I appreciate the writer addressing the response from readers. Just for fun, go read Pope John Paul II's NY Times obituary from 2005. He held the same controversial political stances on same-sex marriage and women in the Priesthood. Not to mention these are doctrinal stances for both religions which were around before either were alive. In the Pope's obit, he was referred to by his whole name, and starts with "Pope John Paul II died on Saturday night, succumbing finally to years of illness endured painfully and publicly, ending an extraordinary, if sometimes polarizing, 26-year reign that remade the papacy...People wept and knelt on cobblestones as the news of his death spread across the square, bowing their heads to a man whose long and down-to-earth papacy was the only one that many young and middle-aged Catholics around the world remembered. For more than 10 minutes, not long after his death was announced, the crowd simply applauded him." Facts, but much more glowing facts... If you read both at the same time there is a stark difference despite they both have the same political stances on those two topics -- both by NY Times. Not to mention the picture here of him in this reply is a pretty stoic, strange choice - really? Even after all of the feedback, not one of him smiling or serving? Really hard to say this is "just facts" and isn't biased.
5
"A faithful accounting of some of the more prominent issues ..."
You spent 2 or 3 paragraphs discussing the LDS church's "rocky" relationship with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), but failed to mention that Monson was the longest-serving member of the BSA National Executive Board, the recipient of the organization's Silver Beaver Award, prestigious Silver Buffalo Award, the Bronze Wolf - international Scouting's highest honor, or the Silver Fox Award from Scouts Canada.
Yep, that's fair and well-rounded, accurate reporting of the facts.
27
As a Twenty Five Year reader of the New York Times, there is nothing wrong with the editorial content of the original obituary for Thomas S. Monson. The New York Times delivers facts, not insubstantial wandering, when observing a life well lived. Of the vitriolic comment submitted these past few days, viewers should only watch "Obit", a documentary about writing the Obituary page for the New York Times.
Thomas S. Monson was fine man, and the New York Times is a fine newspaper. Both deserve respect for their contribution to society.
Yours Faithfully,
James Webster Thalman
8
I get it, you had to support your writer, it's your job. It was intellectually lazy. You made no effort to gather facts and assign meaning. You mention events without context or understanding. I don't need to defend President Monson, his body of work stands as a testament to his beliefs. There was no mention of his efforts to embrace the human tragedy of homelessness and the plight of refugees and his admonition to provide help where and when possible. It mobilized me to action. As the leader of a people who faced an extermination order and forced march that killed so many he felt a responsibility to act. If he accomplished nothing else in his life but these two things he did OK. Life however moves on. You had a moment to act in an unbiased moment, you chose bias. I did not expect you to honor Thomas S. Monson, why would you? You could have treated the man with the respect of a man who served his country, his community, his God and those without a voice. Next time do some research and actually speak with individuals who at least know something about the person, good and bad.
15
The obituary DID mention Monson's work as a very young bishop in a ward (parish) "including 85 widows whom he visited regularly and 23 men serving in the Korean War to whom he wrote personal letters weekly".
But he WAS the head of the Mormon Church from 2008, even if he did appear to have been "rolled" on a number of issues, like the embarrassing intervention of the LDS Church in California's "Prop 8". The PROFOUND HOMOPHOBIA of the church continued, and even worsened with the discrimination against little children of same-sex couples, not allowing them to have a name and a blessing or to be baptized at age 8, etc.
THIS was (as famous Mormon historian Richard Bushman recounts in the obituary) the greatest affront and cross-to-bear for most Mormons, and still is. It was the direct work of Russell Marion Nelson, president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and next up to be the president (prophet)—expected to be announced shortly after Monson's funeral this Friday.
Nelson thought the odious discrimination against little children could be kept secret (in the church's secret handbook) but those days are gone, and it was on the internet the same day. THEN, to make matters worse, Russell Nelson tried to cover his tracks by announcing the following January at a devotional at BYU that the discrimination against little children was "a direct revelation from God to his Prophet".
Monson's hit man on not ordaining women is senior apostle Dallin Oaks, in line for prophet after Nelson.
7
As a former Mormon (Bishopric, Seminary Teacher, EQP, etc ) I think the NYT was FAIR in the obituary. I think the NYT could have been much more specific to issues the church is facing and could have been wrote a really damaging (to the church) obituary , causing people in the church to think and reflect on many issues that the church does not bring to light. Thomas Monson was a man with a Golden Ticket, in short- he married the right girl and was quickly moved up through the ranks in church leadership. He never worked a real job for more than 2 years of his life and his only employer was the LDS church (having owned Deseret News where he worked)....let get real about the facts. Many Mormons are whiny and complaining about pity things. Tommy Monson was a man, not a prophet. Not once did he prophecy, revelate or become a seer. I think had the NYT mentioned Monsons struggles with the facts presented in the CESletter, then you would have seen a real explosion from the LDS community.
7
I never comment on online forums like this, but I'm very disappointed in the Times for this obviously misguided obituary and attempted justification. This obituary took one of America's greatest role models for selfless service and charity and pointed a magnifying glass at one or two issues without providing context. The article glossed over anything that made the man so beloved by 15 million people in 160-some nations. Please try harder next time. I'm usually a fan of the Times, but I can't pretend this was a well-written piece of award-winning journalism. This one completely and obviously missed the mark.
13
Look, I was a faithful, active Mormon for nearly 40 years. I get it. The problem is Mormons are practically born with a persecution complex. They are obsessed with reading or watching about the church in media. They are terrified of any negative comment, or anything that can even be perceived as negative, or even anything less-than positively glowing. They become irrationally offended by any supposed slight to what they believe is perfection. One would think, "If it's perfect and true, who cares what anyone else thinks?" Instead, they take these comments as extremely personal attacks, and that's what you're seeing here. Not surprising in the least.
7
1966, NY Times asks readers at Easter-time, "Is God Dead?"
1920, Palmyra New York, Joseph Smith Jr. asks God, which church is true?
As a result the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored and the Church bearing the name of the Savior, established by Christ Himself continues to proclaim that God lives. He loves all people and has given commands, clear and unwavering for the prosperity and happiness of all who will obey. Truth is not relative as the NY Times editors seem to believe. Duty to accurately represent "truth" is not about "social-conscience". Duty not to excuse the things that destroy nations such as "sexual-liberalism" is inherent in what truth really is. Every great civilization which rejected prophets and principles of virtue has gone the way of Sodom and Gomorrah when "fully-ripe" in that rebellion against God. The real controversy is not in those who hold their ground on moral issues but lies instead in those who seek to undermine the principles of virtue and appease their own conscience under the guise of "socially-forward-thinking". Running toward a cliff while consoling themselves that they are "rugged individualists" will only end with a long drop, and abrupt stop and ruined lives.
3
Nice work NYT. You have once again alienated a demographic you should be trying to reach. I am not Mormon but I am human and I thought this obituary was needlessly negative and political.
15
Referring to President Thomas S. Monson as Mr. Monson says everything about the Times actual intentions.
3
I'm a practicing Mormon. This obit struck me as objective and rational, heavy on public facts. I don't believe any offense was intended by this obituary, and certainly none was taken on my part. I suspect President Monson himself would counsel those who are up in arms not to take offense, and not to spend their time and energy keeping score over who got the better NYT obit.
4
The obituary was one of the most narrow-minded, poorly executed piece of text I have ever read. I am also unimpressed with your justification for the article. So many different religions were clearly upset by the release, but you blatantly continue to validate the position. This article obviously held negative connotations for the religious leader, so that results in your staff either claiming to be incredibly naive or stupid. Call for new staff, maybe. Why would you issue such an article?
13
There will always be someone who disapproves of something in an obituary. I read the obits to learn about the lives of people I knew nothing about, including Thomas Monson. I came away with a complete understanding of the whole of his life, including his challenges. The NYT's obit writers and editors are excellent at presenting a whole life in a few paragraphs.
There is a movie called "OBIT: Life on Deadline" about the writers and editors of the obituary department at the New York Times. Great doc. Amazon Prime.
3
William McDonald, feels as though you used President Thomas S. Monson’s personal obituary as a platform to identify a Church’s beliefs that you don’t agree with. You seemed to cover the most controversial items that occurred during the last few years he served as a president, what about the other 85 years of his life? As reader you put alot trust in a journalist. Trust that they not only allow their personal opinions to interfere with events their covering. Trust that they’ll provide you with a well rounded account of the events. Lost the trust William, lost a reader. NYtimes lost a customer.
Good man, who gave so much to so many. Guess an more round obituary is written on hearts of those he quitly severed. Greatful for good people from all walks of life like Thomas.
7
"50 plus years of service to his fellow man as a church volunteer". Oh, please. If you believe that one, I've got some prime ocean front property for sale just this side of Vegas! $120+k a year "living stipend" from the time you are appointed to the quorum of the 70 to death, free tuition for kids and grandkids at BYU, cars, drivers, airfare, travel expenses, housing, gardeners, maids, healthcare, in-home health assistance, expense accounts, etc. Sign me up for some of this "volunteering"! For a man that spent most of his life "in the service of the church ", he didn't seem to make out too bad. If you doubt this, just look at some of the real estate tax records in Utah for the "volunteers" of this "church". Not much different then your run of the mill televangelist, they're just not as flashy and hide assets better with their shell companies.
4
The bottom line is that the Times failed in publishing an obituary that could be considered appropriately respectful and fairly balanced as compared to past NYT obituaries. This is the issue at hand.
People have pointed out many examples. Consider the NYT obituary for previous Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28hinckley.html This would have been an excellent source for your obits editor to have reviewed. The overall "voice" of Hinckley's obit is positive and respectful. Although several controversies during Hinckley's tenure are touched upon, the tone always gives the benefit of the doubt to the deceased and returns its focus to Hinckley as the fascinating and charismatic man in question. As well it should.
The current outcry regarding Monson's obituary is not a cry for sugarcoating, but rather a cry for fairness and balance when comparing Times obituaries of others. Mentioning particular controversies during Monson's tenure are expected and excused as professional journalism as long as they are pertinent and brief. Using Monson's death as an opportunity to vent complaints about Mormon history, belief and policies instead of focusing on memorializing the life of an uncommonly compassionate and selfless leader was poor form and showed prejudice.
Unfortunately, this "response" offered more condescension than apology. In future, I hope the obits editor will spend more time reading past obituaries, striving for consistency and balance.
18
“President Thomas S. Monson: My wife and I were with him at a regional conference in Las Vegas. After a long Saturday of meetings that concluded about 9:00 p.m., my wife and I decided to go see some famous impressionist paintings that were being exhibited in one of the hotels before retiring. We were tired and could not imagine how tired President Monson must be after speaking and presiding in all those meetings. The next morning I sat by President Monson in the Sunday meeting. He handed me a thank you note he had just received. This was a note from a sister thanking him for visiting her aging mother in a nursing home the previous evening after 9:00 p.m. We went to entertain ourselves, and he went to a nursing home. That was a lesson in charity I will never forget.” - Elder Larry W. Gibbons.
9
An obituary is not "news" in the same sense that reporting what's happening in Washington or on Wall Street is "news." An obituary is designed to pay respect for the deceased and to inform those who may not have known them of their character, accomplishments and contributions. Certainly "Mr. Monson's" contributions to his faithful followers are of note, since that was nearly his most predominant position for the majority of his life. While he certainly faced many political issues, they in no way define his life or speak broadly of who he was and what he taught. Regardless of what this NYT author considers "news," he did not do this man justice in reporting to the world his true character and what he will be remembered for.
7
Thomas S. Monson was face with controversial issues during his tenure as president of the LDS Church, but several things about church governance and policy should be understood.
First, this church is governed by councils. President Monson was the designated president of the church's leadership, but decisions on policy are always made after meeting with his councilors in the First Presidency of the church as well as those men designated in the church as the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Any major doctrinal or social policy pronouncement would have been thoroughly presented and discussed.
Second, in the LDS Church, what are considered fundamental principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and His teachings, as well as the doctrines that adherents believe come directly from God through the process of modern revelation, and non-negotiable, regardless of the changing attitudes and moral relativity of the societal culture at large.
As an individual, "Mr." Monson lived a life of selfless devotion and service to others. I would suggest that readers go beyond the politically correct rhetoric that was posited here in lieu of a genuine obituary, and find out about the man himself. If one wants to know more about the church doctrine and beliefs that lead to the church's public stances on moral and ethical issues, there are two relatively recent documents to start with. These documents are "The Proclamation on the Family" and "The Living Christ", both accessible at lds.org.
4
We are not complaining about unfair coverage. We are not even fighting for our religion. We understand where there is good, there is also opposition.
We are in mourning. Losing our dear Prophet is like losing a close family member. Mr. McDonald could have used the "Sandwich Technique" in delivering the news being mindful of the millions of readers- reaching ALL audiences. The very first paragraph should offer respects and highlight achievements, and his humanitarian efforts before the political controversies, then end the article again with respects to one's life.
Regardless of anything I have said, Mr. McDonald, or anyone else in regards to this article, should any of us, or Mr. McDonald be in despair, President Monson would have given the very shoes on his feet for us- he emulated the very qualities of a prophet and follower of God; and for non-religious believers- he was one of the most caring individuals living his life by serving and loving people while remaining dedicated to his faith.
https://www.facebook.com/178989197302/videos/10154841195157303/?hc_ref=A...
4
Mormons have good reason to be upset with your clumsy handling of President Monson's obit. I'm not one, so what irks me is shoddy work. When has a tweet every been journalism? Your defense for sloppy, sophomoric work is to jump in the bunker, rend your reporter's jungle jacket and say you are Journalists and have no obligation to be balanced. In your words; "We're not in the business of paying tribute. We're journalists first and foremost." As a real retired journalist myself, I suggest you take a refresher course. What you are is arrogant and insensitive. And worse, you make no attempt to hide your bias. Shameful!
12
I simply want to send an appreciative note to the paper for listening to the many who asked for a rewrite of President Monson's obituary. As a newspaper you have no obligation to show any person in a light which you don't agree with. With this in mind, I want to say simply that I, as a member of the LDS (mormon) church, am grateful that you listened to the reader's views and opinions. It means a lot to see a man whom we respected and loved portrayed with honor. To the U.S. at large, he was only a man, but to us he was a prophet of God. Thank you for your rewrite.
4
I think one of the big gripes with your obituary of President Monson was the contrast between the negativity in it and the lack of any negativity in other recent obituaries of "influential" people. In this secondary commentary you try to justify your comments without comparing to your own treatment of others. It shows a one-sided perspective in regards to conservative Christians which tends to be pervasive in the NYT.
11
I recognize that addressing controversies is legitimate in an obit for a public figure. However, those issues should be put in context with the rest of the person's life. The majority of the NYT content was a discussion on controversy, including the leading paragraphs.
Also, the obit omitted important context about these controversies, such as as the fact that the vast majority of Mormons don't consider the man or his teachings to be controversial at all. The controversial aspects represent a small fraction of his teachings--mainly affirming pre-existing beliefs--and are a concern for a small fraction of the membership. The author could have researched his numerous General Conference addresses to get a sense for what was important to him and his followers.
Some specific objections:
"Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage." -- I have not heard any demands that the church recognize same-sex marriage--only that they not oppose it's legality.
Founding an organization that actively promotes teachings contrary to the teachings of the church is not "questioning". It is apostasy, by any reasonable definition.
"Awaiting his turn for the presidency." -- this is not an accurate way to describe what one would be doing in his position.
"but puts the mantle of age on top" -- the implication that that is a bad thing is an opinion.
Quoting a random website which has nothing to do with Mormonism or President Monson also seems inappropriate.
8
“ We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints.”
Agreed. That’s why you are taking heat for this.
8
Thank you Mr. McDonald and the New York Times team for your glowing endorsement of the life of President Thomas S. Monson! Your highly subjective report only reaffirms the view held by millions: that President Monson is a man with high moral character who cares more about helping others than his own cultural reputation.
The stark contrast to your positive portrayals of other odious characters (See Bundy, Cardinal Law, Castro, Hefner) makes it clear that to be despised by the NYT is a better cessation and further proof that good was done by President Monson in order to have received such a negative portrayal.
I wonder how contemporary public summations of other, now beloved historical figures, might have been portrayed by the peers of their day?
Mr. McDonald, I am certain you had no intentions of further affirming ones belief in Christ, but, your recent declaration is an important reminder to many that Jesus Christ was rejected by his own as a ‘criminal’ and was sentenced to a public death; and that His followers were likewise murdered by peers who could not understand why their doctrine was so culturally unacceptable.
Perhaps to be hated by the current popular voice is the best honor one can receive. Rather than cave to the latest trends popular in contemporary society, President Monson lived a life that will have a lasting positive impact in future generations.
3
Actually, read these comments—they can be a great way to learn about Mormon culture. I look forward to reading a new ♪ article dedicated to the best reader comments.
2
"The New York Times is establishing a Reader Center to capitalize on our readers’ knowledge and experience" yet NYT seems to still not be taking heed to the readers.
2
Thank you! Thank you!
I am was a practicing Mormon for 25 years and became inactive when the updated policies under Mr. Monson took place regarding homosexual families and the restriction on children being allowed to be baptized. I live in a community and within a family where 95% are active participants of the Lds faith it is hard to maintain any objective conversation in regards to the policies and politics of the church with out offending those around me.
I found your obituary objective and accurate reporting. I didn’t find anything that felt biased. It was an astonishing “breath of fresh air” to read an article that was based on the facts and on any point that made news over this mans life time. Thank you for doing your job!!! Thank you for the honest reporting! Several of my close friends and I have shared the original article with one another as a small symbol of hope! It meant so much to us to have an objective narrative written.
Thank you!
2
The reason it hurts members so badly is they live in a bubble. When everyone walks talks and acts the same. Outside rhetoric can sting.
2
Strange that you would take the time to bash one of the finest men to ever walk the earth. For his religious beliefs. We don't expect nor are we asking you to believe what we believe. But I’m challenging you the author of this article, *IF* you're courageous enough, *IF* you are intelligent enough to see the truths and to live like we try to live every day. Your life will be a blessed life. You will not see the Cross on our churches because we believe that our lives should be the living embodiment of that very symbol of that ultimate sacrifice. Sir, God doesn’t need to change his laws for your convenience or popular fashion. You need to change for God. We will never agree with your opinion, but we still love you ALL of you New Yorkers!! In Fact, my Son is serving a 2 year Mission in your great state. His first letter home was filled with the LOVE he has for you. His first day on the Mission he gave his own gloves to a homeless man and woman who were freezing on your streets. What did you do that day? His second day on his mission he moved a disabled man to an apartment that was better suited for his needs. Everyday we’re here serving you in love. We’re not asking you to agree with us. But I will challenge you to try at least to live a little bit like us. Serve each other, love each other. Stop bashing others for their beliefs and put your shoulder to the wheel, there’s a great work to be done here!
1
and it’s our obligation as journalists, whether in an obituary or elsewhere, to fully air these issues from both sides.
Um, no it's not. You had ninety years to do that. In the obit for my divorced parents I'm not gonna rehash their fights either.
4
Dear Mr. McDonald & NY Times, I am a Mormon and contrary to what some of your readers suggest, I do read the Times and appreciate your insights and opinions on many topics, even when I disagree with them. I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond to the 200K+ who are disappointed in the obituary about someone who I revere as one of the greatest humanitarians to have lived. In "hindsight" you say you would have written something different. As yours is largely a digital periodical, and digital is what stays long after hard copy paper is recycled, you certainly have the opportunity to either add to or amend the obituary. Of course he stood for issues that we disagree on, but come on, there is much more that we agree on and I think that should be celebrated. The rub here is that the obituary focuses largely on what we disagree on and has sadly become another opportunity to target Mormons. Equally sad is that many of your readers seem to relish this by their harsh comments, even as we mourn the loss of a friend. I ask you to simply admit your oversight and redo. I make mistakes all the time in my writings and am easy to forgive.
2
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1
The editor's response is almost entirely unapologetic, so clearly NYTimes misses the point, or rather, in fact, the protests were spot-on. NYTimes is more interested in the political angle of a religious leader which misses entirely the primary focus of this man's life. You state that you are considering how the world might find him newsworthy, but in fact, you are setting a tone on how you wish to expect the world to consider him, not as an ambassador of love and care, but as a belligerent resister of what you consider politically correct. It is the right of the other to hold that opinion, but it is disrespectful to hold that opinion up on the bully pulpit and claim it is an Obituary. At the very least you could have concentrated your primary points on the fact that he was a leader who directed millions in the service of many more millions, and as secondary point stated his perceived political involvement. Your values as a newspaper are clear in that given the opportunity to apologize, you did not do so genuinely, and instead doubled-down on your cold position of a man you clearly did not take due diligence to understand.
5
No one who had any reasonable insight into who this man was or what he did for others would have written this obituary. This was not well researched, objective journalism, If every man treated women, gays, and those with different lifestyles and opinions as well as President Monson did, then we would no war, no hatred and certainly none of the sexual misconduct issues that have filled the papers of late.
2
Any writer knows that most readers will read the first few paragraphs to determine the tone of an entire article. In this case you might have simply started with "Sexist, Homophobic 'Prophet' dies". The effect is the same, and this is certainly not a common characteristic of an obituary. I am not aware of Thomas S. Monson ever taking action against homosexuals or women. He simply didn't take the actions that some wanted. Mormonism is a religion not a social media trend. The controversies that the church dealt with during his tenure were dealt with kindly, yet firmly. Surely this man did not go out of his way to harm anyone. To the contrary, the church is far more open and understanding now than a decade ago. This obituary was writen in extremely poor taste and either demonstrates an extreme incompetence or a true desire to demonize an entire faith. Surely the man it is about could be accused of neither.
2
The obituary plain and simple focused on policies and controversies; if it wasn't by the mention of his name, I would've forgotten it was an obituary at all. President Monson's life was characterized by humanity and selfless service, like others have said. His public image as mentioned, has been always tied with the service he has provided for his Church. It's okay if it's an article trying to remain objective, and focusing on the public image; but that wasn't his public image at all. He was not defined (neither publicly nor privately) by the "reluctance" to ordain women to the priesthood, or by the Church's position on same-sex marriage, unless you read only negative articles, without researching further. That is the only way that an obituary for a person like him could've ended like it did. I agree that you aren't in the business of paying tribute, but how is the article good journalism? It's partial, not well-researched. Realize the influence the New York Times have, the mormon community isn't the only one who could read this obituary. When we (Latter-day saints) read it, we can see the biased information (in this case, the emphasis on the negative parts of his policies and positions) and we know the whys of some of the things that are said in the article, but others can't. You lose credibility.
2
"...it’s our obligation as journalists, whether in an obituary or elsewhere, to fully air these issues from both sides." Both sides? Remind me again where those "both sides" were shown. What I read only focused on the controversy and politics - not this man's life. I then came to read this Q&A in the hopes that we could find a happy medium-maybe even the slightest hint - the smallest of glimmers - the mere whisper of an apologetic tone (let's not hope for an outright apology - only crazy Mormons believe in that kind of miracle). What I found instead was an arrogant refusal to acknowledge that this was some shoddy journalism. But, hey, at least the original obit quoted directly from Mr. Monson's 50+ years of public talks - oh wait. Hopefully future responses to reader concern will have a little more humility and class even if the original obit didn't.
4
Thank you I appreciate your well thought out and timely response. I learned some things. I don't expect others to revere him as we do. (15 million of us) However, your bedside manners could use some polishing. No offense taken.
