dedicated life of love and service that deserves to be memorialized properly.
107
Obituaries aren't tributes. They're examinations of lives lived, warts and all.
10
That's the thing though, this isn't really an examination of a life lived. This is an examination of a few church policies. Granted, there are a few paragraphs near the end that talk about President Monson's life, but most of it talks about church policies in general.
4
Take it from someone living near the beloved man and the work he accomplished (rather than someone living on the other side of the country that is hardly cognizant of Mormon belief and culture), this article was hardly an examination of his life, but a rather small and biased selection of events, many of which extend way beyond President Monson himself. Even informed critics of the Church would agree this does not represent the legacy of the man.
8
As an ex-Mormon who left the church over of its treatment of women and the LGBT community, news of Thomas Monson’s death stirs up mixed feelings I regularly have about the church and its members in general. On the one hand, Monson appeared to be a thoughtful, caring and tender man. There was a time when I looked forward to hearing him speak in the church’s bi-annual general conference. On the other hand, his failure to recognize the harm being done by the church’s outdated teachings on social issues reveals that he was nothing more than a man blind to his own bigotry. In my experience this is true of the church in general: good people doing the best they can with the millstone of toxic doctrine/teachings weighing them down. This will likely change over the coming generations, but not during our lifetimes, unfortunately.
78
Dear MLB - I resonate so much with what you have written. I admired Monson when I was young but then he seemed to get out of touch once he became the prophet. Five of my nieces and nephews left the Mormon church after Prophet Monson's announcement. My sister and her husband now longer attend either. I too have left the church, and I now belong to the Episcopal Church, where gay folks like me are welcomed without question. I too am from Ogden, it would be great to meet up when I am there next.
True Christianity lives and moves in this world. Hatred and exclusion are not the Christ path. No, No, No. They are not. But Christ is alive! Despite the heretics.
5
MLB,
If there is a God and has a Prophet on the earth then he, The Almighty God wouldn't submit to what society thinks things should be. Just because society at large complains and thinks things should be certain ways doest make it right. Society at large has been blinded to false teachings. I encourage You to read the Book of Mormon with a humble heart and then pray about it. If the Book of Mormon is true then the Church is true and all it teaches are in fact Gods Word. Without a sincere heart a answer will never be given.
MLB I do hope you have a good new year,
4
Just because the world decided that LGBT-ism is OK, doesn't mean that it can change the laws of God. Just because other "Christian" churches are bending to pressure from the liberal world, doesn't mean that all churches have do the same. If you don't agree with the L.D.S. church, then leave it and leave it in peace.
7
the article states:
"The church’s historic partnership with the Boy Scouts of America, which dated from 1913 and prepared Mormon boys for missionary work and adulthood as lay priests, was threatened late in Mr. Monson’s tenure."
Well, yes and no. Scouting is good for boys, but their preparation for missions in every venue I have been in is mostly ecclesiastical and comes from home and church mentors. Scouting helps, but this really overstates it. Saying this as a Scoutmaster (3 times) and young men's advisor. This article is overstating its hand a few too many times.
13
Something not mentioned in the article, but certainly worth noting, is that Thomas Monson was one who consistently and personally visited the poor, the widowed, and the sick and ministered to their needs. His life was one of service, and in this way he emulated the life of Jesus Christ.
68
A correction to consider: the church, in effect, did withdraw its support from the Boy Scouts about a year after the change to allow gay scout leaders. It did so by pulling the 14-18 year olds out of the scout program, which was announced in May of 2017. The 12-13 year olds, however, continue to have church support for scouting.
6
It is worth noting that that change is more due to the fact that very little scouting was being done by those age groups in the church since the Venturing and Varsity programs of BSA never did well in LDS troops.
Other possible corrections- A ward rarely has 100 people, more typically around 500 with 200-300 attending on a regular basis.
Also the Quorum of 12 Apostles is based on seniority but not the First Presidency, they are chosen from the 12 (there are 15 total apostles, so there can be a quorum of 12 and the presidency).
9
Sorry, you have your facts wrong. The church did not pull the boys out of scouts. L.D.S. Boys can participate in the Venture (14-20yr old) program if they want. No problem!
9