Your justification does not hold water. I compared Pope John Paul II obituary and that of President Monson...You used the title "pope" throughout the obit. You did not mention the controversies of Pope John Paul. No mention of his hindering the investigation into the charges of sexual immorality leveled against priests thus failing to respond appropriately to the sex abuse crisis. No mention of the issues of gender roles, sexuality, euthanasia, artificial contraception (against artificial birth control, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV,) and abortion. Pope John Paul also like President Monson who blocked female ordination. Finally, you did not acknowledge his re-centralising power back to the Vatican that upset many American Catholics. So your claim about reporting on a public figure is ONLY a smoke screen. I don't think this obit was done with malintent, but your response is NOT honest nor reflective. I expect better from NYTimes and hope you will resubmit a proper Obituary. Waiting for your response.
6
As someone who most definitely did NOT vote for Trump, I think he describes this type of journalism best ... "fake news." When you get your objectivity back, maybe you will get your readers back.
16
I was trying not to be upset by this. After reading it, I was pretty hurt.
After reading your response to the criticisms, I remain hurt.
I did some searching of obituaries for other prominent religious people. What I found was pretty sad.
I found one for Cardinal Bernard Law. I figured that President Monson would have much more positive things written about him so I did a word count. I was wrong. Cardinal Law actually had four more than President Monson.
Are you telling me that you can find more positive things to say about a person who admitted to protecting abusive priests for years?
Well, you don't have to. You wrote it.
I love that in your response to the question about not referring to President Monson by his title, you state your stylebook says you should use Mr.
The problem is that you do not even once refer to Cardinal Law as "Mr. Law." He was "Cardinal Law" 21 times.
The same is found in another obituary for Bishop Thomas V. Daily who was also was involved in the Boston abuse scandal. He was referred to as "Bishop Daily" 10 times.
You say that you are "not in the business of paying tribute." I wish you were more honest. In the Cardinal Law obit, it says, "And when he arrived in Boston in 1984 as Pope John Paul II’s new archbishop, he was welcomed like a favorite son." Sounds like a tribute.
All in all, I just wish that this was a piece that showed more respect and that you as editor would have been more honest and forthright.
53
You said this so much more eloquently than I could have. I sat on a reply for 2 days because it was too emotionally drive and could be construed as no logical but you managed to be both emotional and logical about it. Thank you for that.
2
What many readers object to is that NYT obituaries (and many other features) reflect a perceived leftest bias. We note the nostalgia for Communism throughout the 2017 anniversary of the October Revolution, something that would never have been considered for National Socialism (Nazis). Or the grief and wonder at Fidel's passing, among many others.
11
I am not a Mormon; I am a Roman Catholic.
I am also not a Trump supporter, having actively worked for Mr. Trump's defeat in my home state. I followed the NY TImes feature The Upshot on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis, with it's constant prediction of a landslide for Hillary Clinton. My deep disdain for Mr. Trump and the good grey NY Times' predictions of electoral landslide comforted me in my confirmation bias.
But the reasons Trump won so unexpectedly, are exhibited here in this shamelessly tone deaf and offensive anti-Christian bigotry.
To paraphrase Sally Field in her oscar acceptance speech: "The American people hate you, NY Times, they really hate you."
And this thinly-disguised attack on religion is part of the reason.
36
Thinly-disguised is right. It is apparently obvious to all of America except the author and the editor. And this under a banner of "truth" truth without tact is useless in any venue, my soon-to-be-bankrupt friends. If you didn't have the ability to force notifications on ever IPhone on the planet you'd already be done.
1
A new reason to Love Sally Field :)
It was an attack on bigotry and homophobia and discrimination against little children—not on "religion".
1
The truth has power when the WHOLE truth is told. When only one side of an issue is represented, the truth becomes subjective and consequently, weak. Regardless of how you feel about Thomas S Monson's political views, the obituary was biased and did not adequately represent a fair and reasonable biography -- especially when compared to others covered by the NY Times. Fair and truthful reporting is all we ask for. Both the original obituary and this article are cowardly.
21
1. Saying your obituary contained only the "public man, not the private one" is absolutely ridiculous when you ignore 50 years of his work as an apostle and what he did as an apostle to focus on only the controversial events of the last few years. The man gave a public speech every six months for 50 years! Did you ever quote him? Or talk about the work he did in those 50 years? No, because the only angle you care about is "Mormons hate gays."
2. If your obituary wanted to make it "clear that he was a man of strong faith and convictions" then your obituary would have said something along the lines of "Mr. Monson was seen as a man of strong faith and convictions."
3. Basically what I'm getting out of this editor response is "I think we did a good job with his obituary, and people should just accept that. Yeah, maybe we weren't 'rounded', but we portrayed the 'facts of the life' and we're not gonna change anything". No, you did not portray an accurate picture of the "facts of life", you only highlighted the facts of his life that you care about. Which is that Mormons hate gays, apparently. Great job trying to understand your readers' concerns.
26
When it comes to inconvenient, or what what to many Americans would consider, "bad facts," the Mormon church and Mormons in general are pretty whiny. Petitioning the NYT for stating the facts of Monson's life, private, professional and how he handled the issues of his time as President of the Mormon church are completely acceptable as fair to report on. Whining about hurt feelings and grievances regarding unflattering facts, is the norm for Mormon culture, it's adherents seem to not understand how vile some of their beliefs, behaviors, and political actions have been and are to most of the rest of U.S. Where were Mormons when Monson was asking for donations for Prop 8, in an effort to deny others, who have NOTHING to do with the Mormon church, their right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness as they see fit ? I think Mormon's should simply attempt to see themselves for what they are. They should simply try to see what the rest of the world sees. A "belief system" and a culture that thrives on a besieged mentality and psyche, never fully coming to grips with their own history, the negative realities of much of that history, their on-going negative behaviors towards others not of their faith, and their delusional denial about it all. Grow up ! This IS who you are. This IS who Thomas S. Monson was. Someone ONLY beloved by his own ilk. Leave the rest of U.S. alone. THAT would be..... polite. ; ) Ross, NEVADA
12
Whiny? I have many Mormon friends and love them dearly. Mormons rightly get tired of being misrepresented. I can't find any quotes on this site where someone actually quotes the Mormon beliefs from their website; they are one of the most kind and open churches to the LGBT community. In a press conference (which is not quoted here) the proclaimed the support of the LGBT community, why can't we at least state their beliefs as they state their beliefs, just as you defend the Times for their right to bash them. Using the standards of the TImes, we could write that they are anti humanitarian since Thomas Monson administered donations to more to charities and disaster reliefs than maybe any other single organization. I think that is what you were just calling whining. Seems the the Mormons just want some respect for a man who gave his life to help lead an organization he believed in. The Times' tweet was tactless, derogatory, and an example of journalistic mumbling about honest reporting just to attack someone. Obituaries are not history columns they are not biographies, they are a place to honor and pay respect. He was a leader of 16 million devoted religious followers. Even President Trump tweeted a very kind comment to the Mormons, who he was not kind to during the campaign, you could learn from that example pay some respect to a fellow human being who did more than you ever will for humanitarian causes and charities, for the homeless and the widows.
2
Wanting responsible and fair facts about a person after they have passed away, as well as some of the great things that person accomplished is called Whiney!?? Unreal.
2
There's a trend in Mormon culture to patronize media companies such as VidAngel that will scrub all the "bad parts" from your R-rated movie and turn it into a clean, safe PG-rated movie that Mormons can consume guilt-free. This voluntary censorship is symbolic of the Mormon impulse is to prefer sanitized perspectives of art, media, and (I would argue) the world that they find more palpatable and pro-Mormon.
That same impulse is at work here in the criticisms of the New York Times's obituary of Thomas Monson. They want the New York Times to depict the leader of the church the way they see the leader of the church: from a pro-Mormon perspective. And that impulse is perhaps understandable, but the the bulk of the Times readers don't share that perspective and would prefer our media and our news to be a factual accounting of the major news-making moments from a person's life. It's unreasonable of Mormons to expect the Times to write a glowing puff piece of their leader when that doesn't square with what actually happened during his tenure. Perhaps what they really want is the VidAngel version of the New York Times that edits out all the unpleasant elements of Monson's tenure---leaving only the happy, faith-promoting, pro-Mormon bits left. Sorry, but that's just not how a credible national news organization such as the New York Times should operate.
13
This is the first of about a dozen comments I've read in support of the newspaper, and yet, it still gets the point that the New York Times failed to report on the Mormon Leader from the Mormon's perspective which somehow isn't obvious to NYT that they totally missed the target.
Re: preference for "sanitized" movies
Do you prefer to drink processed, "sanitized" water or sewage? Does the existence of sewage mean one must drink it on some principle of "accepting life as it is"?
2
You could show that photo to 100 people anywhere but S.L.Ut. and they would say... "Who's he?"
8
And now they'll think he's a political troll, not a quiet service agent to millions worldwide.
2
LOL...There are almost 15 million members of the Mormon church. 56% live OUTSIDE the United States. So more than half. The LDS is the second-fastest growing church in the US, and is the fourth largest. So...um, about 7 million outside of the US certainly who Pres. Monson is, and that’s not counting the millions OUTSIDE of Utah! So, Richard you are wrong.
1
So then if we Mormon's are the only ones who care, why did they find the need to publish this in a poor light?
Also... I'm from Ohio. And we have millions of members all around the world. Not just in Utah! :)
1
The obituary and this defense don't seem to show unbiased journalism so much as ignorance. Do the authors realize that while President Monson was the leader of the Church, he could not make unilateral decisions? If the Times realized that each controversial decision posted was actually the combined compromise and decision of 15 people, they might see why more emphasis should have been placed on the so-called "private" parts of President Monson's office, like his public discourses; the only parts he had full control over.
12
The beauty of the Prophet's life is that he reflected the love of the Savior, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine good Thomas Monson (Tommy) reaching his hand out to those who have written so poorly, with a big smile and even a warm embrace to let them know that he loves them as the Savior does, that they might feel that love.
If they, the writers, found themself without food or clothing, Pres. Monson would be the first feed them; he would be the first to take off his coat and give it to them; the first to take off his shoes and shuffle through the streets in his bare feet if needed.
8
Since you mentioned Salt Lake Tribune. Here's a article that was written about what leaders of other faiths and charities had to say about President Monson.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/global/2018/01/04/faith-leaders-praise-l...
As to your "So we have to look at the points that defined an individual in the public mind" - Did you mention any public facts about how he is a Navy WWII Veteran? Were facts about his awards from the Boys Scouts mentioned? You also never mentioned how he and other leaders have met and worked individually with leaders of countries, dignitaries and other public civil and religious leaders. How about when the church he was president of gave a $5 million dollar donation in ongoing refugee assistance? Or how about this article of examples of what the church president encouraged members do. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormons-around-the-world-country-...
Your response to the concerns readers have with your accuracy talk down to people. You assume that we are not intelligent and don't know how news is gathered and reported. It is a shallow and childish response in that the writer doesn't take ownership for not knowing and mis-representing facts. It is unfortunate for Rick Brown and William McDonald because this response has only restated the ignorance of the NY Times in regards to research and investigation.
25
Mr. McDonald of the New York Times died today. As an editor for the once prestigious NY Times, he is remembered for missing the point of an obituary. He is also remembered for his arrogant belief that the Times' POV is the true and correct POV, that any news outlet offers totally unbiased reporting and for overlooking the merits and positive accomplishments of the recently deceased.
11
I'm sorry. People who wear magic underwear are complaining about unfair coverage of their late Dear Leader? The head of a religion that believes one part of its mission is to retroactively baptize dead non-Mormons into the faith so as to save their souls?
Yes--all organized religions each have their own silly rituals and beliefs their adherents defend--sometimes, unfortunately, to the death. I do not deny that my own ancestors, in thinking that God gave them a piece of terrestrial real estate unto eternity, equal a belief in magic underwear and personal planets in inherent foolishness.
Freedom of religion in this country means you can believe what you choose to. But you don't have the right, in your multitudes, to influence or attempt to influence how a secular society functions and grants equal civil rights to its members. It's therefore perfectly legitimate for a secular newspaper to feature those aspects of a life, such as Mr. Monson's, that threaten the freedom of the larger society.
Yeah, sure, OK. They ought to call the Pope Mr. Bergoglio. I agree the NY Times is not a shining beacon of consistency, or even accuracy in reporting.
But please. Seek your hagiography elsewhere.
9
SCA- we are not complaining about unfair coverage. We are not even fighting for our religion. We understand where there is good, there is also opposition.
We are in mourning. Losing our dear Prophet is like you losing a close family member. Mr. McDonald could have used the "Sandwich Technique" in delivering the news being mindful of the millions of readers- reaching ALL audiences. The very first paragraph should offer respects and highlight achievements, and his humanitarian efforts before the political controversies, then end the article again with respects to one's life.
In regards to the "magic underwear" - again being mindful of others, these garments are very sacred to us, there is nothing magic about them. It is like poking fun of Christians who wear crosses, or Buddhists who wear orange robes, or even those who wear wedding rings symbolizing their marriage and commitment to one another. https://youtu.be/SkTz_NQqKA8
Regardless of anything I have said, Mr. McDonald, or anyone else in regards to this article, should you, or Mr. McDonald be in despair, President Monson would have given the very shoes on his feet for you- he emulated the very qualities of a saint- and for non-religious believers- he was one of the most caring individuals living his life by serving and loving people while remaining dedicated to his faith.
https://www.facebook.com/178989197302/videos/10154841195157303/?hc_ref=A...
1
The man just died and his followers are in mourning and the first paragraph of his obituary are all the controversial things you can think of?
Let’s say your grandmother dies whom you love and adore and are so saddened to never hear and speak from her again. Then a complete stranger (who doesn’t know her at all) writes an “objective” article for the whole country to read about her and highlights all the controversial topics in the first paragraph “She used the N word because she was of a different time. She also argued that children would be basterds if not born within a marriage” and you call that a fair obituary?
Regardless of it being a public or private person, Why not focus on the positives like 90% of the time out of RESPECT FOR SOMEONE THAT JUST DIED. I think YOUR desire to make his obituary political caused a sea of disgust. This article is NOT about you, your agenda, your differences with a political/private figure, or your religious beliefs. It’s about a good man who tried his very best to help the world we owe him a fair obituary that he would consider fair. No one is flawless in everyone’s eyes. But I’ll bet you’d want your obituary focusing on the good that you spend your life doing, not the controversial ones... no matter what position in life you were in. Spend a paragraph outlining the political push-back he faced, but let’s not make it the thesis of the essay.
9
Thank you Christy! Very well said!!!
1
I am really surprised, given the controversy that this obit has garnered thus far from the LDS (Mormon) community, that we haven’t heard the battle cry, “BURN IT DOWN”, from the Mormon Mob. You see, Mr. McDonald, the Mormons have no sympathy for a newspaper printing just the facts about the “Prophet”. If you go back in history, you can see their standard reaction, starting with criticism of the first prophet Joseph Smith by the Nauvoo Expositor…. they smashed the type and burnt it to the ground. That didn’t work out too good the last time, so maybe they will only do it metaphorically this time. Modern LDS apologists will try to justify the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor by stating that it was libelous. Recently, the LDS church itself has admitted that the paper’s accusations of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, etc., were true in the “Gospel Topics Essays” published on lds.org. So Mr. McDonald, don’t let this mob run you out of town. The LDS (Mormon) Mob is only interested in Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Religion when it is their view that is the dominant narrative.
9
This response piece is even more discouraging than the "obituary." This is far beneath you, NY Times. Using a man's death as a political platform in the manner in which you published Monson's obituary, then providing this response to criticism received as a result of that poor decision, is offensive. If you have an opinion or news about an organization or church, call a spade a spade. But hiding your views behind an obituary is slimy.
11
The New York Times Obituary for President Monson did not phase me in the least. I'm actually quite happy because i know President Monson has did what the Lord asked him to do and i know President Monson would not be worried either. Remember Lehi's dream, remember the people in the large building across the river. This is exactly what this obituary article is. All you have to do is just keep on walking down that strait and narrow path and hold fast to the iron rod and put all this New York Times nonsense behind you. You have your good memories of President Monson, keep them alive inside you.
3
Katrina, your post made me smile. Thank you :)
Your one passing mention of "his embracing humanitarian causes" doesn't do justice to the 1.89 BILLION in aid he sent out to third world countries, immigrants, and others in need. Also, zero mention of the sixty-plus years of sermons he delivered, instructing his people to be more loving, open, and accepting of others--all posted for free at LDS.org, and which any researcher worth their salt would have at least peeked at. Mormons have become more liberal, loving, and humanitarian-minded during the ten years of his presidency--definitely NOT a coincidence. If you had done your homework, NYT, rather than perusing clickbait for juicy, exaggerated headlines, you'd have been able to write an actual obituary instead of that muckraking hitpiece.
14
What you have written here is exactly what people like to read in a correct obituary. It warms their heart and soul. It gives people hope knowing that this kind of good is going on in the world. It’s amazing really. And that goes for all good people in the world who are making a difference for serving and helping others every day.
Monson's embrace of humanitarian causes should be put into perspective: The church he led donated $1.2 billion (according to published figures I've seen) over 30 YEARS, even while the church takes in $8 billion-$10 billion EACH YEAR in tithing alone, according to Bloomberg Businessweek's exhaustive research a couple of years ago. LD$ Inc. managed to put billions into City Creek Center, but took 30 years to spend half that amount on humanitarian causes. It's a whole lot better than nothing, and I wish the church did more, but in context, it's not nearly as impressive as Mormons seem to believe. Let's face it, this is a real estate development corporation that presents itself as a church.
Does that $ figure include the church-welfare system which ONLY AIDS LDS? Because the aid has grown exponentially since the Recession to where a huge percentage of LDS families began needing aid (largely due to huge families)? Because it's facts like these which matter to the rest of us but the church does not publicize.
I am ashamed to know that I have fallen into this trap. This has nothing to do with the life and legacy of President Monson, rather it is a sad attempt to draw in readers and participation to NYT. Its true there is no such thing as good or bad publicity. Just getting your name out there. Like I said, you drew me in. I caved and had to read the outrageous article written about the beloved leader and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Is there no shame? Can you seriously feel justified in this pitiful attempt to blacken a mans life long devotion just for some attention? If so congratulations. You got what you are looking for. I however will NEVER be returning to such a disrespectful, egocentric source.
7
How would this matter to non-Mormons? It can't "draw in readers" when the rest of us are unaware of your church.
For 16 million of us, because of the obituary written about President Monson, our opinion of The NY Times just went down a notch.
5
Only about 6 1/2 million in the U.S., and most of those probably don't read the NYTimes, but more likely the Church owned and heavily biased Deseret News.
To say you are “fair and balanced” is like you are slapping a band aid over a gushing artery. You made a huge guffaw and a apology was all that was needed. But you proved once again why we don’t trust reporters or news papers anymore. President Monson’s deserved more respect. You failed here to convince a lot of people you are fair. Seems more biased and self serving.
7
I continue to be deeply suspicious of how orchestrated the attack against The Times has been for its obit of President Monson. Not only does the virulence of these comments make me wonder, but the fact that a petition against The Times with 100,000 signatories already on it magically appeared. Having lived in Utah for twenty years, I assume what occurred was nothing spontaneous but that a Mormon higher up whispered that The Times must be attacked, Mr. Monson’s good name saved, and then the whispered word went out to Mormon wards across the U.S. telling its members to attack. Ironic, or predictable, that 45% of Mormons voted for Trump, the same man who regularly attacks TNYT for fake news?
8
Haha you must be kidding. You obviously didn’t know much or anything about Pres. Monson to think the average Mormon would require any recruiting to get to response with outrage to this biased pseudo-obituary.
1
Is 45% supposed to sound like a high number? 46.4% of the popular vote of everyone in the country voted Trump in as president.
1
I was pleasantly surprised by the support expressed among other religious people who applauded the Prophet’s care in maintaining standards against misguided public attacks. Your blatant politicizing of an obituary won’t change church policy. It does show a lack of decency. If you can find something good to say about a pornographer and a dictator you should be able to report on a man known for humanitarian service and a distinguished publishing career. This is an expample of why the media is floundering. People get tired of being told what to think by sloppy reporting. Many other news organizations gave great tributes. Even the White House had more class than your obituary editor.
5
You just caaaan't quite admit you botched this. Come on!!! Just one time, one liberal, come out and say..." I made a mistake". Never going to happen. Your newspaper is gross. You ONLY ever give the liberal slant. Remember November 8th, 2016? Americans are smarter than that...and we will re-elect Trump in 2020. PRESIDENT Monson deserved a better acknowledgment than Hefner, Manson and Fidel. I proudly stand up for President Monson.
3
Seriously, you’re signing everyone up to your service that responds??? That is so pathetic. Bye!!
You completely side stepped the main issue: the inconsistency between the obituaries of Thomas S. Monson and other "controversial" figures.
You’re quite disingenuous to imply you’re merely doing your job as a journalist, as if you had no choice in the tone of what was published (especially the title). Your story had a drastically different tone than other obituaries (from sources with much better credibility, I might add). Is it because the NY Times is alone in following their “obligation as journalists”? Most definitely not…
6
This just tells how biased this paper is. I will not be reading it again and will encourage others not to. Sad that journalists have gotten so caught up in their own opinions they are no longer journalists. I miss the days when they tried to be balanced.
4
Wow that is a pathetic apology. You guys are a joke of a news organization!
4
NYT is a journalistic publication. When you see an editor Obit, that means they are taking a journalistic approach to the obit. It is not one the family paid for.
Why is a Prophet, Seer, Revelator immune from journalistic work? In fact, his own media outlet (ksl.com) came up with 3 memorable President Monson moments: https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46228664&nid=148
Wiggling his ears
The “warm fuzzies”
Eye rolling about the fire
They continue to whitewash the church hierarchy. I am thankful for publications like the NYT. Why not hear the tough stories? It is not persecution if it is the truth.
shouldn't the memories of a prophet, seer, revelator read something more like this:
LDS church builds $3b homeless shelter in salt lake city.
LDS church said all children deserve to be baptized and brought into the fold of Jesus Christ
LDS church apologizes for the history of slaughtering 140 people.
But that can't be written because it has never happened. Instead, the Church has a $3b shopping mall, they do not allow children to be baptized if one of there parents are gay, and according to the Elder DHO the leadership of this church does not apologize.
What do you expect them to write? The prophet of the world can wiggle his ears?
5
Sigh. Once again someone is plagued with half truths about the Church. Without finding out truly why some policy was made. There is a lot more to what the church has offered the world than you can imagine. Research. It’s a beautiful thing.
What a bunch of whiny complainers. The New York Times did nothing wrong and properly highlighted Monson's stand against human rights for gay people.
I recently escaped you taught her living there 24 years, and could not be more relieved to escape the non-stop persecution complex held by way too many Mormons.
4
A typical reply from someone who doesn’t give another person or place a chance. A person who chooses to be offended. It happens all over the world with all kinds of different people. It happens when you don’t try to get to know the person. All you can see and criticize is their religion. And your comment has what to do with Pres Monson?
That was a poorly written response to an even more poorly written obituary. You are obviously trying to do some damage control. It didn’t work.
Lucky for you, President Monson would have loved you and forgiven you anyway! I’m going to try to do the same.
4
I got out of Utahistan after two decades living with this cult of oversensitive snowflakes. The Mormon church has a history of sexism (anti-ERA in the 1980s), racism (no blacks in the priesthood until 1978) and homophobia (Prop 8 etc.) -- and the NYT accurately portrayed Monson's role in its anti-gay marriage fight -- yet Mormons are the first to claim persecution when their extreme views are criticized.
The number of people here complaining about "Mr." instead of "President" is absurd. AP Style bans honorifics, so in most stories he was simply "Monson." The times still uses archaic honorifics and gets criticized. Much ado about nothing.
As to the bigger picture: Stop whining, Mormons. Your reality is an "alternate reality" and you do not and should not control what the rest of the world sees about your church.
9
So how come the Times will say Rev. Jesse Jackson, or Pope Francis, but they are not willing to say President Monson. Think of the backlash if they did an obit on the Pope and called him Mr. It is just respect to address by a title, such as Reverend, Bishop, Rabbai, etc.
2
His real title is Prophet Monson (as in Prophet, Seer, and Revelator).
Do you want them referring to him as Prophet Monson? The word "president" is very vague and nonspecific.
“Sorry, not sorry.”
2
You said “Some may have an agenda of some kind, wanting us to portray someone as they want that person to be remembered, perhaps in a light that best serves their interests.”. More like the NYT has an agenda. Seriously disgusting. You can’t claim his humanitarian and charitable acts were only known to the LDS community, President Monson was ALWAYS serving others, visiting hospitals, etc. Regardless, this was suppose to be an obituary, not a forum for someone (the writer & editor) who obviously do not agree with the LDS community to push their (NYT) own agenda. Have some respect NYT- this is not an apology this is petty.
4
@Marcus - right on, dude! Also, re this article’s last paragraph and it’s reference to the Salt Lake Tribune? Hello ... aren’t they as bad as the NYT in their often one-sided negative reporting on matters LDS? From the bottom of the world, “We love you, President Monson! RIP.”
I think the obit editor did a very poor job in writing this obituary. Not only did he seem to purposely ignore the life and service of this great man, but he used his format to push a political agenda which has no purpose in an obituary. If the obit editor wanted to express his own personal political feelings, he could have written a letter to the editor for such a smear job. Very poor journalism
3
More proof that the New York Times will do anything to appease their demographic, instead of providing both sides of a view.
Disgusting.
3
Boo. NYT. The Obit was partially neutral and negative at best. I don't care that you said President. I care you're blinded by your bias, which invalidates other articles, and reveals you're incapable of being objective. Now You could have just posted. Don't call it an obituary, it isn't. How many hundreds of negative things have been written about Monson or the church in my lifetime, that I took none of my time responding to. I never read your publication anyway. I don't really consider it news. You don't cover anything I can't hop online and find on freaking Yahoo. People will continue to receive the news from those they agree with. You've not really changed anything, you've managed to insult a small group of people you love to hate. It isn't an obituary. Don't pretend it is. Just say "President of the Mormon church died, and here's the same old tired dialogue we've been spewing for years we can continue to use to feel enlightened and superior to others who actually stand for something."
6
Though perhaps McFadden was striving for objectivity, his approach to portraying social issues within the Mormon church felt calculated.
Example: In examining the age change for female Mormon missionaries, why would an unbiased journalist choose to lead with an interview with a male scholar? Bushman is an octogenarian. Even bearing in mind the fact that there are several competent, published female scholars in the field of Mormon studies, what credible viewpoint do mature academics have on the young female Mormon "mentality?"
Disconcertingly, the phrasing in Bushman's observations, "...they would go just like the men,” and "It changed their mentality,” effectuates instant alienation. Within the first six paragraphs of his piece, McFadden has created an illusion of voicelessness in these young women.
McFadden does go on to cite a female student, Shoushig Tenguerian. But her two-line input now seems insubstantial and superfluous following Bushman's comments.
The selective journalistic scaffolding which Mr. McFadden employs is eerily silencing of the underrepresented voices he should be advocating.
4
I read the obit and came away with admiration for Mr. Monson. It wouldn't have occurred to me that the paper had insufficiently communicated his life of public service, so I'm surprised to see so many people here complaining about it. This negative reaction makes me think less of the LDS community--just the opposite effect that the original obituary had. If you want hagiography, why not write one yourself rather than insisting that the NYT write it? I thank the NYT for consistently writing interesting and informative obituaries.
4
I'm a huge fan of NYT, the only news agent that I actually subscribe to. Can we talk about the tone of the obituary? I reread your obituary of the previous Mormon president, President Hinckley. And I reread the latest one of President Monson. If I understand the reply in Reader's center, "I think the obituary was a faithful accounting of the more prominent issues that. Mr. Monson encountered and dealt with publicly during his tenure.", basically because the public and press loved President Hinckley, who showed himself and the church favourable during his life, it explains the positive tone in his obituary. And because President Monson was confronted negatively by the public and the press during his time, the obituary was painted in a more contradictory way. I'm trying to understand what is the criteria for you to write obituaries and choosing your tone and if you are agreeing with my hypothesis.
1
You know you're on the wrong track when major actions of a key religious leader are: 1) Didn't change the church's priesthood and 2) Didn't change the church's gay policy.
Those are non-actions -- which you judge to be incorrect. That's an editorial, not an obituary.
4
Then the media still wants to convince the public that they are unbiased and only doing their job.
What a dismissive and arrogant response from the writer. This is not an apology, neither is it at all an attempt to make it right. It actually tries to throw more dirt, while calling it flowers.
3
The Hugo Chávez and Hugh Hefner obituaries were glamorous? I just read the Chávez one and re-read the Hefner one, and I can't say they sounded too glamorous to me. They both seemed to cover the whole of their lives, including controversial as well as not-so-controversial things that were news-making.
The Chávez one, just like the editor says, highlights many different news-making happenings connected with Chávez, including very negative things such as "the homicide rate soared under his rule, turning Caracas into one of the world’s most dangerous cities".
As for Hefner, I suppose some of that could be called glamorous (the lifestyle sounds frivolous and dumb to me), but that obit talks about criticism that Hefner received as well as his failures and the long, steady decline of his empire.
2
So the author would be okay with the following headline to his own obituary:
"William McDonald, who disparaged religious leaders, dead at 87."
Might be factually accurate, but not really a reflection of who he is/was.
Men and women are much more than their stance on one particular issue or one action they've performed. Why choose to highlight something that so many will consider a negative when that person's life by any accord practically defines kindness, service, gentleness, generosity, and love?
4
The defense of the obituary does not live up to its standard as written for other obits mentioned by other readers (the Pope, Gordon B Hinckley, Hugo Chavez and Hugh Hefner). Nor does it show the same balance when compared to other national news outlets - for example, The Washington Post, The Associated Press (at latimes.com), and NPR - all of whose obits covered the controversial events but provided much more balance around the overall life of Thomas Monson. Very disappointed in the nytimes.com
4
Dear Editor - You seem to have hit an appropriate balance in your reporting the death of a public figure. You adequately described a man whom few of us knew, even though his followers (relatively few though they may be) wish there was more flowery speech attached. Thanks for the balance. If his followers need a different look at his life, I'm sure they have there own publications to reference.
7
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
2
"We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints."
So by the Times's own standards, then, the amount of complaints received should be ample evidence that President Monson's life was not, in fact, covered "fairly and accurately."
I'm normally a fan of this newspaper, but it dropped the ball in this case. In no universe should Hugh Hefner have a more glowing obituary than Thomas S. Monson. Articles like the original obituary are what allow conservatives to point and say, "See? Liberal bias in the media!" Things like this are what get religious people mad enough to ignore other issues and vote for Trump.
New York Times, I didn't expect you to not bring up the controversies. But you could have at least spent equal time and space on the reasons why he was loved and why he'll be missed and how he inspired millions of people to become better human beings. That would have been fair and accurate, and you would have seen many, many fewer complaints.
5
What a terrible and lazy way to highlight the life of a man who has done so much good in the world. Clearly, no homework was done on this man. Very, obviously biased. I'm sure President Monson would look down with only the nicest things to say about the author, as that was the kind of man he was, but I have lost any respect for him myself. If anyone deserved a great obituary, with attention paid to some incredible accomplishments, it was President Monson.
1
From the editors own words “We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints.” Since you’ve had quite a lot of complaints So according to you, you didn’t do the job right.
6
Wait, this is the same Mormon church leader that decided to spend $20 million to defeat gay marriage in California? And we're talking about what a humanitarian he was? Mormons, your concerted letter writing campaign is not convincing anyone. Actions speak louder than words. I know exactly what kind of man he was.
7
I keep trying to clear up this misconception. The church itself spent ZERO money on Prop 8.
2
Do you think the church hates gays? I feel you do, you are completely misinformed. They are and should be treated with the same love and respect as everyone and good church members do love them. If however a leader of the church believes in the Bible and other testaments of Jesus Christ, he then also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He must defend this truth. However many people take this to mean that the Church does not support gay men and women with respect and with acceptance. It is about policy, and the Lords teachings. It is not about not LOVING gay people. How would I know?? I am a member and have or had a gay son. He passed away almost a year ago. Please, read about the worldwide good and humanitarian efforts that the church provides for ALL people across the globe. Thank you.
2
It’s sheer cowardice to debate a man in his obituary. If you truly wanted to enter into a sincere discussion of his beliefs, you would’ve done it when he could respond.
3
Probably one of the most jaded and "hurtful" obituaries I've ever read. If the writer wants to make a political statement about someone...fine...do it on the editorial page, not the obit page. This obituary was out of line, cruel-spirited, and offensively received by many many readers. I feel the response to criticism was equally biased and more defensive than an attempt to reconcile. Not impressed by the coverage towards one of the finest men I've ever admired in my life. Shame on the newspaper, and shame on the writer.....
4
It was a fair obituary that honestly reported major policy decisions under President Monson's time at the helm. You know, if believing Mormons didn't know that these decisions were harmful, they would be totally proud of the controversies reported. They would see the reporting of them in his obituary as recognition of battles well fought and won. But they know in their heart that these were low points in his backward-thinking presidency.
And that's the thing - the NYT obit was much kinder, in fact, than it might have been if the NYT really wanted to (as it has been accused of doing) write a 'hit piece.' It acknowledged the lowering of the age for women to serve a mission as a positive, without pointing out that the age for men was lowered, too, ensuring that the mission age was still unequal between men and women. When it said that he wouldn't budge on the issue of women and the priesthood, it could also have mentioned that Monson had been an apostle (high leadership) in the church for 13 years already back in 1976 when the church chose to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment on the basis that it would give women more independence and encourage them to work outside the home. And though it was more critical when it came to LGBT matters, it did hold off on pointing out that the LGBT youth suicide rate jumped in Utah after both the church's 2008 involvement in Prop 8 and 2015 policy change regarding the children of LGBT people. Be grateful they were so kind.
7
The problem is not what the obit said, rather it is all the other significant work that he did was completely omitted presumably because it would not be useful to the author’s (not journalist) objectives.
There is much love and kindness for ALL people by members of the LDS Church. If they are not showing acceptance of all people that is something they have to work out for themselves. However, if the Church believes in the Bible and other testaments of Jesus Christ, then it must also believe that marriage is between a man and woman only This is the truth from our Father in Heaven. However, I find that people interpret this belief as hate for gay people. This couldn’t be further from the truth!! Just because the church stands for marriage between a man and woman only it does NOT mean that gay or LGBT people are not loved or that they are LESS than ANY other person. They are not!! I know this to be true for myself and for many, many others who are members of the LDS church. I had/have a son who was gay who was loved by everyone. Unfortunately, he passed away almost a year ago now. He was dearly loved for who he was as a person, not just because he was gay.
I would say the piece written on Thomas S. Monson is flat. One-dimensional, obligatory and lacking much in-depth information about the man separate from a couple of controversial church policies. In 90 years, including 50 plus years of service to his fellow man as a church volunteer, it's the gay-rights and priesthood issues that largely fill the article? Sure, those issues hit a nerve with some, but what an unfitting and unfair way to frame the entire life of a man who influenced the world for the better. The desire to paint a "warts and all" picture is evident, but it feels a little short-sighted to ignore the breadth and depth of a person's lifelong contributions in favor of the most recent, sensationalistic and most readily available facts. Lazy reporting.
2
Compare the titles and subtitles of the Monson obit, the Fidel Castro obit, and the Hefner obit. Surely you can see the issue for moderate readers? Castro threatened the world with nuclear annihilation, Hefner spent his life objectifying women, and Monson devoted himself kindness and charity, yet only Monson's subtitle included political jabs.
3
Mr. Monson rates a New York Times obituary because of his status as leader of the Mormon religion. The policies he championed or fought, his leadership's overall impact are what may be interesting to the average reader. All the personal touches are the venue of the private side of the person. They're nice but they are not relevant to the reader unless they informed the way he led the church writ large.
1
As a life-long Mormon, I must say that this obit seemed rather unfair. It's not what you said, but how you said it-you phrased things about the LGBTQ community and women in the priesthood, you said this in a light that made readers think of it as a sin-even though it wasn't President Monson's decision to make. It was-and is-God's. Even if you don't believe this-and I can understand why you wouldn't want to put religious beliefs in-you could avoid making it sound like he was an awful person who had no respect for anyone, even though no one can deny that he devoted his life the the Church, his family, and God. Even if you believe that God isn't real, you can't deny that he was a good person. Your obit painted him out as Devil spawn, to people already against Mormons. And I assure you, there are MANY people against Mormons. And this obit may have added to their numbers. You can tell the facts without throwing in opinion, then denying it.
5
The writers for the NY Times have done a severe diservice to "news" in writing a clear "op ed" as opposed to a neutral and reflective piece for a man who is admired globally for his compassion, leadership and faith. I am not LDS, but know a great deal about the people and their faith. In the case of President Monson, and his obit, a comparative analysis of obits run for other religious leaders, heads of state, internationally renowned business leaders would clarify the distance between the politics invoked by the Times and good journalism. The work done by the Times can only be described as political and cowardly - what else could one say about an organization that chooses to write such perspectives after the man has passed and is unable to contest the article when the times hid from any discourse while he lived. Authors who have traded any semblance of honor for political gain will undoubtedly find little reward in this life ...or the next.
2
My thoughts about this particular religion are not complimentary. Suffice it to say that it is very white and undeniably paternalistic. It origins and roots to my mind and heart are horrific. I had a half brother who married into this sect who attempted to "convert" our father who by choice considered himself Catholic. I found it extremely offensive that he the had a Mormon service for him as they believe they can even convert after death. I made sure to keep my father's ashes per his wish and scattered the majority at his parents graves and in a few places he loved.
My religious preference is ABSOLUTELY none. They are all divisive and unnecessary.
2
In spite of all the genuine kindness and service for which Monson was remembered within Mormonism, he presided over the rollout painful, divisive policies that left many of us feeling cast out and disillusioned. For all his kind words about going to the rescue, actions like the November Exclusion Policy made me feel shunned. Personally, I’m glad the original editorial gave voice to this tension.
3
I had a boss once who enjoyed thumping his bible like his dad a Baptist preacher.
During one of my performance interviews he said to me, "you know, if you have to take that much time to explain what you did, it's obvious there were a lot of problems with the project."
1
So, are you going to refer to Pope Francis as Mr. Francis when he dies? Just trying to understand the difference.
2
I find it interesting that from what I know about Thomas Monson, he would have been understanding and forgiving of the obvious highlighting of the controversial and liberal politics that was so skillfully interwoven in the article. It takes a journalist to spin this stuff so the editor can defend it with such eloquence.
Simple fact is that Thomas Monson rallied the 15 million Mormon faithful to try to be kind and do better tomorrow that they did today. If the NYT was willing to do more of this instead of trying to be tactfully sensational they might get some of those 15 million as readers. Many people I know, really can't understand why they took the time to write a hit piece rather than a death announcement. Unless somehow we are to understand that raising controversies sells newspapers.
3
A back peddling excuse for an apology. A person of President Monson's stature is beyond a 'style book' in determining how to address him. Politically slanted 'journalism' has no place in a prominent publication's obituary; which is to state the account of an individual person's life and character. President Monson's character was above reproach. A rarity in today's world of perilous times. Those writing about him at his passing should sincerely immerse themselves in his words, works and deeds before attempting to write about who this great man really was.
1
DEAR OBIT EDITOR . . . in order (1) to better understand "Mormons" and (2) to better represent LDS President Thomas S. Monson . . . please consider the following . . .
FIRST . . . consider the landmark article written by LDS President Spencer W. Kimbal, "The False Gods We Worship," Ensign, June 1976 (available on LDS.org).
SECOND . . . consider this more balanced video obit from the Mormon Newsroom: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155515368832013&id=533...
. . . thank you.
4
Sure, to better represent President Monson, refer to two sources completely biased in his favour. That seems sensible. /eyeroll
3
"More balanced"? Surely you jest.
What in the original obituary was not the truth?
Monson's legacy will be how he treated the LGBT members while he was the president.
2
You refer to the Mormon Newsroom for a "balanced" perspective? Errr...I think they would be the epitome of imbalanced.
4
I’m a Mormon but not a journalist. The emotions tied to the passing of a revered and trusted figure who was an example of so much good obviously has caused an emotional response from our community. That is the right of those readers, just like it’s the papers’ right to write what they will, and the right for people to choose to read it or pay for it. Don’t like the food or the service? Then don’t keep going back.
Several people mentioned the Pope, Hugh Hefner, and Hugo Chavez’s obits and that they may not have been written with as objective of a stance as that written for President Monson, so I am putting the links below for easy reference. It does provide an interesting comparison for the editors evaluation perhaps.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/international/europe/catholic-lead...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/obituaries/hugh-hefner-dead.html
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/americas/hugo-chavez-venezue...
12
I love and adore President monson. This fine man dedicated his life to serving others. He was an outstanding example of what it means to serve our heavenly father, as well as serving our fellow men.
2
Compare Thomas S. Monson's NYT "Obituary" with the one written for the last Mormon prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. You can see clearly why the Mormon faithful are so upset. You can cover pertinent news and events that happened during his time as a church leader while also remaining respectful. This obituary failed to do that. Shame on you for this non apology apology. President Monson was a great man, and a great leader who deserved better from the NYT.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28hinckley.html?referer=https:/...
10
"Shame on you for this non apology apology."
It was an explanation, not an apology. They had nothing to apologise for. It was a fair obituary that honestly reported major policy decisions under President Monson time at the helm.
3
This apparently all started when some people that just read headlines only responded to this:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25411/new-york-times-proves-it-hates-reli...
Apparently those same readers are not familiar with the tradition of the NYT obits. The paper, as I see it obligated to highlight how this man affect the most people in this country. By highlighting his proud fight against gay marriage in part of the article, they did just that. But that is not all. The NYT did a very respectful job in highlight much of his life. They even included his service, of which he was very proud, to 85 widows when he was a young bishop. I hardly saw a thing missing.
If you didn't like it then you are likely having a bit of cognitive dissonance with the possible anti-gay and/or potential misogynistic claims that might be made. You don't like hating on gays, or misogyny.
Good for you! You are still stuck reconciling that value with the possible negative views others might have towards your faith. I mean, aren't you ALSO proud that Mr Monson valiantly stood against gay marriage, and stuck to his guns by refusing to being bullied into compromising the priesthood by giving it women, which would be contrary to doctrine? (He was and he would have felt honored to hear the mention.)
See, proud, and and yet worried about how that might look to others = cognitive dissonance. You brought it on yourselves dears, it is NOT the fault of the NYT.
13
I’m pretty sure you would not like for this writer to write your mother’s obituary with all the controversial decisions and acts she might have done, in the style of President Monson’s Obituary. It would be sad and disrespectful. A writer can mention things one has accomplished without making it all about the controversy. His intent was to diminish, reprimend and disrespect.
2
I think the editor takes the easy way out on explaining how one of the most widley read papers in the world came to the summation of a man's life with very little about the actual man. Not all "Mormons" expected a hagiography. But some of the backlash can be attributed to the condescending tone of the obituary and now the dismissive tone of the Obits Editor. Other news outlets have manged to walk the fine line of respect and reporting. Maybe the NYT needs to look at how other news organizations handle such matters. See example: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7017514
10
For all of those faithful Mormons that feel Monson's obituary was not fair, please go back to G.B.Hinkley's 2008 and read it. Then re-evaluate your criticism after doing so. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28hinckley.html
4
An obituary, by definition, is simply a brief biography written about an individual's life. As a non LDS individual in a highly populated LDS area I have been able to admire the high respect that was held for this man, Thomas S. Monson.
After reading the NY times comments on their obituary writing, I remembered reading Steve Job's obituary a few years ago and chose to reflect back and found it http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/business/steve-jobs-of-apple-dies-at-5.... Steve Jobs was a highly influential individual who transformed the world we live in. With the highest respect possible he was a visionary and a genius, but after reading his biography I now know there were multiple things that could have been brought up that were controversial or viewed as negative but not one of those things were mentioned because his change wasn't spiritual change. The entire biography is praiseworthy toward his life accomplishments.
Now to compare, another respectable individual passes, who affected the world in a different realm. On a spiritual level instead of a technological level and the first 20+ paragraphs is consumed with what he didn't do as a "prophet."
I'm disappointed. It's saddens me that the media has become so twisted that they cannot take a moment to simply recognize the facts behind the positive influence Thomas S. Monson had on so many lives. I hope the New York Times eventually recognizes how wrong they were and makes it right.
15
This was a very astute and well reasoned response. I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions. Multiple past obituaries published in the NYTimes can be pointed to in comparison to Pres/Mr Monson's that show a clear negative bias. It is disappointing and saddening. I think that is exactly why Mormons have reacted so strongly. Thank you!
1
Nothing I could say could speak more clearly and persuasively than President Monson’s own words. I will invite the reader (and the editors and staff of the NYT) to peruse the words of this noble, kindhearted man and draw their own conclusions. Consider the stories he shared from his own life experience in these talks linked below and ask yourself if this obituary fairly and accurately represents the man. To be sure as an outlet of journalism, the Times must paint all sides of the picture, but there is a great dearth of certain essential strokes (and an over abundance of less essential ones) in this obituary, leaving the final portrait grotesquely insufficient in the eyes of those who have known President Monson best.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/speakers?speaker=Thomas-S.-Monson...
3
It seems NYTimes is taking a page out of Trump's book. When you do something rude or insensitive, you double-down and deny it was rude or insensitive. "We might have paid more attention to the high regard with which he was held within the church. I think by his very position in the church, all that was implied... So an obituary -- which in many respects retells the news of yesteryear -- is going to recall controversies, as it should. "
Next time be more accurate, retell the good someone did and "imply" the controversies.
You decided Hugh Hefner deserved better treatment: "He was compared to Jay Gatsby, Citizen Kane and Walt Disney, but Mr. Hefner was his own production. He repeatedly likened his life to a romantic movie; it starred an ageless sophisticate in silk pajamas and smoking jacket hosting a never-ending party for famous and fascinating people."
You positive depiction of the pornographer was so lopsided that Ross Douthat had to write in to set the record straight: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/opinion/hugh-hefner.html.
Tacky, very tacky NYTimes.
6
Or maybe taking a page out of Apostle Dallin H. Oaks' book,
Jan 30, 2015 - LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks set off a global chain reaction among Mormons this week, when he said he wasn't sure apologizing for the faith's past rhetoric on homosexuality would be advisable. "I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Oaks said in an interview Tuesday.
3
I am an ex-Mormon, former missionary, and one who has never cared for President Monson and his narrative voice yet I still found the obituary to be anything but objective. I also chuckled at the self proclaimed title, "journalist" while you defend your choice to address President Monson as "Mr. Monson". So Mr. Writer, I am not a Mormon apologist by any means I just like information presented fairly and while many Mormons are responding with passion and concern over their feelings that most likely emanate from a place of anger or resentment towards the original obit I just find your entire response to be arrogant and humorous.
Everybody should know by now this paper placates a very specific group and that is not Mormons, so why are they so upset is beyond me? I wouldn't subscribe to Penthouse hoping to find wholesome children's reading just like I don't subscribe to the Times looking for objective unbiased publishing.
24
I am so disappointed at the lack of respect the NYT has demonstrated. It only shows weakness and a lack of “taking the higher road.” President Monson is a man of integrity and depth that the NYT would benefit from learning from. I sincerely hope that better choices in publications will come in the future, but for now, I cannot fill my mind with such disrespect. I no longer choose to read or follow the NYT.
6
The NYT editors still don't get it, and are hiding behind the title of "Journalist". President/Mr. Monson's entire life was defined by selfless service, not by a few controversial decisions. This obituary did NOT focus on his life; it focused almost solely on politically sensitive issues between a conservative religious institution and a liberal a religious community. How come the so-called journalists didn't mention the fact that Mr. Monson paved the way for greater religious tolerance in East Germany before the wall came down? Or that LDS Charities greatly expanded its world-wide delivery of goods and services under his direction? Or that, under his direction, hundreds of thousands of non-Mormons were assisted after catastrophic storms and hurricanes in the US, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere. These are the kinds of decisions that marked the true life and spirit of the man. Don't journalists care about these things, too?
14
The fact that the Editor even had to make a response to his original article shows that he did not do what was right in the first place.
The fact that previous obituaries were made in better light for individuals who were clearly evil people just makes what he did to Thomas S Monson's memory terrible.
It clearly shows a bias opinion to the religion without question.
Terrible work from an apparently reputable media outlet.
8
Terrible follow up. This man was the president of the LARGEST SERVICE organization in the world!! Look at those statistics and what he changed and how and who he served, the people of the WORLD! Come NYtimes. You can do better!!
2
I’ve never heard the Times refer to the pope as Mr. Ever. President Monson was not a standard clergyman. He was president and prophet of the 4th largest church in the US. You also wouldn’t refer to the Prophet Mohammed as Mr. So please don’t refer to our prophet as Mr., either. As a NYC resident who subscribes to the Times, I expect better.
6
How was any of what they said offensive or 'fake' news? They stated FACTS from a non-member, non Utah bubble, stand point. Sadly, most people in the world don't recognize President Monson as our past prophet and mouth piece of the Lord. It's a shame, but that's how the world views the church and our modern day prophets. It's true women weren't granted the priesthood under president Monson's time served, it's true gay/lesbian realtions are not upheld by the Church. This is the equivalent of non members being angry that the church wrote President Monson a glowing (well deserved) obituary or article on their page... And then non members petitioning for a retraction/apology.. you shouldn't have to apologize for not sharing beliefs
11
Obituaries usually focus on what a person did in their life, not what they didn't do. The author of this piece obviously had a laundry list of what they thought Pres. Monson should have done during his life (should have extended the priesthood to women, should have opened the church to gay marriage, shouldn't have excommunicated detractors . . .).
The obituary is offensive because it was sloppy. The first three-fourths of the obituary focus on current events that occurred in the last 5 years of a man who lived to be 90 years old. The actual meat and substance of his overall life is on briefly touched on in the last quarter of the article after the author is done airing their political disappointments with Pres. Monson. I'm not saying that the author is not allowed to bring those issues up in the obituary. It just seemed petty to focus the large majority of the obituary on those issues. The NYT obituary on Pres. Hinkley was more well-rounded and fits the mold of obituaries.
1
Not sure whose comment(s) you’re referring to but, in my observation, it looks like most are disappointed with the tone and focus of the obituary, not that it is lacking facts.
There has never been a president of the LDS church that has granted the priesthood to women and yet that fact was used as a defining characteristic of President Monson in the obituary. Why wasn’t that fact even mentioned in the NYT obituary of Gordon B. Hinkley?
If the NYT has written an obituary for Martin Luther Ling, Jr and described him as a womanizer and sexual deviant, don’t you think there would be backlash? We could shrug it off and say “but, hey, it’s true.” Doesn’t change the fact that most obituaries, even in the NYT, take a more objective stance but this writer seemed to have a clear agenda that painted President Monson in a negative light.
1
What nonsense.
He is simply the President of an organization of millions. It was earned when millions sustained him as such.
It is a purposeful slight to offend others, just as the obituary was meant to do, under the guise of "objective" journalism. What a joke. What would be "subjective" about calling him President Monson?
If President Clinton were to die, would his obituary read: Mr. Clinton, an adulterous, dishonest philanderer who bombed innocents in order to take the heat off of himself dies today. It should, I guess, if they stick with their mantra of reporting what controversies and social effect they had.
Why was Fidel Castro, a dictator who tens of thousands died trying to escape, treated with such respect by this ridiculous "news" organization?
Why the constant need for controversy?
Is anyone forcing anyone else to be a member of this church? If they do not like the policies, how does it hurt them to just not be a member?
Those decrying the standards are either not even affiliated with the church or are part of a ridiculously small (and, as usual, very vocal) minority and yet they get the most attention.
Luckily, what you have to say makes no difference whatsoever.
What a great man who gave his life in the service to his fellow beings, no matter their religious beliefs or affiliations. He literally gave the shirt and shoes off of his body in the service of others.
If only everyone could be like him, what a better world it would be.
6
Bombed innocents? I'm not a big Clinton fan, but the Serbians were committing genocide. Google "Srebernica"
What a world we live in. I encourage readers to spend 5 minutes and actually look at what this man spent his life doing. By any measure, he lived an exemplary life in the service of his fellow human beings. I appreciate that the LDS church is a polarizing institution in the current climate of social correctness however this was obit not an opinion piece and the NYT has now stooped to a new low not once but TWICE! Sensationalism sells, respectful journalism does not. What a world.
5
I expect an obituary in a national newspaper to reflect a person's impact on society, both positive and negative. In my opinion, this holds for obituaries of religious figures, and I would expect nothing less of the NYTimes.
3
I don't think we will get a real apology, not when men try to change the laws of God and think they are all knowing. Respect for the freedom of religion is what is needed.
1
Listing out the objective facts, accomplishments and controversies of a religious leader's life is not something a news organization needs to apologize for. Respect for freedom of religion goes both ways. You need to remember that all other people have the right to their own religious beliefs as well (and that includes the right to not practice a religion). The NY Times is not a Mormon publication; it's a newspaper for all people.
1
In what way does a religious community's desire to dictate the contents of the NYT reflect "respect for the freedom of religion"? It sounds more like a demand for special treatment for your religion.
3
I must have been reading a different obit because I thought there were a lot of positive things said about Mr. Monson. I was touched that he wrote weekly letters to members of his ward when they were serving in the armed forces. Twenty-three weekly letters! I thought it was nice that he visited widows. There were other instances of personal kindness, charity and effort. It was clear that this was not only from his heart, but as part of his leadership in LDS. I saw a side of him different from the controversial positions he was well-known for.
I was surprised that so many felt he was not treated fairly. Then I thought it must have been a directed comment-writing onslaught by people who hadn't read the entire piece.
14
You got that right, sista ... journalist strategy right there. Put all your ammunition at the beginning, and who cares about reading the token bits at the very end? Just saying. Peace!
Why aren't journalists in the business of tribute? Why aren't journalists in the business of spreading good? Why does that see taboo?
Why as an AMERICAN RACE are we all obsessed with the negative and the bad, and wonder why we have violence in the media. I am thankful for the few nice comments stated in the article but once again I am disappointed in a journalist who had a chance to tell an amazing inspiring story of a man who spent his life doing so many good things which is so rare in this world today.
I am sure this journalist is patting themself on the back because they got what they aimed for. Upset people. That my friends is what we call a Bully.
3
When I lived in Boston, I educated myself on the Mormon religion because Mitt Romney was our governor at the time. I had read about his father in school and wanted to understand his son's beliefs. For the same reason I read this obit Mr. Hatch is retiring and Mr. Romney might run for his seat.
Not knowing anything about Mr. Monson I felt the article covered a great deal of information in a easy to understand manner. The family could of submitted their own orbit for publication and all of the additional information would of been available to the readers. I know someone will say its the NYT responsibility to do the work however if you believe in the person that deeply, the family and the people who are upset about the orbit should take action in their own hands and distribute the information so we all can understand what type of man Mr. Monson was. I would be interested in reading it and I am sure others would be.
5
The NYT is not a voice for the LDS church PR machine, or its members. Mr. Monson's humanitarian efforts were universally driven by the millions of dollars donated by church members. It wasn't Mr. Monson's money or his particular orientation. The next leader will be doing the same thing, spending church member's donations on high profile acts of kindness. That's what churches do! If I had millions of donated dollars at my disposal, I too would look magnanimous. I don't expect my obituary to dwell on it. One reader said Mr. Monson was a big supporter of the Boy Scouts. Well, as one of his final acts, he pulled the youth of the LDS church out of the scouting program due to their acceptance of gays and females. Given the time, place and significance of Mr. Monson's role in the world (as well as the LDS church), the obituary was balanced and adequate.
20
I applaud the NY Times for writing the truth about the LDS Church under Thomas S. Monson's leadership. The influence that organization had on the rights of women, LGBT people, and the mental health of LGBT youth in Utah and other states cannot be understated. That is his legacy.
17
The Times draws a strange and unhelpful line between "the public man" and "the private one" in defending its Monson obituary. It seems to restrict "the public mind" to perceptions by non-Mormons, leaving actions well known to Mormons and non-Mormon observers as part of a private world not worthy of mention or discussion in an obituary, and it suggests that, somehow, assessing those "private" actions would be akin to writing a eulogy. The result is not so much an anti-Mormon assessment as simply an incomplete assessment that fails to convey the import of the individual in the broad world in which the individual lived and acted.
1
I felt the original obituary contained the truth. What was there that was not true? Members of the church revere him as next to God and I get that. But he will be mainly remembered for how he treated the LGBT community when he was the leader of the church. That will be his legacy.
I felt the obituary also emphasized much positive about Pres. Monson and his life.
Members want a sanitized obituary just like they prefer their sanitized church history. Truth is hard to accept sometimes, but it was written as he's seen by most of the world.
12
Gwen, well put. I completely agree with you.
I thought the initial obituary weak because it was almost entirely about the institution, not the man.
If the author wanted to raise these controversial issues, some effort should have been expended to understand why the church took that course and for an obituary, Thomas Monson's personal role and feelings. How did Pres. Monson personally feel about these controversial issues? Did he struggle with the questions that were raised? Did he personally meet with proponents of gay marriage or women's rights? What happened in those meetings? How did the majority of the church feel about its response to both these issues, not just the very vocal activists? What was Pres. Monson's broader contribution to the church and the community as a whole, over the course of his decades of leadership in the church?
None of these questions were answered for me.
2
I found it disappointing that earlier the past year the Times published an extensive article on the founder of Playboy (which studies have indicated porn destroys relationships and families, and encourages the degrading of women into sex objects and their exploitation for the personal satisfaction of men, and I believe that if the Times looked into it they would find that many men who abuse women are also involved in pornography) but didn't hardly discuss at all the humanitarian aspect of Thomas S Monson's life. He was far from perfect. But, he made such a difference in millions of people's lives both Mormon and non-Mormon. His effort to extend the humanitarian arm of the LDS Church and to encourage members to go and serve their neighbors has prompted millions of hours of service. None of that was mentioned. Why is it that the only focus was on political fighting? I can understand discussing these key issues, but why did the reporter ignore the good that was done? I feel that if the Times wants to promote peace, then it needs to focus on the good people do and try to avoid judging people and cultures with which they have not spent time with. Thank you for listening to people of many faiths who felt that the Times overlooked the good that one man did. I think in a world that is struggling to find people who serve others without seeking recompense, I feel the Times as a popular and well read paper should lead that charge in finding the good in the world.
So the follow up is, "sorry, not sorry"?? Thanks a lot NY Times for blowing another chance to make things right! You don't have to agree with the policies of the LDS Church, but why not look past your disagreements to see the life of the individual? Millions of people, LDS and non-LDS looked to President Monson as a person of integrity, service, and a staunch supporter for humanitarian causes. It would have been a far more interesting article to find out the reasons WHY millions loved this man. Instead you got caught up in the same political climate that the rest of the country in knee-deep in. I expected more from such an organization.
2
What an unfortunate and disappointing follow-up. The NYT had the opportunity to apologize for such a lopsided and secular obituary of a world-wide religious leader. Imagine had an obituary of a Pope been so political in focus and not religious. The backlash would similarly follow suit.
President Monson was a kind man who taught love and compassion and service. He was not a politician. He was a religious leader. Perhaps the NYT should have asked one of his 2 counsellors in the Church's First Presidency for a comment, or a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, or a comment from the Church itself. But instead they whittled down the life of a religious leader to political controversies and only asked a historian for input.
Obituaries celebrate the life of the individual including accomplishments, personality traits, legacies, and influences. They are not to highlight controversial policies under their ecclesiastical administration.
The NYT should acknowledged that in writing the obituary of a RELIGIOUS leader, they ought to have highlighted some of his RELIGIOUS teachings, what President Monson was known for, his service, his contribution to humanitarian work throughout the world, and his abilities to care for and tend to the poor, the afflicted, the widowed, and the downtrodden.
Obituaries of religious leaders should not be treated the same as politicians or world leaders. They should be given more respect, appreciation, and religiosity.
Shame on the NYT.
3
Granted, journalists should remain fair and neutral on issues, but those do not belong in obituaries. Individuals who have dedicated their lives to the work of caring for others and those less fortunate should be noted as facts if you must, in their obituary and leave the politics of the day out. It is indeed a sad day for New Yorkers to have this kind of careless writing represent such a great and diverse city.
In honor of Mr. Monson, we will forgive as he would.
2
If you have nothing nice to say, then don’t say anything at all. Specially if you didn’t know the person well; an obituary is not a place to talk bad about a person, specially if those beliefs were not just his but our beliefs, of our religion, as a whole.
If you want to slander his beliefs, then do a separate subject on the religion, and our beliefs, but not on the person, specially after they have passed.
1
I thought it was an objective overview of the
man's life. comparisons to the obits for
Chavez or Castro are spurious since they
were dictatorial leaders who were loved
and hated equally by their adherents or
their enemies. this leader was controversial
but quite a decent man,which came through
In the obituary.all in all,a good job.
5
President Monson continued the tradition and teachings of his predecessors. The Mormon church's opposition to homosexuality is nothing new, so the fact that President Monson did not make a change to long-term practice and belief is NOT a defining, newsworthy event. The same is true of the role of women in the church.
I find it interesting that maintaining one's beliefs and tradition is considered controversial. I would think that a major religion abandoning decades (or centuries) of scriptural practice would be more controversial. Maybe it would have been better to simply "sing the praises" of ANY public figure that you cannot find "dirt" on.
President Monson's passing was a rare opportunity to do just that. When a man lives a moral life without any real fault, that man should receive praise. Refusing to acknowledge the achievement of a moral life is, in my opinion, dropping the ball.
1
Great points...
I am a Mormon so know that up front, the obituary and follow-up do not do justice for President Thomas Monson. He was a man of honor and compassion. He loved people and loved to serve others. He made this world a better place. He was a true leader in every sense of the word. He lead the church by his example. Serving and helping others. From the youngest child to the oldest widow he was willing to help and did. From church to scouting to every facet of his life, he was a great man and did great things.
1
I am saddened when so much of President Monson's work was not considered news. His decades of selfless service to the lonely and sick and old people weren't considered news. It is wrenching that there is so little respect for a man who stands by his religious principles even when they are unpopular. In particular, the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious principle and that sex is sacred and constrained to the bounds of marriage. (As an adult who was divorced for many years I understand the challenges of chastity) This was also followed up with an extensive outreach to ensure that homosexuals are not treated as sinful people. President Monson was an honest person, a charitable person and considered (by millions) to be a light in a dark world. His greatest and most news worthy deeds were in his charity and his love.
1
Long story short he was a good leader , a good human being, he was our dear prophet , and now as always in our church we know who is our next leader . we are ready to hear through him what heavenly father expects from us.
The problem seems to be that you don’t understand his position in the Church. He is referred to as President, but he is believed to be a modern day Prophet. The closest office I can think of in that regard is the position is the Pope. Would your obit refer to him as Mr. Bergoglio or even Mr. Francis? Would your summation of the Pope’s life work, under a picture no less, say that he didn’t allow woman to hold the priesthood or that he spoke against gay marriage? I don’t think so, even though all of these things are true. If President Mondon had taken the Priesthood from women or reversed the church allowing for gay marriage, that may be noteworthy because it would be a huge change. All the Prophet did on these issues is hold up the teachings that have been in place from the start of the religion. Did you note his constant pleading for loving and serving others even if the religion disagrees with their lifestyle? I find it hard to believe that you would’ve written a similar obituary for the Pope.
2
The flaw in this article is the assumption public interest and public concern is found and dictated through achievements confirmed by media and institutions such as the Oscar, success in sports, etc. Mr Monson did not seek attention in the media or acknowledgement in society. He served and sacrificed without making a big fuzz about it. He visited the sick, the widows and those who needed his support. He cared about the individual. That is the reason why so many individuals are disappointed in the articles. But small acts of kindness actually makes true greatness and I believe acknowledgement in God's eyes. This is my little obit for Mr. Monson. I want to conclude with quoting Gandalf from the Hobbit movie:
Gandalf: Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? I don't know. Perhaps because I am afraid, and he gives me courage.
1
According to Wikipedia, "Monson received the Boy Scouts of America's Silver Beaver award in 1971 and Silver Buffalo award in 1978, the latter being the highest honor of the BSA." In Slate.com's "80 Over 80" (list of the most powerful octogenarians) Monson placed first in 2009, and first again in 2010. In 2011, Gallup listed Monson as one of "Americans' 10 Most Admired Men." His humanitarian efforts prompted gay mayor of SLC Biskupski to say, “President Monson’s values …set a high moral standard, as to how we will treat immigrants and refugees both inside and outside our borders. I believe his example has helped to ensure Salt Lake City and Utah will always be seen as welcoming places.” Catholic Bishop Oscar A. Solis said, “The President has been a good friend and supporter in our mutual efforts to support the common good and care for the most vulnerable both at home and abroad. Catholic Community Services as well as the Good Samaritan Program have benefited from his commitment to the poor. For President Monson, the Sermon on the Mount was not just a platitude but a way of life.” Jeanetta Williams of the NAACP said, “President Monson was a very kind and caring individual," and that she will remember his teaching: “Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.” Praised by religious and irreligious, by Senators/President...these aside, President Monson was a friend to all, and is best remembered for his ability to minister to "the one."
4
I guess my response to this is; "Oh well!" Nothing they have to say, write or faux apologize for will EVER alter the man I know as my prophet. I have never relied on anything a newspaper prints to direct my heart or mind; I find my answers in personal prayer and knowing the person.
As a convert to the church I thank President Monson for his love, his direction and his reminder that God loves us, and expects us to love one another. Rest in love dear prophet; until we meet again!
An obituary is not the place to state your personal disagreements or biased opinions about what areas you think someone has failed. I have no problem with those issues being written up in a different article, but I am deeply saddened that they were obviously used to show a good man in a negative light in his OBITUARY. Basic respect was not shown to someone who did nothing but live his genuine beliefs and serve others his entire life. Please try to understand where we are coming from - Mutual respect, even if we believe differently from you - that's all we're asking for.
1
People who believe they are permanently persecuted can not meaningfully contribute to the public discourse. This is just another example of alt-news adherents bellowing about fake news.
4
What a weak response! Purely a defensive piece without really budging on their rubbish obituary. The fact of the matter is, that it is still considered politically correct to take pot shots at Mormons. Take the Book of Mormon Broadway musical, which has garnered positive reviews and attendance from high profile public figures. If a similar critical and disparaging play we made of any other sub-group, it would be criticized as a prejudice hate piece. This obituary was no different--just a cheep pot shot.
3
I've been out of the church for forty years, but only recently began reading about the historical scrubbing and whitewashing of its actual past. Seeing as those who are leaving the church seem as angry as those who won't even listen to what Monson revealed by opening the church's archives, I'm not surprised to hear that the latter would rather edit facts and demand their point of view in the press. The obit as published was a clear, professional take. Thank you, NYT.
6
After reading this article I feel so dissapointment with this magazine and its writters. You only focus in non-constructive criticism, with a lack of information and knowledge, If you are going to touch certain points about the church you must make a deeply research of it and not only write what the people against the church or ex-member think.
Really bad your redaction, I felt only bad feelings about a men who serve and help so many people.
3
It is obvious from the responses that the LDS community loved this man and feel that he was not portrayed in appropriate light. He was a great leader and I feel as many do that there was only a mention of controversial aspects of his life. He was much more than that. As a mormon, we are use to facing the ridicule of the rest of the world. It is not that that bothers us. There could have been more mentioned of his humanitarian work, his work with Boy Scouts, his main focus of the church. There were many things that could have painted a more fair picture and it is disheartening that we are still focused on such negativity at the death of a man, a great man.
3
Also worth mentioning that the Mormon community did not love him "as the leader" of the church. He was loved by much of the membership well before assuming the role of president.
Very true.
Disgusting follow up. They admit that "when we [write an obit] fairly and accurately, there are few complaints" but then acknowledge the hundreds of complaints they've received...sounds like it wasn't written fairly and accurately then, huh? How about a real apology and a fair and accurate obituary of this service-oriented man who spent his life in humanitarian efforts around the globe. God bless you, Pres Monson. I'm grateful so many are standing up to defend your good name.
10
What wasn't accurate or fair?
5
I totally agree what these editors are doing is disgusting they are twisting things to what they think and not for what it is. We need to stand up for the truth.
Until these religious folks stop discriminating in the name of Jesus Christ or anyone else they have no grounds to complain about anything.
13
Louis, what do you mean by "religious folks... discriminating"? Did you not rather mean to say "irreligious folks" discriminating? The complaint here was that a religious leader was not given a fair obituary because of his religion, not vice versa.
It is clear to regular readers if not to New York Times staff embedded in their liberal work culture that the secular bias of the newspaper inevitably shows up when a religious personage of the stature of Thomas Spencer Monson becomes newsworthy. This is especially true if that person did not share every liberal bias of the newspaper. For readers it has become necessary to sort through the liberal agenda of every news report and balance the facts elsewhere. Sad.
9
Again what can we expect from those who can't say anything but negativity. We live in a negative world no one can see any good because of it. We would rather try and tear someone down than to admit this person was extraordinary. No wonder there is so much hatred and problems in our world today. I guess we can't expect anything less from worldly people. Through out the history of the world people spoke negatively about all of Gods Prophets. People of today choose to make there own laws rather than to follow Gods ways and teachings. Does the NY Times even comprehend the amount of good this man has done for people all over the world and not just for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You would look at justifying your worldly beliefs rather than report about all the good President Monson has done in his life. I dare you to find another person living today who has dedicated there life to doing more good for his fellow men than President Monson. The good goes unnoticed and unreported as always. Just another black eye for the NY Times and their reporting!
2
“I dare you to find another person living today who has dedicated there life to doing more good for his fellow men than President Monson.”
7.5 billion people and he’s the one, huh?
As a former brainwashed mormon living in Utah - so many of us are so tired of TBM (true believing mormons) shoving their sanctimonious opinions and beliefs down everyones throats including how the rest of the world should write an obit. They whitewash their history as they do their imperfect leaders. The unwavering arrogance and persecution complex that they have throughout history is exhausting and the continual whining seems to never end. I thought the NYT article was fair and balanced which is always an affront to most mormons. They just aren't ok with anyone who doesn't believe like them. It's a weird virus so many of them seem to have. So glad that I live in a country where balanced journalism still exists. Mormons have a way rallying their troops against ERA - Gay rights etc etc etc. (Prop 8). Thankfully there still exists more of us than them. Phew! Good Job NYT - not acquiescing to their usually style of organized filibustered whining.
14
I am so sorry for your experience Jeanne. Obviously something bad happened and you suffered. But that’s not the Church’s fault- that’s mans issue, not Gods. I hope you see that truth someday. Not all of us are “brainwashed”. In fact, none of us are. That’s part of the beauty of the Plan: agency. Some use it for good, some not so much, but we still get to choose our path. I wish you well.
Jeane,
I have been around Mormons my whole life and consider myself to be unusually objective and perspective. I think you might be influenced by a strong anti-Mormon sentiment and bad feelings towards the church or it's people to be consider objective.
While I do agree that some Mormons have a persecution complex unbecoming of people who should posses the greatest of faith and see beauty and wisdom in the darkest storm cloud, that is an utter exaggeration on your part.
Mormons like every other group are human, or subject to the Fall and mortality and all that entails, but I have lived many places and been around many other groups and I find find Mormons to be far less small minded in this regard of quipping and complaining about how they are treated.
Noting an obituary that could of and should of shed more light on who President Monson at his VERY CORE I wouldn't chalk up to have a persecution complex. While some may be griping too much, I do not think that is the case in most instances of those criticizing the NYT Obit.
1
I'll be honest when I say the New York Times is not my first stop for news, but after reading the PRESIDENT Monson Obituary and then this gross justification of that article. I will surely be avoiding the New York Times in the future. Instead of being journalists and posting an unbiased view of the man's life, the NY Times found this opportunity to take a shot at PRESIDENT Monson and the LDS Church. I'm sure you don't care as I was never a customer, but just know that due to your doubling down on this unfortunate article, you've lost credibility with me and everyone I can share this viewpoint with.
5
So you've avoided the NYT in the past and now will avoid it in the future? This is not exactly a sea change.
2
So you have a atheist sports writer write a obituary about a religious leader, it wouldn't have been to hard to write about the good this man had done, it seemed to be a hit piece, and your pacifying answer was disgusting , her was a man who dedicated his life to service and you made it a political, his life was far from political and this hit piece has no place in any mans obituary but what do you expect from a has been sports writer, but after all this was published in the NY times what can people expect
3
First of all, how do you know whether the writer is an atheist or not? Second of all, the writer, Robert D. McFadden, has won a Pulitzer and other awards for *spot* news (i.e. breaking news), rather than the sports writing you claim.
As the editor notes, the obituaries focus a lot of their time on how a particular person made news in their life. Hence, some of the controversies the LDS church faced were covered, as well as things like lowering the missionary age (which didn't generate any controversy as far as I remember, but did generate news). The obit did also outline Mr. Monson's biography, speaking about his mission service, military service, his time as a bishop, service as a mission president and becoming an apostle and finally president of the church.
1
You mentioned your role as journalists, and how it's important to look at issues from both sides. I feel that this article did not even consider the side from a religious standpoint. It seems easy and convenient for you to stand back and write about issues to stir up controversy and then claim it was for the sake of "journalism". It seems willingly ignorant to not address the issues mentioned from the view of LDS theology. The defining belief we have about our church is that it is lead and directed by Jesus Christ himself, who speaks to and inspires those He has called to lead church in the right direction. Without this belief, everything else is completely out of context. You've mocked this great man and made him out to be an old-timer who is out of touch with current, "trendy" social beliefs. It never has been, nor ever will be the practice of our leaders to decide on policies such as ordaining women to the priesthood or allowing gay couples to be married in our temples. God speaks to His ordained servants and directs them according to His truth.
6
Interesting how so many of comments mechanically refer to the obits of Hefner and Castro. Wonder if there was an actual email that went out providing guidelines on what to comment in protest or did god just reveal the idea to the writers?
11
No email just obvious contradictions of these people's life choices and the work that they did for the good of the world.
No, it was because we read them and we remembered them when reading this one.
Or perhaps in the age of Facebook and Twitter, a single post contrasting the obituaries going viral is enough to reach millions of Mormons? Seems like a far more likely explanation. But hey, with your willingness to assume the worst about Mormons and an opinion with no grounding in reality, sounds like you could be the kind of journalist the Times is looking for.
1
No doubt practising Scientologists didn't take kindly to fact-based obituaries of L Ron Hubbard. "But what about all the good he did for humanity .... ?"
To quote the obituaries editor:
"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)."
You did not "trace the arc of a life". You did not "suggest what may have driven a person to succeed, to achieve". And I hope you do not believe that Mr. Monson did what he did in order to "find fame". The obituary contained nothing but the controversial aspects of his time as a leader in the Mormon church. Yes you did include the fact that he lowered to age of missionaries and increased the the number of young women serving missions. But what about all the humanitarian efforts just in the past year that he lead? What about the hearts he touched and the lives he changed?
11
Why is it that the New York Times chose not refer to "Mr. Monson" in the leadership role he was in when he died? He was a PRESIDENT of an organization. Regardless of what organization it was, the obituary should have used PRESIDENT instead of "Mr." when referencing Thomas S. Monson. If an American President had died while still in office, the obituary would have reflected that! An American Presidents' obituary would have referred to the deceased as PRESIDENT, not Mr. ! John F. Kennedy would have been referred to as Mr. Kennedy? This journalism reality extends far beyond just LDS obituaries. Rewrite the obituary and at LEAST correct this awful reality.
I am from SLC, I am not of this faith, however, I do not believe that if the Pope, or a Patriarch passed the obituary would begin with their controversies. I understand why my neighbors were upset. Seems as though the author has limited knowledge of how important this man was to so many people. Seemed dismissive, can we please cultivate some respect for one another?
22
I have never commented on an article before. However, in this case I must. This was not Objective Journalism but a case of a writer taking an opportunity to present a political agenda . Even the explanation is a parody.
In his 68 years of service in the LDS Church and in the world, PRESIDENT Monson’s legacy and history of humanitarianism and integrity and strength stand for him. We remember and the millions of lives he touched and helped remember.
4
Rick Bowmer, You ask "How do you respond to those readers?" I'll tell you by actually trying to learn who the man was that you are writing about. Whether it is President Monson or some other notable figure. The politics of the time have nothing to do with the man and his accomplishments. Recognize this man has done more for millions of people in one week than a man like you could do in a lifetime. Here is the thing. For change to happen in the Mormon Church, big or small, it has to be unanimous among the 12 Apostles, which means change can take a while. To focus on the political controversies between the Church and an ever changing society, instead of the the Man President Monson, is disrespectful. The Writer of an Obituary should at least try and have some respect for those who have passed on.
7
I an ending my subscription today as I could live with the original obituary of Thomas Monson, but the followup piece and the rude dismissive attitude of your obit. editor is especially with the line "We’re not in the business of paying tribute" beyond common courtesy. Your editor is acting out to criticism like Donald Trump instead of a respectable paper.
8
My major points are these:
1. They attacked the man and not the church organization itself.
2. Editorial and political commentary NEVER belong on the Obituary pages. That is a sacred place for eulogizing the deceased in a respectful way. If they want to editorialize, that belongs on the opinion/commentary pages. Period!
3. The NY Times "initial response" to the outcry was ONLY to justify their indefensible position. Please don't think it a discerning statement nor an apology.
11
I really have just two issues with the obituary.
1) The ending. It just stops. Not wrapped up at all. Not even a "televised funeral services to be announced". Or a "Mr. Monson will be buried next to his wife of 60+ years in SLC". Poor composition.
2) More importantly, I don't come away from his obituary knowing hardly anything about Thomas Spencer Monson as a person. I re-read Hugh Hefner's article and it shed plenty of light on his personal life which influenced his public life. Isn't that what an obituary is for? There were statements about what his church did. And with hundreds of public speeches from Mr. Monson, the author included a single tweet from 2015 with a brief reaction to one of these politically charged situations. There wasn't any other substantial quote from or representation of the person himself about his views on any topic, even though he gave them. Often. Every six months since 1971 in fact. Here's what I'm talking about: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/speakers?lang=eng&speaker=Tho....
And then there's this response article... it's filled with an unapologetic, snooty air of superiority. In any case, the obituary editor covered a wide variety of issues that people may have known the church for or seen President Monson's name came up. Just didn't compile a very good obituary.
13
Although it shouldn't have surprised me, I was still offended that the NY Times would publish such a biased and degrading obituary for Thomas S. Monson. With little effort the NY Times could have discovered that he was an incredible humanitarian, dedicated scouter, and unwavering in his religious beliefs. I understand that some may not agree with his religion, but to make that bias the focus of an obituary is disgraceful. An obituary should honor the dead or not be published at all. Hopefully someone at the NY Times will take the high road and admit that this was an opinion piece that should not have been printed as an obituary. Unfortunately I won't see that retraction article because I will no longer read the NY Times.
11
The author is entitled to his opinion and I think at the heart of it, that’s what the issue is — this was an Editorial, filled with opinion. Not an Obituary. I’ll repeat- reclassify what this article is, because it is not an obituary. It’s an Op-ed with cherry-picked facts to back up the author’s bias. As a Mormon, and someone who adored Thomas S. Monson, I really don’t care how the author portrayed him. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the freedom to voice that opinion. His life and works stand as a testament to the charitable, service-oriented, Christlike man he was. Some article written by some man who didn’t know him or care to do real research of the good this man did, doesn’t change that fact. The world would be a much better place if we cared for each other the way Thomas Monson cared for and served others.
9
Kristen-
I'm in agreement. Had this been labeled an editorial/opinion piece, super. It is not an obit no matter how they want to react after the fact. No one was saying that they must say one word about how he was adored by those of the LDS faith. There are many of his words and actions which they could have added into the piece in order to be truly fair and balanced. This was their choice and they are obviously sticking by it. Shameful though I think it is, I am not at all surprised.
1
Come on, even a 3rd grade child would say you got this wrong and are now only offering excuses. Your paper is the worse kind of bigot, you dress up as if you are the great communicator for the people, but in reality, if someone's belief system doesn't correspond to your view of the world you disrespect them. Why not start the article with the positive and end the with controversial. That would show at least a little respect.
6
Due to an unfortunate childhood experience, I am only a reluctant reader of the obituaries: I'm not a guaranteed reader even when a favorite author or musician dies. Bit to see the obits make a Reader Center grabbed my attention. So I read the discussion and the comments and the original obituary and its comments. I tried to read a couple obits praised in the comments. the WSJ obit was hidden behind a paywall and the NPR obit was actually provided by a Salt Lake City radio station.
With all that, I found the Times obit disappointing. Not because it wasn't a tribute, tributes are not the stuff of the Times. I thought it lacking because it didn't focus on Monson's own actions. My impression, and that's all that it is, is that Monson just may not have had that much an impact on the church himself.
6
Your impression is correct. Thomas Monson was a very low-key leader because he suffered from senility. It was not as bad at first in 2008 when he became church president, but it got worse and worse until the church finally announced last year that he had completely stopped all church activity.
Thomas Monson's minders took care to keep this secret, but it was an open secret. His remarks at a Gila Valley temple celebration about a dirty little Mexican boy were a bit bizarre, as was his singing. At a Boise temple re-dedication he repeated the same stories several times in the same speech. In Calgary he made a weird joke about showing women the back of the hand.
It is unfortunate that someone who spent his life in church leadership would end it as the church's top leader unable to do anything useful and barely aware of what was happening. Yet the Mormon church pretended that he was an active leader and covered up his senility.
Even while the church faced the severe challenges mentioned in the obituary, its leader did nothing. He could do nothing. His mind was gone.
3
I think that Mormons wear their beliefs on their sleeve.
The original Obit was exactly what I expected and the clarification made clear what should be expected in the future.
Thank you, NYT.
12
This is the worst response ever! Even as someone who is not Mormon this is offensive and sick! I have friends who are Mormon and the New York Times is offending an entire religion. There is no such backlash at Muslims put out by the New York Times because Muslim women often wear hijabs. It's ridiculous and the lack of understanding and research that went into the original article is shameful.
8
The first article was disgusting and then this article and your defending of it was awful! You did not do your homework about who Thomas Spencer Monson was for an obituary. Your disdain for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was clear in these opinion articles and that was what this article was about and had absolutely no place in an obituary. I think the NY Times would do well to hire people who actually understand what an obituary is.
9
I think you would do well to understand the difference between journalism and a puff piece.
1
Thomas Monson SINGLED HANDEDLY is responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of LGBT youth in utah ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Mormon_suicides ) since his anti LGBT MANIFESTO policy was in place, suicides of Mormon youth SOARED. do your research, the man was accused of not helping the Navajo boys being abused in what was an ATROCIOUS Native American boys (Lamanites) rescue adoption operation that resulted in DOZENS of boys being abused by church members. The man stood ABOVE the law and refused a Subpoena to attend a court hearing ( http://fox13now.com/2016/07/22/lds-church-president-thomas-s-monson-subp... hiding is not for the innocent. What did he have to hide???
1
Way to go Phillip! Don't let the truth stand in your way. Just keep saying whatever hateful, untrue thing you like.
this sounds like a justification for a badly written article.
10
With no dog in this fight, surprised by this self serving blob of a response to an obit that caused offense. The mighty NYT and holy style book clearly are incapable of more than the slightest deviation from perfection. As a deep blue guy the disdain the NYT has for anything less than deep navy blue culturally is palpable at times , and the sanctimony in response as the soul defender of the linguistic realm just a bit too precious.
14
I agree with this reaction. Complaints about other articles/topics are often met with profuse apology and willingness to admit even an ounce of wrong followed by immediate edits/corrections/apologies.
6
Why would anyone be surprised that a newspaper, whose critics commented approvingly in describing as "art" a crucifix inserted in yellow fluid in a toilet, focuses on issues like homosexuality and feminism in a man's obituary? NYT has lost all sense of proportion in many ways, and become a flag bearer for the latest "trend." PC to the max.
4
Every obit that I have ever read was glowingly positive. This guy claiming that obits are "fair and balanced" is a way to cover up his own agenda. This is not the politics and controversy column, it is the obit!!!! Come on, put your tawdry scandalous comments in the appropriate column.
8
I have read many that were not. Only those paid for by the family are glowing without exception.
This obituary editor sounds like a play-by-play announcer of New York Times propaganda. To maintain credibillity with readers the newspaper might attempt to project less arrogance. This pervasive newspaper culture rarely gets outed except in a case this obvious.
1
Zachary says, As a gay Mormon....
Sorry, there are no gay Mormons. You can’t be both. You will be excommunicated.
8
LOL you are mistaken, Helen. So mistaken. You can be a member and still identify as any gender. Church disciplinary action is taken if the member ACTS on sexual desires/urges, and they won't be permitted to be same-sex married, but you can totally be gay and still be Mormon. The LDS Church even has an entire website, "https://mormonandgay.lds.org/"; it might be worth looking into.
3
Sorry Helen, but you need to read up on official LDS policy. Gays can be part of the church as long as they don't act on their homosexual feelings.
3
Incorrect, Ms. Wheels. A person can be a member in good standing and gay. Members are not disciplined for personal characteristics (including sexual orientation). Please do not spread mis-information like this.
4
Can you imagine if Obama had a heart attack tomorrow and then this was in the opening paragraphs of his obituary?
"Barack Obama was celebrated and left a legacy of being the first black president. He allowed for the repeal of "Don't ask don't tell," despite running on an anti-same sex marriage platform in 2008, contributing to the deaths of countless of LGBT individuals as he failed to recognize their rights until after 50% of the country became okay with it.
Obama helped to find ways to limit gun violence, though he allowed his attorney general to secretly give guns to Mexican gangs that ultimately costs a couple American's their lives.
Obama helped the pull the economy out of the recession of the mid-2000's, but could only do so while adding 9 trillion to the national debt.
While he was a "president of the people," multiple groups protested against many of his policies that they found unfair."
I'll give you a hint, Obama's obituary won't look like this. While "technically true," it would garner outrage. The whole article is doing the same thing to Monson.
12
What you listed would be perfectly appropriate and expected by me at least.
Like the NYT said it's not a tribute - its an obit.
5
Dear Editor
You selflessly and with-full intention wrote an article about, very well and loved respected man among the LDS community. An article that was one sided, you gave your political view-and your article was very tacky. Poorly written for someone that writes for such a big Newspaper. You addressed the faults in a mans obituary. Now please tell us dear editor. How often do you see that in other obituaries. The point is that although you may not agree with the LDS religion, which clearly reflected on your article. Your lack of respect for a man , a father whom passed away was tacky. A prophet to many but a humble man and family member to others. Dear Editor next time you choose to write an obituary please remember this is someone’s loved one. Not a platform for you personal parade.
7
An obituary written by the family is the appropriate place for personal sentiment, not the NYT.
4
To me, the obit was turned upside down. I don't see a problem with addressing the controversy over gays and women in the priesthood, but certainly that should be near the bottom of the obituary, not written in an in-your-face style in the first paragrah.
3
All these comments do is convince me even more that Mormonism is a cult...
21
MJ, we know that it is never a good idea to attempt to open a closed (liberal) mind.
2
http://mormontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/mormons-teach-that-you-are-bette...
Dear MJ,
You are correct. Mormonism is by all definitions, a cult.
I wasted 30 years of life living in a hell of guilt over not being 'mormon white straight holy better than thou enough' and I wasn't alone. It's a tough project to leave the church, and I encourage ANYONE debating it, to LEAVE sooner than later.
And for anyone considering it, here is a bit of info https://m.wikihow.com/Leave-the-Mormon-Church-Gracefully
1
What a non apology and complete misdirect from the issue. You glorified Castro, Chavez (both who killed thousands of people) and Hugh Hefner (who degraded women). They were saints compared to your obituary on President Monson. You wrote an editorial or an opinion piece, not an obituary.
No wonder you are losing subscribers and your reputation.
8
I find it interesting that THE TIMES probably refers to the leader of the Catholic Church Pope but does not refer to President Monson as such!
2
I always thought obituaries were supposed to depict a person’s achievements through life. I must admit I was very disappointed when reading the original obit as well as the clarification response. This felt more like a political stunt by an editor who obviously is opposed to Mormon doctrine and that just isn’t right. Regardless of his religious affiliation, there is no way to doubt this man’s intregity and lifetime dedication of serving others. The obit said he visited 85 widows who were in his congregation as a young Bishop in his 20’s, but it didn’t clarify that he did so annually until the last one died decades later. That is dedication. I have read a few other religious obits by the NYT and feel there is an obvious slant in this one. I realize neither the author or the supervisor involved will ever admit fault, but you did poorly. I would be curious how many negative comments have you received on obituary write ups in the past. If this one is higher, it should tell you something. The real question is whether you will use this feedback to influence how you write the next one or not. My gut tells me it won’t. Do the right thing and prove me wrong.
9
"If this one is higher, it should tell you something."
what it tells me is that there was a highly organized social media effort to lodge a protest. Many of the critical remarks make identical points. Not quite a copy and past job, but perhaps the same set of points re-written by each contributor.
What I have yet to see is a refutation of any factual information in the article.
1
The article DID highlight his career and achievements. The fact that the majority of the defining moments of his life are unflattering of the man who is being highlighted is not the fault of the journalist reporting it.
2
respectfully, I think having similar points being repeated is more of an indicator that they are valid and not being addressed well. If you saw on a thread somewhere that someone made a really good point, and that point was not responded to, it makes sense to bring it up again in other conversations. I think these points will continue being brought up until there is a satisfactory response. It is pretty fair to say that other obituaries have been written for others who led extremely controversial lives and theirs were covered much more kindly. That's just a basic reality that we all see. It's also one we all think is unfair. And pretty hard to dispute. If NYT really is just so strongly inclined to highlight the big news and especially controversial news of someones life, they are being very picky-choosy about who they apply that rule to. For people to point that out isn't unreasonable.
1
For the most part, the obit was accurate but so is this: William McDonald is an American journalist and is a citizen of a country that enslaved blacks. While it is true that McDonald has written in favor of black equality, his efforts failed to make any real difference.
I don't want glowing accolades, just information that reflects the individual and his life. Mr. McDonald's article failed to do this in a very big way.
7
if trump can tweet something lovely about a man who did the world so much good, then the NYT can do it.
it was a critique of the lds church, not an obit of the man.
i'm sure he wouldn't want us dwelling on this. but this was a man to revere.
5
If Monson was a Seer and Prophet, then which of his predictions came true during his lifetime, and which predictions can we measure and test in the near-term future?
He did make specific, verifiable predictions, right? It would be a very odd state of affairs if he didn't, given those titles.
7
In all fairness, I don't think that it's unreasonable for The New York Times to give a little background and context about the church in their article, because the article was written about a public figure. But I do think that it's both inappropriate and tactless for this commentary to take place prior to the actual obituary for Thomas S. Monson -- particularly because the commentary felt vitriolic and deliberately inflammatory. I think McFadden's piece was a huge disservice to the Times; so many people turn to the Times as a source of thoughtful, thought-provoking, and productive discussions, but McFadden's piece didn't facilitate productive discussion at all: it was, in large part, just a condemnation of the church. At the very least, the political commentary should have been relegated to later in the piece, though I think the Times would have done better to simply remove it from the obituary at all and save any genuine and meaningful discussion for a second article. This response feels like a petulant justification for work that was obviously -- and intentionally -- divisive.
8
" many people turn to the Times as a source of thoughtful, thought-provoking, and productive discussions". It has been a long time since this statement was true.
2
I felt the Times obit both respectful and newsworthy. I suspect that many of the anti-obituary comments came from a concerted effort by Mormons, maybe even the Mormon Church itself, to attack The Times. President Monson was as political and spiritual a leader as Pope Francis, and as a politician he must take the heat that comes off people who violently disagreed with him. My example: when I read in “The Salt Lake Tribune” that Mr Monson had approved a Mormon Church policy that said children raised by gay parents could not become members of the Mormon Church until they were eighteen and then, only after renouncing their parents, I was angered and flabbergasted. How I wondered, and still wonder, could a supposedly good man, a man formed in Christ ‘s image, support such a hateful policy?
13
I understand that that the LDS Church policy not to allow children who are from a home with gay parents may seem harsh. But the reasoning behind it was compassionate. In the lds church they hold that the family is ordained of God and that marriage should be between man and woman. But, they teach that they should never persecute those of differing beliefs, however they exercise the right to define what is moral for their culture. How the decision was compassionate was that it does not force children or youth to have choose between supporting their parents or following church doctrine. This was a decision that was made to allow these children and youth to not have to choose between their parents or the church. The children and their parents can attend church still, but in the LDS faith baptism is a firm commitment to try your best to follow Jesus Christ. That for Latter-Day Saints means actively participating in the Church. That also means they should be willing to follow church doctrine. Baptism is more then just joining a social club. It is meant to be a sacred covenant with God. And to put a youth in the predicament where he/she could be holding strong conflicting views with his or her parents when they still are under the legal jurisdiction of their parents is not fair to them. The LDS faith invites all to come unto Christ, but there has to be a commitment to follow to be baptized. I hope this helps explain a bit why the LDS faith made that policy.
4
Anonymous, I do understand that the LDS Church policy is harsh. It is completely uncompassionate towards not only the LGTB community, but to also their children. Any under the age of 18 children of a gay parent cannot get baptized. Is not baptism a saving ordinance? Does not everyone have to have that saving ordnance to enter into the kingdom of god? At the age of 18 they can get baptized, but only after the renounce the behavior of their gay parent. How is that compassionate in any way to that parent? How is that going to avoid any family conflict in the future of that family? The Mormon Church will in the future renounce the policy. The Church's doctrine will change with popular opinion and social pressure just as it did with Blacks in the Priesthood. Just as it did with Polygamy before that.
1
Pretty sure you would not refer to Pope Francis as Mr. Francis...
12
As a former Mormon, the obit was fine. Mormons being upset with it are no different than North Koreans being upset that their Dear Leader doesn't get proper credit for being able to speak with dolphins. Please do not feel the need to coddle the brainwashed.
17
Fidel Castro's obit was more "neutral" than Monson's was. In fact, I could see more praise in Castro's than Monson's. Read for yourself here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/fidel-castro-dies.html
And be careful who you call "brainwashed". It pays to have an open mind.
5
Again the "talking point" reference to Castro rears its suspicious head as another reader with an "open mind" thinks for himself with a little help from his friends.
Nice try to spin it, however the obit was still crass. Maybe more fit for the opionion pages. Traditionally obits are to show respect for one who passes.
6
Though the attention to reader response is admirable, the Editor's defense of the obituary digs an even deeper hole. Just read the first four paragraphs of the Monson obit. You'd think that the only standard of importance and relevance is the very specific inclusivity benchmark of contemporary liberal politics. If such an obituary had been published of a rabbi it would be called anti-semitic. The fact that the Editor stands by the piece, which inexplicably mentions homosexuality and polygamy 15 times, just shows how woefully alienated the NYT staff is from religion, religious culture, and what it actually means to live a life in service to a spiritual community.
17
Here's the thing. Mormons get men to participate. They do it by giving the laymen the priesthood and telling them they will have their own worlds after death. Women have to be "pulled through the veil" by a worthy man. They don't enter heaven on merit. Men can pull multiple women through - the harem in the afterlife.
This is how you get men to play. If men aren't special little gods, they don't attend church. Giving women the priesthood would ruin everything and who would get the priesthood in a gay marriage?
You have to understand how the Mormon priesthood works. Secret names, secret handshakes. White businessman-Gods.
14
And who pulls a man through the veil?
That was a pretty pathetic apology, if you can even call it that.
7
Just like the first presidency's "apology" on the LGBT suicides and 2015 policy in the Mormon church, right?
I read the obituaries published by the NYT for Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner and they were clearly not written “to fully air issues from both sides” as you mentioned your journalists do when writing obituaries of influential persons. Blatant bias like this is obvious to more than just those who identify as Mormons, and I’m disappointed that the authorities of the NYT refuse to acknowledge that they could have been more fair. I don’t think anyone expected a tribute to Thomas Monson, and it’s damamging to assume that is the reason for the backlash. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to support the NYT after this.
10
I’m fine with the obit, but I would like to see NYT and other media outlets to fall on the sword by admitting their bias and proudly admitting their a left leaning, or maybe even far left publication. When “Mr” Obama passes away will NYT focus on fast and furious program, $400M to Islamic Republic of Iran, increasing deficit and wage gap, number of days on vacation, or his love of cigarettes? Of course not, they”ll heap praise for all the good things he accomplished that are not controversial, like killing UBL, not starting WWIII, improving economy, acting presidential, bromance with veep, etc.. So we can’t really expect consistency with such bias right? Sadly in our culture it’s acceptable to disrespect Mormons and treat them poorly. Could you ever imagine a musical on Broadway about the Koran by the makers of South Park? No, because society would not accept it. And Muslims would set the earth ablaze citing blasphemy.
9
LDS has gone beyond the pale of civility twice in my recent memory:
1. When the church spent millions of dollars in support of California's Proposition 8 which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California and
2. When it admitted that it was "baptizing" Jews killed in the Nazi WW II concentration camps (by using the Nazis' meticulous records to garner names...), promised to stop the practice and then continued.
The late President Thomas Monson (and his predecessors...) may have been great guys, kind to kids and little animals, but were sadly lacking in basic humanity and views of Others...
9
Is this still a free country? Why, then, beliefs not in accord with the dogmas of political correctness, as long as they don't impede the beliefs of others, called unacceptable? And by whom? Fascism by any other name is still fascism and still as poisonous. No one is forcing you to become a Mormon.
3
Church members may have donated toward passing Prop 8, but the church didn't. As far as baptisms for the dead, I invite you to learn more about the subject.
3
Your last sentence contradicts the rest as baptising the dead is exactly forcing ppl to join
Let’s be completely honest, Monson was considered by his followers as a Prophet, a Devine Ky blessed person who speaks for God. Except by publishing obsequious prattle, how could the Times satisfy those followers? No apologies are necessary, you will not please those who deify a mortal person .
7
I think this column, while appropriate, completely ignores the fact that individuals like Hugh Hefner received obituary coverage that felt far more positive to the readership. In that sense, this column's Q&A format still misses the point, and to readers outside of the liberal diaspora is yet another example of the bias the Times doesn't even realize it has.
7
You forgot to mention Castro. Your copy of the Memo must have been flawed.
you can rest assured the call went out far and wide over FB and twitter to come to the NYT and brigade the obituary.
maybe next time the NYT will give a hard pass to any coverage at all.
3
Cut to the chase: the problem was the headline. It gave your take away immediately (overall this guy was evil). Subtlety is something the NYT will ever be accused of.
5
Yes, some NY Times headlines are a dead giveaway. Even naive.
2
You will never please the faithful. They are a near-cult heavily driven by leadership worship. To faithful Mormons, they think of their leaders, especially the highest ones, as a cut above mere mortals--demi-gods, if you will.
5
Oh, you mean the way liberals treat celebrities like Oprah who mouth their platitudes?
2
Nope, but we ask that the NYT give a halfway respectful obit to President Monson.
3
Ladd, the Mormon faithful have a very difficult time accepting that the rest of the world does not view their leaders and faith in a nice sanitized and whitewashed version. When a group of people live in a bubble, they just don't believe that the world actually sees them the way the NYT times portrayed them.
They like to legislate their morality and shove their faith down your throats with missionaries, but hate the truth being presented without context. It is clear that when the truth is stated, even they are embarrassed, which is why they are whining so vociferously. The NYT information is factual and true. The NYT presented the view of Mr. Monson the way the rest of the world views him and the Mormon church, and that is hard for them to handle.
You weirdly tweeted 2 things he DIDN'T do.
"Thomas Monson, the president of the Mormon church who rebuffed demands to ordain women as priests and refused to alter church opposition to same-sex marriage, died Tuesday at 90"
When the NYT goes out of business, the tweets should read:
"NYT, the leader of printing things who rebuffed demands to save the rain forest by not using so much paper and refused to alter their opposition to switching to Gotham Bold as their default font, went out of business Tuesday at 167"
4
Good analogy
It was good that nytimes published this obit on the ex-president of the Mormon Church because it put the spotlight back on to one of the greatest threats to humanity: religion. I will point out something really important that I noticed in one of the comments sent in by a Mormon protesting the NYTimes obit: Gary Bernard wrote that Mr. Monson's policies were not just his own, but also that of the governing board, so why should NYTimes obit harp on them? Bernard them wrote about said policies, that they were made "...we believe by divine inspiration...". He then says that the NYTimes unjustly wrote about Mormon polygamy, " a practice which was ended decades before he (Mr. Monson) was even born...). My point here is that polygamy was once accepted as divine inspiration. And was stopped by using the same self-serving argument, self-serving in that Utah could not gain USA statehood if it did not drum up a bit of divine inspiration that said polygamy was no longer okay with their god! Ditto the Mormon ban on blacks being "priests" in the church. God later changed his mind on that, too. Policy by "divine inspiration" was what drove Hitler's Nazis. Divine inspiration is the rationale of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the KKK, and other fun-loving religious fanatics. One last thought: Mr. Bernard also complained that the NYTimes obit did not focus on Mr Monson's "humanitarian work and human kindness". Most people I know take human kindness to be a normal trait not necessarily worthy of mention.
1
Read the obituary written in the associated press. It was more balanced than yours. You really did write more about things you didn't like about the church in general. Obituaries should focus on the person. You made no mention of Mr. Monson's diplomatic successes across the iron curtain, for example. For your next obituary, please try and focus on the person and not on whatever you don't like about past policies of some greater organization they belonged to.
9
I can't decide which is more backwards, the obituary, its explanation, or the fact that it needed to be addressed with a "sorry not sorry." The obituary begins at the end of his life, moves to "Thomas Spencer Monson was born" and then continues through the middle of his life. Who writes like this? Just admit that you really just wanted the sensational, divisive moments and not the boring years of service to church or billions spent in humanitarian aid. But I guess THAT doesn't sell papers.
8
I’m not active, but do wonder how NY Times can say they they report news but what about good news? The good that was done and not just the controversial? Let’s compare Monsons obit to the one done on Pope John Paul II... seems fairly different tone in the first few paragraphs...
5
Shame on you for using someone's obituary to further a political agenda. Disgusting! Wrong time and place. An obituary should never be used as an editorial. Also, a simple apology would suffice, instead of trying to further justify your actions.
5
Almost as bad as using a religion to further a political agenda.
Time to end tax-exempt status for quasi-corporate institutions masquerading as religions.
3
Monson's death is noteworthy only because he was the head of the LDS Church.
Millions of people do good works whose obits don't make the NY Times.
Therefore it was appropriate that Monson's obit focussed more on his tenure as LDS president rather than on other aspects of his life.
5
I knew it was going to be bad when my anti-LDS and non-Mormon friends took issue with it. At first I thought it was another overblown social media flare up, but when I read it for myself, I couldn't believe what I was reading. The obituary was mean-spirited and biting. The attempt to explain it away as not being so is pretty disingenuous and insulting. We can see through that. At this point, own it or publish a revised obituary. Show some backbone.
The fact that this ran as written shows a level of bigotry and callousness that doesn't belong in this sort of publication. It's a crazy day when The Times makes TMZ look classy by comparison.
6
A defensive denial typical of every response of the NYT to criticism.
6
The obituary for President Monson was meanly written under the guise of objective journalism. He maintained long held Church teachings regarding controversial subjects and The New York Times showed it's contempt for such by attacking him personally.
Well, this brings up the third and hopefully last time I'll be canceling my subscription, as I can no longer condone the conduct of the Times. The arrogance of The Times. The mean spiritedness of The Times.
Whether it's Bernie Sanders, President Trump or the good and decent President Thomas S. Monson, The New York Times denigrates those they oppose at every chance and I can no longer support them in good conscience.
3
But you can support the LDS and its policies toward women and nonbelievers? I think your outrage is misdirected, at best.
Once again, the Times completely sidesteps the chief complaint.
Why the wide discrepancy between the Chávez and Hefner obits and Monson's? Would the Times care to explain why they called Hugo Chávez "a dreamer with a common touch and enormous ambition", if they are not in the business of conducting eulogies? Why take a different tone now?
The Atlantic correctly pointed out that the NYT obit "defined [Monson's] life's work by the things he DIDN'T do." Those remarks may have been at home in an op-ed on the LDS Church. But Monson never even did so much as to publicly, personally address the controversies that arose during his incumbency--which makes it all the more baffling why they appeared in his obituary. An obit beginning "Martin Luther King Jr, convicted felon and serial philanderer" would also have been technically true, but also obscenely dishonest.
It would not have been difficult to say "While we stand by the factual matters of the obit, we understand that the topics we focused on may have given a misleading view of Monson's life" and give detail on the humanitarian efforts brought about by his leadership and the unique life of service he led. Instead, the Times chose to double down on its original, tasteless article. I know I'm not the only one who feels vastly disappointed in the Times.
7
Discussing the Political Correct or Incorrectness of President Monson's tenure as Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ, LDS is like discussing all the Fashion Do's and Don'ts of Mother Theresa's wardrobe.
2
"Seer and Revelator"? Yeah, they should have emphasized that more and lost all credibility.
That is his official title. He is also President of the Church, a different meaning.
Your original obituary on Thomas S Monson showed a huge lack of taste and decorum. To now try to justify it shows even less of both.
Shame on you!
5
It was a completely biased article but you knew that when you published it. The bottom line is, Thomas Monson could care less what your opinion of him was. He served magnificently while on his journey here on earth.
3
What is absolutely fair: including scandals and events of "public interest" in an obituary, alongside the details of the figure's life.
What is not fair: Writing an article of your most recent critiques of the Mormon church, and calling it an obituary.
Thomas Monson was an important figure in the LDS church for 50+ years (!!!), and all of that time and work merits but a few paragraphs at the bottom? The NYT has lost its standing as a source of truth. As for me, I'll be reading other NYT articles with far more wary eyes.
—A Mormon who was, until very recently, one of your biggest proponents
5
You cannot put lipstick on a pig. How you portrayed Thomas S Monson was disgraceful and I cannot believe that instead of apologizing for being insensitive and overly critical of the life of a man who do more good in the world than bad, you justified why you wrote poorly of his life. The NYT is one of the reasons why the nation is so polarized right now. If someone doesn't align with they way that they view the world, they do not have the integrity to write fairly about them.
6
Editor McDonald finds disparaging a dead man who was dedicated to his believes but didn't share the Times secular liberal view fair game. The Times talks inclusion but only if you march to their politics and believes. I am not LDS but I know intellectual bigotry when I see or read it.
6
Was the accompanying photograph of Thomas Monson taken before or after his death?
2
These are excuses.
2
Well, tough. I should hope that obituaries in the NY Times are written from a secular perspective. With Mormonism basically the cheerful friendly obverse of Scientology, Mr. Monson's life's work was to send out the multitudes to net new fish. I am not impressed. All missionary groups do some good works, but their primary purpose is to save those poor benighted souls from eternal damnation.
Sorry. We need not step tenderly here. This is a newspaper, and not an engine in the hagiography factory. Believers can supply what they please in their own sectarian publications.
3
I think the obituary was a faithful accounting of the more prominent issues that Mr. Monson encountered and dealt with publicly during his tenure." That's your "apology"? Well I think I will think critically about anything that the New York Times Posts. It is not unbiased news, looking for truth, rather a platform for political propaganda. You made an obituary a political statement for crying out loud.
4
Part #2:
The obituary covered his life well, far better than what the critics claimed. It included many accomplishments.
— “displayed a new openness to scholars of Mormonism...allowing them remarkable access to church records”
— “On Mr. Monson’s watch, the church enlarged its global missionary force to 69,200 from 52,000 and, in ... a major achievement, doubled the number of young women in its missionary ranks”
It detailed key life events:
— “born in Salt Lake City on Aug. 21, 1927, the second of six children
— grew up in a tight-knit extended Mormon family
— At 12, he began working in a printing business his father managed...
— joined the Naval Reserve in 1945. World War II
— University of Utah, graduating in 1948 with honors and a bachelor’s degree in marketing
— Master of Business Administration degree from Brigham Young University.
— married Frances Beverly Johnson
— Survivors include their three children, Thomas and Clark Monson and Ann Dibb; eight grandchildren; and 12 great-grandchildren.
— straddled the worlds of business and religion.
— A printer by trade, advertising executive with The Deseret News in the 1940s, and rose in the 1960s to general manager. He was a longtime director and board chairman
— embraced humanitarian causes with Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups supporting homeless shelters, food banks, nursing homes and disaster relief efforts in the United States and abroad.”
It's really hard to fault such rich coverage!
1
To me, the problem lies in the first several graphs. It sets the mean-spirited tone of the obit.
How disgusting to stand by this sorry excuse of an article. As a person who is non lds, you completely missed what they are about and who the man is. You didn’t even make it truly known. You missed the mark, that’s for sure.!
3
This is not better. This is highly condescending, and again, doesn't address the extremely positive tones that NYT's has given to terrible human beings, while giving President Monson at best, a mixed bag with the primary focus of the first half being about attacking the LDS church and policies. While the second half focused on some more mild controversies and felt like "oh yea, and he did a few nice things too in case you wanted to know."
This does not make me feel any better about the disgraceful obit, and it makes your entire paper look even more dishonest, and unprofessional.
4
It's interesting how you've said your weren't being political in the obituary and felt that you remained true to the purpose of an "obituary" yet only the last several paragraphs out of the 30 written were truly about Pres. Monson himself.
You incorrectly noted on several occasions that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" belonged to Pres. Monson, which it does not.
You inferred the decisions made on females receiving the priesthood & same sex marriage exclusions were his decisions alone, along with a number of issues raised against the church by various individuals, which they are not.
Ignorants is what this journalist has displayed and unfortunately it seems you can say just about anything and call it real journalism.
It seems integrity in journalism no longer exists, which is why I guess everyday citizens are receiving more attention these days than news articles / reports.
5
Well played New York Times. Well played.
1
Even after your 'explanation' you come across as absolutely tone deaf on the matter. The original eulogy was overwhelmingly a hit piece. In your very first sentence you went off on female priesthood ordination and same-sex marriage, saying that "he rebuffed demands." Your presumption is that either of these were his personal, individual call to make. The vast majority of practicing Latter-day Saints would tell you that this is the Lord's will, and if He wants to change anything He will make it known to His living prophet at any given time. So from an LDS perspective, it was Jesus Christ who "rebuffed demands to ordain women as priests and refused to alter church opposition to same sex marriage" during the tenure of His prophet, Thomas S. Monson. As such, perhaps you might save your swipe for a eulogy of Christ. The Times certainly gives the impression that they believe God is dead, so perhaps a eulogy for Him is long overdue.
Your comment that "some Mormons faced sanctions for questioning church positions on women's roles" is inaccurate. Questioning alone doesn't result in sanctions. Engaging in actual acts of defiance might.
There was really no sound basis in a eulogy of Thomas S. Monson to spend two paragraphs on the question of Joseph Smith's polygamy. That was your author's glaring bias, and that of the Times itself, on proud display.
Your true eulogy was simply the final 8 paragraphs which could have stood alone. But the Times wanted its hit piece too.
6
I’m glad the New York Times is being called out for their completely biased writing on the life of such an examplary leader to millions. I can’t imagine the pope passing and his obituary being so narrowly focused on controversial topics of the Catholic religion. I would have expected better from the New York Times.
5
I’m dissapointed of the New York Times. These articles about Thomas Monson’s life seems to be written by highschool antimormons instead of professionals. This will no longer be a good resource of information to me.
2
"Politically divisive." Must not be tolerated. Any who oppose in any manner homosexuality, abortion, people of non-traditional body surface area, @metoo, informally documened immigrants, transgenered, nonbinaried, intersectionality, trigger warnings, Islam, safety, multiculturalism or the addition of children's favorite flavors to beer, liquor, ice cream, coffee "creamer" and vapour -- are mean and unworthy people who must be re-educated for the betterment of our society. And when they die, truth must be told of them -- that they were meanies. Thank you.
3
The response at the the Times is amazing and excellent. Unfortunately, the Times has been quite inconsistent with the application of their standard. That is where the readership has a problem.
You glorify a pornographer and misogynist Hugh Hefner, who spent his life objectifying and denigrating women. When I read that obituary, I thought your portrayal of him was laughable - but understandable... because 99% of obituaries are aimed at accurately, but favorably portraying the deceased.
I felt the same when I read the technically accurate, but wildly misleading obituary of Fidel Castro. Again, very kind and as positive as could possibly pass - given his tremendous record of human rights abuses.
Had I not previously chuckled at how much positive spin had been given in the last public articles on these two despicable humans - I would not have been offended at your portrayal of Mr. Monson.
Much of what you said is accurate. However, you chose to editorialize the obituary through your choice of the tenor of the piece. You must be aware that by choosing to focus on a very small and publicly inflammatory part of his life that your are in fact “editorializing”. That’s actually the definition of the word “edit”.
The Times was a fine publication at one point, but given your inability to be consistent - regardless of your personal opinions - has tainted you greatly. Your inconsistencies because of your biases are glaring and comical. Please consider rebranding as “Pravda”.
7
All readers need to do to find a well-rounded obituary, one that that brought up all the major issues but still gave some sense of Thomas S. Monson as a person, was read NPR's or The Washington Post's articles on him. The New York Times article focused on issues the church has faced, but issues on which Monson himself was surprisingly silent. By mistaking policy for the person, the Times article appeared simply written to be inflammatory. I don't know if that was actually the case, or if it was just poorly written.
9
Yeah. You still don't get it. The tone was accusatory. "Mr. Monson" was known for his attention to the widows and other elderly. Often visiting them at home or in nursing homes. Both before and during his tenure. His great humanitarian work was not limited to the LDS community. I understand you don't get that. But your bias against religion and the religious was on clear display.
6
Having worked at a newspaper, this sounds like a justification for a badly written article. The article in question was sensationalized journalism. The explanation as to why they focused on the controversies is basically the very definition of that term. I just lost a lot of respect for this newspaper. True news is unbiased. As an obituary, this article fails.
10
So would you call Pope Francis, Mr. Francis? I doubt it.
9
The Mormon Church (LDS) has long been concerned with controlling it's image. This may result from other religions, particularly evangelical Christians, disdaining Mormons as an unChristian cult. Mormons are secretive about the inner working of their religion which lend to that cult view by some.
Also Mormons are required to proselytise so they tend to be forward in presenting themselves and their religion.
Mormons are savvy, aggressive marketers. They were among the first to create a public relations shop, issue public service announcements and operate a 1-800 phone bank. More importantly, the church created the Mormon Defense League that monitors reporting on the church and confronts writers it thinks misrepresent the church. Some reader comments may originate from members of the MDL?
Mormons have experienced prejudice for allowing polygamy in the early church. Oddly polygamy is still practiced by a Mormon sect holding tight political control of towns in Hildale Utah and Colorado City Arizona. After being expelled from Missouri, Mormons travelled west, homesteading the Utah Territory and persecuting non-Mormons within that region. The Mountain Meadow Massacre remains unhealed social wound.
Mormons are very image conscious and actively seek improving this image, combatting unfavorable representations zealously. Their Times Square ad campaign against 'The Book of Mormon" a classic example. So outcry over a "bad" obit for Mr. Monson is matter of fact.
4
How many non-Mormon readers were offended by the obituary, or considered it harsh? I’m guessing very few.
3
I understand you not wanting to be biased or offend others but your welling to offend those who knew this man. If you wanted an obituary talk to his family close friends. Not scholars or excommunicated members who have an axe to grind. And if you had mentioned that these are some of the issues he dealt with during his preidency fine. But you made it sound like he made the decisions with no mention of faithful members view on the matter. And if you knew anything of our faith you’d know that although we call him a prophet he doesn’t make the decisions, God reveals them. And if you don’t like that guess what? Nothing is implemented with out the first presidency and the quorum
Of the 12 apostles are in one voice agreement. They way it was written makes it sounds like he made all these calls and he didn’t. So there for shouldn’t have been mentioned in the way you presented them. No person is perfect but let’s be honest there are people who lived a horrible life that got a more partial obituary than what you wrote. This was sloppy work and you seek to justify it by saying Its an outline of his life it was hardly that. Have you listened to any of his talks to get an idea the heart of the man you said “made” these decisions? You wrote an opinion pieces not an obituary. At least label it correctly.
2
I don't think it would be responsible for a newspaper to attribute quotes or actions to god.
Also, think of the parallel to a congressman. A congressman is supposed to represent the will of their district; should that mean they shouldn't be held to account for their vote? A congressman also can act only as a member of a collective group; should that mean they shouldn't be held to account for a vote or abstaining from one?
I have no well formed opinion on Mr. Monson, but your argument is patently false. He "made" the decisions- regardless of who he first consulted or the fact that he acted as a member of a collective.
I'm not Mormon, but I am a 20 year subscriber to the NYT, and found this obituary lacking, and the response arrogant. This was an unnecessary disenfranchisement of Mormons (and others) who have a better understanding of a man's legacy than the biased writer.
14
To many, President Monson's obituary came across as being anti-Christian.
8
Its too bad. The article wasn't reflective of the person. I can see the ideals which you say you hold. You say journalist, first and foremost. To put someone's life down to a few controversial decisions really isn't journalism. I would say a journalist, unbiased, would find a way to fit in the good. Scandal sells paper, or receives views. It seems that this obituary was based on other articles which played to the journalists views, feelings, and beliefs. The tone of this reply to outrage is belittling and arrogant. As if anyone in organized religion couldn't understand the big picture. All in all Thomas S. Monson was way more than this possibly third, forth, according to the journalist maybe 15th hand view. His good works will continue because if his example of what a good global citizen is, and a regurgitated obituary won't.
4
Mormons are an insular community who interpret comments that fail to reinforce how they view themselves as persecution. Always have, always will.
7
Your comment is not without merit. However, it applies equally to almost all insular religious communities (e.g. Orthodox Jews, Scientologists, Muslims, etc.) who are in the minority in the US and feel judged and mistreated by outsiders. Further, the possibility that they may be protective and defensive does not automatically make them wrong.
Nothing that you said changes the reality that the the NYT piece was written far differently and more politically critical than it would have been (or actually had been in the numerous cases of other obituaries cited by other readers), were it not for the NYT bias against a group (LDS) that holds views that differ from the uncompromisingly liberal views of the NYT.
For the record, I am a Catholic and so not a LDS lackey, as had presumptively grouped all who offered criticism of the NYT obit. Further, I disagree with most of the LDS views that NYT held up for condemnation. But I also can objectively recognize a NYT hatchet job when I see one.
4
This article confirms the fundamental essence of the New York Times (NYTimes): An institution of mostly like-minded thinkers who believe in using their considerably well-recognized and well-read platform for unflinchingly expressing their worldview.
The comment noting the NYTimes praiseworthy obituaries of Hugo Chávez and Hugh Hefner was well-selected and indicates some self-awareness on the side of the Obit editorial board on the way they make exceptions to the rule of making a "faithful accounting of the more prominent issues" that surround an individual's life. No news-organization can keep its pages free from normative biases and narratives. But for the NYTimes to do so would undermine its mission and purpose -- it *seeks* to make an impact, it *wants* its readers to reflect on the particular way the NYTimes editors and journalists view certain leaders, institutions, and organizations. A short review of the article titles on issues relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints makes it *very* clear how critically the NYTimes views the "Mormon Church", its leadership, and its teachings. William McDonald's obituary of President Thomas S. Monson carries forward in the very same spirit. In this article, McDonald defends his obituary on essentially the same grounds: My article is in line with how the NYTimes reports on the Mormon Church. A faithful portrayal of Thomas S. Monson's life it was not, nor was it intended to be.
2
An obituary is just the wrong platform for the political opinions of the reporter. If you want to discuss political issues that you feel strongly about, fine. Do it in an article for that purpose. Those of us who are faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints acknowledge and accept President Monson as a Prophet of God. He is not the leader of the church, only the mouthpiece of the Lord. It is not the Church of Jesus Christ of the Whims of Society. Being obedient to the teachings of the Gospel is no longer acceptable to many in our world, which is very sad. Personally, I believe that when you disrespect the Prophet of the Lord, you disrespect the Lord and the guidance he gives us through his servant, the Prophet.
Craig Davis
6
All the people who wanted fawning, uncontroversial coverage of Pres. Monson could have easily gotten more than their fill in the Deseret News. The Deseret News is published by the LDS Church for consumption by the faithful. The New York Times has no such obligations and, as such, Pres. Monson's obit presented the man, warts and all.
6
Leave it to someone from New York to write an obit for someone they never knew, let alone met, and then proceed to rationalize their personal rules on writing obits. That rationale being completely stylistic babble, more akin to narcissistic rule writing. Of course, I would expect nothing less from a so-called journalist who puts sales ahead of integrity. With any level of fidelity and professionalism to reporting, a great editor would have focused the obit of a worldwide religious leader more on “what, “how,” and “why” they served their entire life, rather than on that religious leaders politics. Only a good editor turns an obit about a noteworthy religious leader in to the politics of the decade, which does not broadely represent that persons entire life. Entirely predictable. No wonder journalists are being trusted less by the years.
2
Yes, trust "Prophets" more than mere journalists through whom the Lord speaketh not?
The funny thing is if you ask a Mormon who's offended at the obituary if they support Monson in the priesthood ban for women and the continued doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, they'd say yes.
So why are they offended?
Not as venerate and reverent as they like? Because it's certainly not about truth. But then again, when is it ever?
4
"We can’t bend to that, of course. We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints."
Perhaps the fact that you received so many complaints should tell you something?
Some Mormons faced sanctions for questioning church positions on women’s roles. Kate Kelly, a feminist Mormon lawyer, was excommunicated on a charge of apostasy in 2014 after founding the organization Ordain Women.
This paragraph was unnecessary.
The 2 paragraphs on plural marriage were also confusingly included to either defame Joseph Smith or spark a healthy debate on the profound effect 19th century polygamy had on Monson's life and public outreach.
As a Mormon I appreciate the outreach by the NYT and upon rereading, the edits made to the article. I understand journalism is not a please-all publication and can often be controversial. Please be more sensible in the future when writing an article on the dead, especially when obits for the likes of Hugh Hefner the owner of a pornographic company and Fidel Castro a violent murderer are more complimentary. It is blatantly obvious when you read them one after another.
Like the Washington Post said, "If Monson’s political and theological positions are worth mentioning, surely Hefner’s provocative positions regarding sexual ethics, or even the allegations he ran the Playboy Mansion like a nightmare brothel, are worth mentioning in his obituary headline."
Thank you.
6
Typical NYT obituaries are so good that I occasionally read the obits of people I've never heard of, because your writers make them so interesting. The Monson obit failed by your own standards:
"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). And we try to give a flavor of the man or woman — something of the personality and personal impact."
I didn't expect a eulogy. My complaint is that the Monson obituary was devoid of color, interesting details or personality. It simply failed to describe its subject matter. The Atlantic did a much better job.
2
after reading the "responses" of the obit editor... i continue to be even more disappointed in the "attitude" of what an obituary should contain.. While i agree that it is not the responsibility of a "journalist" to "eulogize" , one would hope that a "factual" account... would not have the opening paragraph ( which many concern to be a "summary/introduction" to be Primarily summing up a person 's life of 90 years... to focus on a few years...when that 90 year old...spent over 50 years in public service , both to his church.. AND to worldwide humanitarian efforts.
iwhile some of these were touched upon by the end of the article... the beginning many paragraphs were rather disrespectful.
Pres. Monson is revered by over 15 million members of his faith... but he is ALSO respected and appreciated by prominent Leaders of OTHER faiths, and Humanitarian causes. Ask the Red Cross.. U.N. and causes served since post war Germany to modern disasters.. in conclusion , disappointed in the age of "seeking negativity for a cheap headline" that an Obituary,,,cant me more circumspect.
Why not ask them? instead of a self proscribed "scholar" From the many great Relief organizations that have found him an ally in the cause for relief of the suffering , from Post war Germany, to floods and earthquakes in recent years..he has helped. a
gain, disappointed in this age of "searching for the controversial' that a person's obituary could not be more circumspect.
3
There is a reason why you received a lot of complaints. From the article "We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints." That sounds about right, you front loaded the article with controversy and glossed over what he was known for (caring for the individual, humanitarian aid, and kindness to all), threw in an unnecessary section about polygamy (which ended well before he was born) and now you are getting a large number of complaints. You don't have to avoid the controversies, but you should place them within the overall picture of his life.
2
Honestly, I have no problem with the obituary discussing the controversial issues, but to say that it gave a well-rounded view or even that it was from a fair point of view is horrible. The obituary's tone was one of disapproval and sometimes even contempt for this man who spent his whole life serving other people. In addition, making it seem like the decisions on these controversial issues were made only by President Monson shows how little the Times honestly knows about how the Mormon Church works.
While some may say that I am biased, it is honestly not the fact that controversial issues were discussed, or even that what was said would make him unlikable to most of the Time's readers, it was the completely unjournalistic and shaming tone used in the article, which demonstrated a clear dislike for their subject material (which would be fine if it was an OPINION piece), a lack of understanding of the material, and how they blantantly covered one side of the argument far more than the other despite the editor's clam otherwise.
I have enjoyed reading the New York Times for years, finding it important to read articles that come from a different viewpoint and trusting the Times to do their research. That ended as soon as I read this article. Not because I'm "offended," for that is a poor excuse to avoid reading something, but because this obituary is the worst display of Journalism I have seen in a long time, and that INCLUDES Fox news.
2
Sorry, I meant to say that I didn't see the mention of where he was born, where he went to school, etc like you do in a normal obituary- until the very tail end of it, after you had to get through the writer's opinion on the things that happened much, much later in President Monson's life.
1
I like how the author says that they really focused on the public Thomas Monson instead of the private one.
Ahh yes, because the literally thousands of public speeches, discourses, sermons endearing people to follow Jesus Christ and serve their fellow men were considered... private?
Or the fact that He didn't change the teachings of the LDS church. That's news?? c'mon NYT. (newsflash, water is still wet... mmkay?) I get that many of the teachings found in the LDS faith are not the same as those espoused by other people, but the fact that he didn't alter them isn't news.
The most telling point is honestly the comparative treatment of Castro. Castro televised the murdering of Cubans. He supported Montoneros and The Weathermen. But the portrayal of his life in NYT is one of courage and defiance, not murdering his neighbors.
Look I get it, NYT isn't exactly your red-blooded-American-Mormon-conservative-news-source but the treatment of someone who dedicated their life to following Jesus Christ in accordance to their beliefs sounded a bit caustic to me.
Yes. Honor the facts, please do good reporting (the world needs more of that these days) but maybe next time you write an obituary of a religious leader you could listen to a few of their sermons to see what they are teaching.
2
If you look at the obit from Pres Gordon B Hinckley, you might notice that it wasn’t politicized. you are holding Pres Monson to a different standard and you can’t sit there and claim that it wasn’t biased. You barely highlighted anything of a positive nature. I’m normally a fan of the NYT, but this is disappointing and offending.
1
The fact of this response being published is a signal of how the Times will police itself now that the role of editor has been disposed of as, in the words of the new publisher, a “vestige of print.” Instead of an internal referee, qualified to make judgments of the work of colleagues in the basis of expertise, we have entered an era of crowd-sourced critique — an ironic turn away from expertise in parallel with the trend of our political culture (and from the Times, no less.). When the crowds become noisy, an editor will be brought out to tell us why we don’t know what we’re talking about, as happened here. And when that doesn’t work, the offending writer will be thrown under the Times Square bus in order to protect the institution’s reputation.
What is missing in all this — and what used to set the Times apart as an institution — is the idea of collective responsibility on the part of the paper for what it publishes. The public editor exemplified that idea. Now the Times, like the rest of our culture, has simply become a struggle of individuals seeking dominance and fearing disposal. What happens is writing like this obit — with sails trimmed to the prevailing winds, directed and defended by weather vanes.
Tasteless, insensitive and disgusting to write an obituary just to ignite controversy, instead of offering comfort to the bereaved... I guess obituaries nowadays can be a place to provoke, insult and demean human kind...
1
President Monson was a wonderful, caring, selfless man. I wish instead of speaking on what the world did not like him for, speak on the things that they loved him for. Such as the service that the church did during the hurricanes this past year. That was all directed by him. An obit isn't meant to find all the faults in somebody, but to show their good qualitied.
“We’re not in the business of paying tribute.”
Yes you are. That’s why people are mad. You lionize some people by burying the controversies around them until the very end and you literally started President Monson’s obit with an attack on him.
Had you put it further down this wouldn’t be an issue. That he didn’t listen to a fringe group is absolutely not, by any means, worthy of being the lead about his life.
Given that the change.org petition had over 150,000 signatures at the moment I would consider admitting you were wrong and just rewriting that lead. Leading with the controversy isn’t always good journalism...
5
I used to be a Mormon. The article was fair and complimentary. All that Mormons saw as negative should be regarded as a badge of courage by those in the faith. I know the Mormon mind. They are embarrassed by their doctrine that continuously strikes the world as shocking.
5
As a active member of the LDS church, i do not have an issue with the article if it is included in the paper as a news article. I do have a problem with it being presented as an obituary. It has no resemblance to an obituary. I ask the Times to write and publish a true obituary, along with their news article on the death of President Monson.
2
While I do not have a problem with the "warts & all" you gave the "warts" & forgot "The All". The whole point of an Obituary is to start at the beginning and give the main points of the person life but focus on the good they did.
Many of your "warts" were done by President Monson, the first Presidency & the Quorum of the 12, and I'm sure more of the auxiliaries participated in the controversial issues Yet you put it all on him.
When a major person dies, you should take into account the people that he represents. Yes, you have a responsibility to your readership, i'm sure many members of the Mormon Church are your readers too, you have a responsibility to them. So you can act "high & mighty" but he wasn't & he was a newspaperman too. While you offended many of us "Mormons" it is because do not see that their love is more than he was just a leader. He did good wherever he went for years & as he progressed to the higher positions they didn't go to his head. He loved everyone, even if they weren't his followers. My uncle was one of his playmates & my grandmother was one of the widows he took care of. My Uncle and Aunt weren't members of the Mormon Church, yet my Aunt(93) still talks about him with honor.
IF you wanted to write an article about him, call it an article. If it was an obituary then Honor the man & what he stood for: goodness and helping the One. So many people were "ones" he helped & gave comfort to even in his later years. He was kind & stalwart he was Our Prophet
1
I find it odd that all the leaders of the lds church are 65 years or older and they serve a short time and then die wouldnt it be better to elect a younger person to. Serve the postion for a longer period of time
First I just want to say to focus on the works of the church not the works of the man was wrong and while I get the idea behind including major headlines you could have been more tactful. Second to say Mr. Monson vs President Monson or just Monson shows the ignorance of this editor and his lack of understanding of the LDS faith. And lastly we as Mormons view Monson as equal to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was the most religiously important figure on the earth to almost 16 million people. His obituary should have been handled with understanding, sensitiveity, and have been informative to those not aware of the repercussions of his death. Monson he’d greater value and power to a Latter Day Saint then the pope to a chatholic. How would Chatholics be reacting if the pope was so disrespected?
2
This Mormon never had any problem with your obituary of President Monson. Obviously, you are reporting from an objective perspective on what made his presidency newsworthy. People calling his obituary 'fake news" are so confusing to me- these things literally happened.
It was interesting to read about your guidelines in crafting obituaries. Thanks for the follow-up.
5
You fail to mention the stark difference in how he was portrayed, versus other murderous dictators such as Fidel Castro. The New York Times choice of words on Twitter were especially appalling. If you can’t include his life’s greatest achievements in such a short excerpt, then just say “the president of the Mormon church has passed away at 90” and let the article do your so-called “balanced” life portrait.
1
The author had a clear angle. There was a distinct point of view illustrated. Please don’t try to claim that only facts were conveyed. Also all but one interview or quote was dated. No new information was gained to write this. This really was unfair. Unbaised observer.
1
Perhaps to better understand the way we, as members of the LDS Church, have reacted to this obit, I invite Mr. McFadden and Ms. Takenaga to view the funeral proceedings for President Thomas S. Monson which will be broadcast from Salt Lake City, this Friday, January 12th at 12 pm MST. You don’t need to report on it necessarily, but please tune in for yourselves to become better acquainted with the man we revere as a modern day prophet and disciple of Jesus Christ. #ComeAndSee
I'm sorry you had to waste your time responding to a bunch of people who are just flexing their persecution complexes.
Considering what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has perpetrated in the decades that Mr. Monson was in some form of top-level leadership, that obituary was very generous.
6
As an active Mormon myself, let me just say the Times did just fine in its obituary. It seems many members of the church are, shall we say, a small dog barking at the caravan going by. They'll know what I'm talking about.
4
"Sorry not sorry."
I made an account just so I could tell you I expected better of you. Shame.
3
Let me plainly explain this. Tolerance and respect for each. He is the President of the church. You may not agree. But you were respectful! Little mind does not realize that I stood at a gay parade there was Mormon families that were in the parade they walked with signs that stated, "We love our children." Utah has the second highest percentage of gay people living here. So awful why does do they want to live here? Loving, kind people! Now I want you to say your sorry!!! You should have done your research before you wrote that article!
you are right, you are a true journalist. And that is not a compliment.
1
I'd prefer you didn't acknowledge the death of President Thomas S. Monson, than the failed attempt at his obituary. Thanks but no thanks! You lost the respect of many, and can't even manage an apology.
I have long sought out and enjoyed the Times' obituaries, but believe the quality has recently declined. I knew little about Mr Monson before I read his obituary--and just as little after.
Last month's obit of a very different individual--mystery writer Sue Grafton--was similarly disappointing. My guess is that most obits tend to be of little interest to the sought-after demographic--and garner too few clicks. I hope the terrific documentary on Times' obit writers ("Obit") is not a marker of the department's own demise.
When I heard the fuss about the obituary, my assumption was many fellow Mormons were being too sensitive. Then I read the obit...
The piece was a major miss, and took the opportunity to air the author’s and/or popular culture’s current grievances against the faith’s beliefs. Is an obituary really the appropriate forum for debating church doctrinal issues with which others may disagree? A mention would be appropriate, but the balance was completely out of proportion.
I agree the NYT shouldn’t publish a fluff obit for each notable death, but it also shouldn’t read like an editorial disguised as a balanced assessment of a great man’s life.
3
Glad you mentioned The SL-Tribune cuz they're the oldest paper there, independent, and were family owned until ten or so years ago - when the church secretly tried to buy it. They very much wanted to control it because it printed things the church wanted to keep concealed, articles unfavorable to them. One of these was the fact that before Monson was Pres (as one of 3 directly below the Pres,) he changed the 100+ year policy which had the Pres in control of the money and put the 3 in control of it. This was significant because this was after the current Pres Benson's grandson Steve, the political-cartoonist for The Arizona Republic had publicly left the church saying his grandfather was senile, incoherent and the church was hiding that fact. I eternally thank The SL Tribune for all the investigative articles they did and it's a highlight of the importance of journalism and a free Press. I'm surprised you had to respond to Mormons' displeasure with the obituary as it's entirely typical of their sheltered view of how the rest of the world normally functions, but I applaud your dedication to readers nevertheless. Thank you.
7
...and just to be clear, Salt Lake City is not Rome: during the past two hundred years, profound new prophesies or interpretations or whatever you want to call them have visited the former much more frequently than the latter. Specifically, I’m thinking of race and polygamy. Monson would have had ample precedent to announce that the Church got it wrong yet again about marriage. He didn’t. Instead, the man doubled-down in a particularly cruel way, dividing children from parents. That’s not sticking to the script. That’s ad-libbing.
1
After reading the many comments lamenting that Prophet Thomas Monson's obituary centered on his church positions instead of his pastoral and personal history, I reread the obituary in the NYTimes of Cardinal Bernard Law, Dec. 19, 2017. This obituary focused primarily on Cardinal Law's involvement in the cover-up of the Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal in Boston, and his later being appointed to a position of authority and prominence in Rome. I think one must acknowledge the consistency of these obituaries of powerful church leaders; both emphasized controversial positions taken by powerful church leaders while also acknowledging positions and actions of both which helped and furthered racial and gender equality. Both men, of course, also upheld church orthodoxy on the issue of women priests, and both obituaries referenced this.
4
NYT states it did an accurate portrayal of Mr. Monson's positions on issues as a church leader. This is not true. At a minimum, NYT can at least mention he gave 230 public general conference talks over a 50-year span. These general conference talks are transmitted publicly to literally the entire world over many mediums like radio, tv, print, internet, and also translated into many, many languages.
NYT also said they gave due credit to Mr. Monson’s achievements. That is also not true. Achievements over decades of services weren't even mentioned. For instance, mundane things were omitted like church membership growth under his leadership, the type and amount of humanitarian aid the church has done under his lead, the development of city creek mall area in Salt Lake City, and many more.
Scouting was also mentioned in the obituary, but more in a negative light and focusing on politicized issues. Mr. Monson served as a member of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America for more than 48 years. If you're going to mention boyscouts in an obituary, you should at least mention Mr. Monson was on the national executive board for 5 decades nearly.
Overall, many basic & core things about his life and ministry were omitted. Basic information on his teachings and ministry were also omitted. NYT did a really poor job. The obituary was written was slanderous and this PR response was weak. NYT should do the right thing and apologize and retract or rewrite the obituary.
2
In life, those who hear what others say do not listen to just hear the words but listen to understand what is being said. I have read the original obituary several times. While I believe you have defended your intent in the original piece it is clear to me that you are not understanding what 136,491 people (so far) are trying to make clear to you. Please try again. Sincerely Suzanne,
1
Religious people are unnerved when they bump up against the facts. They often see themselves, their faith, their leaders through the rose colored glasses of their beliefs.
5
You have to remember that the Mormon population in general is forbidden to read anything negative about the church. It is all labeled as “anti-Mormon” and they regularly teach that it comes from Satan. They are also highly organized and encouraged to be vocal. Mormons see Thomas Monson as much more than a man, a man who “communes with Jehovah,” and anything that points out otherwise makes the confirmation bias in their heads start to twitch.
As a non-believer, you took a balanced approach and created a thoughtfull obituary. It did not gloss over the real social issues surrounding this leader, but fairly pointed them out. Your response was excellent, but will most likely fall on deaf ears. Thomas Monson was a good man who served the Lord and led his flock well. Unfortunately, some of the stances of Mormons on women’s equality, gay rights and many more have caused a great deal of pain for a lot of people. White washing over that fact would be more palatable for the LDS community, but you can’t ignore it forever, even if you try.
5
Again, this is an obit. That was not appropriate to mention in an obit.
1
The Mormon population is forbidden to read anything negative about the church? Nope. I've been a member of the Church for many decades and have never heard such advice or heard that claim except from critics of the church.
Mormons are, on the whole, better educated than the general population, and are regularly encouraged to read and seek truth and to be politically active and engaged in our communities.
I do find many of these comments from members of the church cringe-worthy, but, surprisingly, the newspaper's coverage was also cringe-worthy, so the newspaper can scarcely complain.
1
I felt that this article focused on the policies of the Mormon church and not the life Thomas S Monson himself. The editor addressed the feeling of misrepresentation of Mormon members about their prophet while the real issue what was that his article sounded resentful to Mormons conservative beliefs. The author seemed to care more about getting a rise out of Mormon sympathizers and nonsypathizers than actually reporting about a mans life.
1
You're still completely missing the point. You're not supposed to be able to guess the political viewpoints and biased opinions of the author of an obituary. That is not unbiased and fact-giving journalism. I agree with Jon Wilson, "Hugo Chávez? Hugh Hefner? They had glamorous obituaries compared to this man, who dedicated his life to serving and helping others." Take Mr. Hefner's obit for example, it is twice as long as President Monson's obituary and paints a glamorous picture of a man who practically created the pornography industry, an industry that has ruined relationships, destroyed marriages, and continues to replace love with false feelings of happiness. President Monson, a truly great man and leader of a church of almost 16 million people, has touched the lives of millions and overseen humanitarian aid that has ministered to every race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc... Under his leadership, the Mormon humanitarian program alone has brought aid to 189 countries, distributed wheelchairs to people in need, set up vision treatment facilities, provided tsunami relief, established clean water projects, and so much more. He has taught his members to "See Others as They May Become," to treat your wife, husband, children, and others with respect and love, to "Be Strong and of Good Courage" in our world of confusion, and many other incredibly valuable lessons (email me for sources). Please treat the memory of this man the way he should be treated.
1
“...to a large extent controversy, points of friction of some sort, is what makes news. A quiet day in the West Wing is not news; a president’s clash with the Senate majority leader is.”
This is the most revealing statement made in the sorry, not sorry editorial response. NYT states news = controversy, thus - the society of the spectacle.
1
Yeah, truth is not rewarded anymore, just sensationalism.
Full disclosure: Not only am I not a LDS member, I’m not a Christian (and never have been).
After reading this article and Thomas Monson’s obit, I felt the only way I could judge what was written was to compare Monson’s obit to one the New York Times wrote for another religious leader who probably inspired the same kind of devotion from his followers throughout his life and afterwards (including today) and whose life I was quite familiar with (as I grew up in Crown Heights not far from 770 Eastern Parkway).
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson headed the Lubavitch Hasidim division of Orthodox Judaism. I re-read Schneerson’s New York Times obit so I could compare it to Monson’s. Both were totally non-fawning, factual and neutral in tone. The good and bad of both men were described. There was nothing gushing about either of them. I found that refreshing and an example of a good obit in a secular newspaper.
Schneerson’s obit did not inspire the same kind of reaction from his followers that Monson’s did (based on the need for this article to appear and the comments it generated). Schneerson died over 23 years ago when there was no online New York Times (and few people has internet access anyway) and because after Schneerson’s death, his followers were either in deep mourning or busy studying the Tanach.
I would not expect a non-Lubavitch publication to fawn over Schneerson, either when he died or today, and LDS members should expect the same thing of non-LDS publications.
7
Apologize. It's really not that hard. It was rude and disrepectful and until I see an apology I will not use the NY times as any kind of a credible source for news in personal or academic readings. I would also discourage others from using it as a source for anything. It is one thing to say the things he didn't do, but the account given was so biased.
As a Mormon, this makes total sense. I'm sure if the pope made the news for these reasons, it would be what was reflected in his obit as well.
He stood for his personal convictions and the LDS gospel standards. Why should the Times need to apologize? The obit made me respect him more knowing he did so in the face of much opposition. What is right is rarely easy.
2
The NYT Obituary for the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, was not focused on President Thomas S. Monson. It was focused on the biases that sell news. The obituary was not a true, unbiased, unemotional, historical report on the life of an influential person. It did not give insight, context, or understanding of how he became the President of the LDS Church or of his 63 years of full time unpaid service.
One of the controversies focused on in the obituary is particularly puzzling. The topic of age for young Full-Time Missionary Service was addressed, but only the change for females. The age requirement was changed for BOTH males and females. That omission of information served the writer's purpose of directing their judgment regarding women in the LDS Church. That direction of the readers attention seems better suited for an editorial or argumentative piece than an obituary.
The Journalistic Reasoning and Process explation given by the editor is a poor excuse for dressing up denial. This obituary was not critically thought out. I would love to see journalism professors from all over the world grade the obituary based on the criteria given in response to complaints, as well as their own criteria as if giving this obituary as an assignment.
NYT, I am disappointed that one of the organizations I have trusted and relied on has lost sight of its core beliefs and values. Integrity, consistency, and truth.
1
I wish I could I say that this was a sincere response, but it still smacks of the same condescending tone with which the obituary was written. How about this passage:
"We also understand that these audiences will be more sensitive than most to how we portray someone known to them. Some may have an agenda of some kind, wanting us to portray someone as they want that person to be remembered, perhaps in a light that best serves their interests. We can’t bend to that, of course. We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints."
There seems to have a couple hundred thousand complaints which, by your own logic, is evidence that you have not done your job. The obituary was incoherent and while you have every right to recognize any controversial events that arose during Pres. Monson's tenure, you have an equal duty to recognize the millions of lives bettered by his leadership.
How would like a journalist to paint the facts of your life, sir?
1
The obit was overly kind. The LDS church has swept sexual abuse of women under the carpet for too long. A friend and her sister went to their bishop and were told it was their fault. The girls are no longer Mormons, but their brother, the abuser, is in good standing. It is a cult run by men who are not righteous or saints.
4
Those "vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage" and "rebuffed demands...by Mormon women pleading for the right to be ordained as priests" weren't controversies to members of the LDS church, only to those outside it. 95% of LDS women don't want the priesthood, as shown by polls conducted by Gallup and Pew Research. There were about 100 people protesting for that demand, out of a church of nearly 16 million members. The only controversy was that the media backed Kate Kelly with everything they had, instead of listening to the millions of Mormons who thought she was a total fruit loop. As for same-sex marriage, the vast majority of Mormons don't want their church supporting that, either. The LDS church believes in the Bible and its teachings, including the belief that homosexual behavior is a sin and shouldn't be applauded and sanctioned by the church. The LDS church has backed numerous laws eliminating gay discrimination in business and housing, but they do not support gay marriage. No members of the church are surprised by this stance and most don't want it to change. Again, the only controversy is from non-members who want the church to fall in line with their beliefs, not stand up for its own.
If you believe that a fair and balanced piece will bring few if any complaints, then it's clear that you failed in that regard. You wrote glowing obits for Hugh Hefner, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, but wrote a hit piece on a man who spent his life in service. Shameful.
2
After reading this response I do get how the obituary was published. But you are making it seem like when a new president becomes ordained that things will change. Believe me, they won’t. The other thing I have to question is that if a pope dies, do you use Mr. and then their given birth name or their highest title they we’re known for?
President Monson was president of a global religion. I do not see why Mr. would be appropriate.
Although I see that mentioning some of the relevant political issues may be appropriate, I do not believe they should have been the leading topic. It did showcase the bias and opinion of the journalist.
The world views the position of the prophet of the LDS Church as a position of power. President Monson viewed the position as one of service to God and his fellowmen. Those who understand the prophet's role of one of service will not understand the world's interpretation of his actions. It makes sense that the staff of the NY Times shares the worldview of the majority of its readers. Worldviews will not be changed through discussion of the contents of an obituary. They will be by following the the pattern of the prophet's life.
Nope, NYT, you still missed it. You addressed the controversies that occurred, but you missed the good that Monson did. I immediately thought of the strange obituary of Hugh Hefner - a man whose work destroyed lives - and how the NYT described him as a "giant" and a "stunning success." I was baffled by that. Hefner was a creeper - that's it, that's all. You cannot be concerned about human rights and write such a glowing description of Hefner. Total nonsense. And then, upon the death of Thomas S. Monson, a good person who spent his life serving others, you point out moments of controversy with no balance of who the man is, how he lived his life, and how he changed the world for good. I have been in the habit of keeping up with the NYT each week. No more. I'll seek for a balanced view somewhere else, because you guys can't seem to find it.
2
I've always held the utmost regard for the Times, but this response and the original obituary are extremely disappointing. The social and political controversies they described dealt with church leadership as a whole- not Presidents Monson alone. While the prophet is the leader of the church, the entire first presidency and quorum of the twelve must unanimously agree to implement policy changes. A prophet's job is not to sway to the current cultural climate, but to be God's mouthpiece upon the earth. By staunchly decrying his actions (or lack thereod), it implies the Times has no respect for the many of us that did believe.
One doesn't have to agree with the doctrines or conventions of others. People should believe what they want; however, this is religious bigotry of the worst kind. Mr. McDonald did a hack job unlike anything he would do to anyone else, in my opinion. Using the standards he used here, he would have to assassinate the character and beliefs of any religious leaders. All religions, as viewed from a secular perspective are pretty weird. Many western religions follow most of the same doctrines that are attributed here only to Mormons. Does Mr. McDonald know that Catholics, Muslims many Jews and many Anglicans do not ordain women and do not fully embrace LGBT issues? Of course he does. People who are unhappy with the concept of monogamous, heterosexual relationships probably shouldn't be Mormons and, if they are, are free to leave. The whole discussion of polygamy was irrelevant to the point of stupidity since, as pointed out, it hasn't been a practice since 1890. My real question is why those who do not believe in Mormon beliefs think that Mormons must confirm to their world views.
1
McFadden's Obituary on the life of Thomas Monson was poorly written, and lazily edited. And therein lies the controversy with this piece. Anyone could do a google search on Thomas Monson, and find the exact same information in the meta descriptions of the top 10 search results. The article was mediocre, at best. McFadden clearly tried to remain objective, and I respect that, but he was clearly influenced by negative information that he found online, undoubtedly through a quick google-search. Please please Please, McFadden, and Takenaga, stop writing about things without doing your due diligence and researching it like a journalist should. To the layman, there is nothing wrong with the way you've depicted the life of Mr Monson. But to those of us who knew him, it seems you've relied on secondhand blog posts, tweets, and facebook posts to write and defend your biased writing about Mr Monson. Of course, you shouldn't be expected to know everything about the lives of those whose obituaries you are writing. However, if you have to backtrack and write an additional article to clarify an obituary you've written, you've clearly got something wrong.
1
I read the obituary and did not find anything the matter with it whatsoever. If anything I thought because of the length and prominence of the article relative to others published that day I got the sense he must have been a very important man in the Mormon Church. I did read it word for word for I am fascinated by the history of the religion and disgusted by the polygamy and abuse of women that its founder and successors engaged in for so long relative to its length of existence as a religion, so I looked for any mention of whether he too practiced it and did not find it. I found the writing was highly objective and I found the explanation of how an obit is written and the procedure followed by NYT such as this case to be very interesting. Lastly I used to be surprised at how quickly NYT used to come up with very long and thorough obituaries of certain famous persons very soon after their death, but this has not been too obvious of late - maybe because recent staffing practices we’ve read about.
3
I appreciate the follow up piece The Times ran here & yet I feel as if they have failed once again to honor a man who individually ministered and served thousands of downtrodden spirits in his mortal life. As a daily reader of the New York Times I was shocked when I found the obituary dedicated to him laced with more negative connotations than Hugh Hefner and Hugo Chavez combined. Hugh sold sex. Monson characterized charity. He gave everyday of his life from his late 30s until the minute he died to His God, family and Church. I understand the comments that The Times made, but to leave those unbalanced with the context of a lifetime of sacrificing all time, talents and energy to others is simply sad. I will be transferring readership away from the Times for awhile. It is devastating to me that a deeply immoral man, Donald Trump, was able to find more positivity in President Monson’s life than this supposedly syndicated news service. I sincerely hope balance may return to this paper, at the very least in the obituary pages. If not they’ve lost a lifetime reader.
I am not a Morman but am uncomfortable with the comments of the obits editor as expressed in this interview. In fairness, I will review past NYT obits for other religious leaders, but my sense is they showed more compassion for their subject than the position articulated by Mr. McDonald.
The problem was not the obituary, but rather the tweet.
Many people don’t read past the tweet, and the one for Monson’s obituary was very one sided and misrepresented the obituary.
(Edited after dumb auto correct)
In regards to using the honorific term of "Mr.", I feel like it's not logical to compare the head of a world wide religious organization to the president of the the United States, especially when a lot of people, journalists included, don't even respect Trump as president. It is much more logical to compare President Monson to the Pope, in which case you do not refer to Pope Francis as "Mr. Bergoglio" in any of your articles about him.
Another guy that think make believe people run this world and the make believe after world. That’s what the obit should have said
2
As a former Mormon there was nothing wrong with the obituary. Mormons revere their leaders to nearly the point of personality cult and are so easily offended if others do not revere equally. They have the Deseret News and church publications to satisfy the need for an adoring obituary. I appreciated the objective and "news" quality of the New York Times obituary.
6
Do you still not get it? Obviously journalistic integrity requires you to cover someone's life "warts and all," but that usually implies a level of neutrality and impartiality in reporting, a trait that was glaringly absent from Mr. Monson's obituary. Look at the connotative attitudes employed in Monson's obit vs Fidel Castro's obit and you can see the huge problem: although both may have technically used "the facts," the facts about a religious leader were presented as a controversy, while the facts about a dictator were presented as an honor.
As an ex-mormon living in Utah, I have a very slanted view of mormons and living under the mormon "rules" that they impose on everyone regardless of faith. However, not I, nor ANYONE for that matter, can dispute the fact that the LDS church has done incredible good in this world. President Monson was the leader of this church that has provided aid throughout the world without question. Do I agree with their teachings? Absolutely not. Write a separate article in which to address the issues you have, and write an obituary to honor the man and admit that the world lost an incredible human being. (Because incredible humans are hard to find these days.)
1
To put it short and simple, i believe obituaries should focus on the good of a persons life. The achievements, the people they loved, and the people that loved them.
Obituaries shouldn’t focus on the negative.
I would hope the mistakes i make in my own life, aren’t mentioned in my own obituary. I would hope i that i could be respected enough for some kind words to be remembered by.
The obituary editor's response to criticisms of the obituary of Thomas Monson has affirmed his ignorance about Monson and his life. Unlike Protestant denominations, Mormon leaders are not elected in a popularity contest. They are called to leadership by senior church leaders after years of uncompensated volunteer service at the local level. Tom Monson was distinctive in the way he gave personal service and comfort to people who were ill or in acute need. He taught us to follow the whisperings of God's spirit when it tells us that someone needs a visit or assistance. My son is a nurse who has worked in several nursing homes in Utah, and he regularly met Tom Monson when he was coming in after a long day of church service to personally visit people.
Tom Monson had a special care for the Mormons in East Germany, who had been trapped behind the Iron Curtain at the end of World War II. He made numerous visits to help them, and he persuaded the DDR government to allow a Mormon temple to be built in Freiburg in East Germany so that Mormons could have the blessing of ordinances available only in temples, including marriage for eternity. On those trips, he often donated his spare clothing--shirts, suits, and shoes--to the impoverished Mormons there.
He was personally involved in providing food and other resources to help the poor and homeless in community shelters in Utah, and worked closely with leaders of other churches to provide those goods and services to the needy.
Interesting read although I do question if, at the obituary of the Pope it will mention anything about not allowing Guy marriage and women as high Catholic Church leaders. Thomas S Monson never made a decision about that while that were already the ways of the church as they are in the Catholic and many other churches. And thus policies in those regards where not changed. It only became a subject because member in the church wanted a change on the subjects and thus tried bottom-up to have regulations changed. And thus it was a responce of the head of the church (and not an individual responce of President Monson himself).
Apperently, according to the response, rules of journalism were followed by writing the obituary and that is fine. Please then follow the same rules with the passing of other religious leaders. I guess I’ll have to wait and see what the obituary of Pope Francis will say.
Mr. McDonald is completely missing the point of why people are offended by the obituary. The problem isn't that controversies were addressed in it, that is absolutely appropriate and to be expected. The problem is that the whole article was framed around them, and they were made out to be the defining elements of President Monson's life. The article was openly hostile and nakedly contemptuous of not only Thomas S. Monson, but of all Mormons. When your coverage of the lives of mass murderers and despotic tyrants is more sympathetic than that of a man who spent his whole life doing everything in his power to help make the world a better place, something has gone horribly wrong. As Mr. McDonald says, when the paper lets "the facts of [a] life paint a picture ... fairly and accurately, there are few complaints." What does it tell you that tens of thousands of people are complaining?
1
I read the “obituary”, which the first 3/4 was totally political and negative. It wasn’t until the end that it started looking like an actual obituary and it still did not talk about his humanitarian effort’s since he became president of the church only before in one very tiny paragraph. There is so much to say, but I am not going to let that “article” get the best of me. President Monson was a wonderful human being. He was loved and respected by Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
Follow up like this is why all of us love, respect and indeed desperately need the New York Times.
Thank you so much for the incredible job you do, and unlike a certain president not just listen to but sharre the dissent of those who disagree with you. Bravo!
1
I'd like to congratulate Jon Wilson on his energy and thoroughness.
His Chavez-Hefner jape has shown up near every discussion of President Monson of blessed memory that I've seen in the past few days. If people think of the three men together in distant years it will be entirely Wilson's accomplishment.
I have not read the obituary and, thus, have no comment on it.
However, the standards and editorial policies McDonald expounds in this column are excellent, standards I wish were applied more broadly at the Times. Whether those standards were applied in this case, I obviously cannot say.
Below are excerpts from McDonald's comments which, I believe, represent fundamentally excellent and appropriate journalistic standards.
"We’re not in the business of paying tribute. We’re journalists first and foremost. I think in tracing the life of a religious leader, it would almost go without saying that he or she had won the respect and admiration of those who put them in positions to lead."
"But we’re careful not to perform the role of eulogist, simply singing someone’s praises. We don’t write tributes. We strive for warts-and-all biography, in short form."
"We do think about particular audiences. We understand that those audiences will be the ones that scrutinize our work most closely....We also understand that these audiences will be more sensitive than most to how we portray someone known to them. Some may have an agenda of some kind, wanting us to portray someone as they want that person to be remembered, perhaps in a light that best serves their interests. We can’t bend to that, of course. We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture."
1
I have written my own (brief!) obituary because I want the last word (no guarantees of that, of course). Perhaps we should all write our own obituaries to forestall complaints and be clear regarding potential bias. In my case, it is one less task to leave for my children to complete.
I feel that this obituary was mostly negative, and made President Monson sound more like an instigator of controversy, rather than someone who defended the LDS faith and was kind to varied groups of people in the face of controversy. For instance, it heavily emphasized the negative response to the Church's/President Monson's position on homosexuality, and only lightly touched on the Church's/President Monson's support for and protection of young homosexuals disowned by families. Furthermore, the obituary led primarily with the negative, with most of the positive only at the end, and every journalist and every reader knows that readers often only read a portion of an article, therefore many readers who don't know President Monson likely didn't even make it to the more positive portion, especially because of the manner in which the negative was presented. I as a practicing Latter- Day Saint woman don't feel that this was a fair, balanced representation of the man I have long honored and respected, a prophet of God to Mormons and an honorable man to many others
Though I am morally opposed to the positions described of both organizations, I cannot help but note what might have been the difference in reporting between the death of a Pope and this Mormon leader. The organizations have quite similar views on the issues, but the Catholic Church holds a rather protected place in America and throughout much of the world.
I think Mr. McDonald entirely misunderstands why the majority of people are upset— it’s not an issue of negativity, but of comparative cynicism in contrast to many other obituaries. The entire framing of the obituary revolves around events which occurred at the very tail-end of a long life of public service. Most people are not bothered by the discussion of controversial, nationally newsworthy issues, but rather, that these events are seemingly purposefully used to obscure a preponderance of selfless service and tireless work on behalf of the disadvantaged and downtrodden—or, even simply leadership in substantial developments of the Church he eventually lead.
1
I didn't expect a hagiography of President Monson and I tend to be suspicious of accusations of media bias, especially these days. But I rolled my eyes when I read this obit, both the first time and again when I went back to it now. The obit makes it sound like the headline should have read "Controversial Mormon Prophet dies," when almost no one seems to have actually thought of President Monson as a controversial figure. It's not that he was not involved in controversy, it's that he, himself, did not handle things in a controversial or adversarial manner--just the opposite.
The response states that the reporter has an obligation to recount the issues that were newsworthy in the life of the subject. Certainly. But I would also expect some nuance and context to be brought to bear for those readers who are not as familiar with the subject as for those of us who followed the subject closely. It's not much of a defense to say that readers should have assumed President Monson was held in high regard in his faith when the obituary makes it sound like he was constantly involved in controversy.
2
I was raised in a staunch Mormon family and was very active in the faith until age 36. It was my experience that the Mormon faithful revere their leaders because they are trained to do so. From a very young age, I was encouraged to publicly proclaim my "knowledge" that these men were "true prophets." I was taught songs about following the prophet. As a teenager attending "seminary", I was shown videos that extolled the virtues of our leaders. When I visited temple visitor centers and other official Mormon sites, there were displays proclaiming these men to be living prophets, seers, and revelators. Monthly church magazines told stories that highlighted their good deeds. Lessons at church regularly focused on the importance of trusting and following them, and avoiding and distrusting sources that called into question their teachings or the divine nature of their positions. In order to attend the Mormon temple, I had to pass biennial interviews in which, among other things, I had to state that I "sustained" the current church leader as a prophet. As a Mormon missionary, I had to testify to people on a daily basis that the president of the church was God's prophet on Earth today. In short, I'm not surprised that certain Mormons took offense at what I thought was a very fair and objective obituary. Most Mormons have no experience trying to view their church or its leaders objectively.
1
The NYT-orbituary does service to all those who were hard hit by the radio-silence of the LDS-church leadership under Thomas S Monson on questions critical to patriarchy, and on questions about equality. It does service to LGBTQ-people and especially youth who suffer under "the policy". These questions will not go away, even if individuals asking them often leave.
President Monson had a very warm official personality. His choice of counselors speaks very well of him. He was a caring person no doubt, and his words were warm. But the actions of the church - under his leadership - were not always as warm, nor caring. Dogma superceeded compasion for the individual many times. This IS part of the legacy of his life-time, and it is a part of a legacy that future generations will have to work around / transcend.
In decades part many people have been estranged from the LDS-church. It is my opinion that Salt-Lake-shepherds were found wanting. (My - anecdotal - experience is that local leadership often showes greater charity, and a greater desire to understand). The message from Salt-Lake, through both action and inaction insisted that the orthodoxy of ninety-nine is more important than the pain of the one. The NYT orbituary pointed to this pain. Thank You.
1
I thought it was an excellent, balanced obituary, and I was impressed that the Times took the criticism seriously enough to address it in this enlightening exchange. I do understand how Mormons who loved Thomas S. Monson feel in their disappointment at his obituary, not because I'm a former Mormon (I am), but because I was similarly disappointed in the Times's obituary of my father back in 2001. He wasn't a world-famous figure, he was just friends with one, so the obit made that the center of the story. It was disappointing at the time, but 10 years experience at Bloomberg News and the further passage of time beyond that have given me more perspective. The newspaper serves its readers, not the friends, family or fans of the deceased. For the average person who has little to no familiarity with Monson and Mormons, the obituary gave some context that answered the question, "who was this person and why should I care about his life or death?" Mission accomplished.
Perhaps the bad obit unintentionally ignited all these wonderful endorsements of Mr Monson...I had never heard of the man but now I'm aware of this unique American...The wheelchairs really touched me...Although I'm a secular NYer I have many distant LDS relatives whom I rarely meet but whenever I have I've been so very impressed by their families...Especially the children seem to be the most empathetic, intelligent and articulate young people you could imagine...
1
Mr. McDonald's apologia is not very persuasive. Obituary writers pick and choose what to emphasize and downplay, in accordance with their values and biases. Steve Jobs' obit was hagiography that focused on his creativity and business acumen, despite the fact that Jobs was deeply flawed in highly significant ways. The obit of Bernard Cardinal Law was an excoriation that fixated relentlessly on his role in the abuse scandal, to the exclusion of his tremendous accomplishments and virtues.
2
Yes the church is a large complex organization and yes he was the head of it. The obituary was written like that of a CEO. How he handled the controversies. However the essence of this mans life was humble service to his fellow beings. You missed it.
1
Hi,
I totally support the idea of balanced journalism but your orbit was terrible. It was not what was said but what was missed. This man spent his life serving others, there is little mention of this. You should have known the work he did in West Germany, the reach out to the widows and his time visiting the sick. He was a man who devoted his life to service. Also our doctrine is not so controversial, shared by catholics, Jews and Muslims. So not sure why we are being singled out. Nothing is mentioned about his fantastic messages at General Conference. I would invite you to listen to one of his talks at general conference to gain a measure of the man. Thank you for letting me express my view.
This Obit first and foremost expressed the church policies that mainstream america found controversial, THEN went on to speak of his life and family. I find that most obits express details of life and family first, work and then issues last.
In my opinion, an obituary writer should not state"We’re not in the business of paying tribute. We’re journalists first and foremost." To the deceased there should be a higher standard of writing. This really seemed like a tabloid article. One sided and not sourced by any of the church members who supported him and knew him.
As a gay Mormon, my disappointment over his obituary came from what I perceived as a lack of sensitivity or understanding of my community as a minority. It felt like a perpetration. I recognize that the Times has its own priorities and has to speak to the understanding of its readership. These priorities, however, stand in stark contrast to the way Monson was perceived by the Mormon community. The obituary's focus on outwardly newsworthy controversies to the understanding of its readership caused it to distort Monson's impact on the community he led, and by extension, presented a distorted understanding of the community itself. THAT was what bothered me.
I'm in agreement that eulogies are inappropriate in a journalistic setting. I'm not upset that Monson wasn't given his "due honors." I'm not interested in slavish, lopsided praises, and I appreciate that the NY Times won't write about Monson solely from an "insider" perspective. However, in the same vein, I'm also not interested in seeing Monson, and by extension myself, being defined and portrayed solely in terms that, while understandable to a broader audience, are foreign and unfamiliar to the day to day experiences, beliefs, and prioriites of a Mormon livelihood.
1
I found the Obit of President Monson to be overly generous. Clearly, those who were offended by any reference to President Monson as Mr. to be an insult, should also appreciate that I might be offended by someone who rose to the top of an organization that promoted polygamy, racism, homophobia and the denigration of women's rights.
1
Part #1:
Methinks the Mormon critics of the obituary doth protest too much.
Overall, it was a fair-minded treatment of the man's life, work, and his defense of the church's principles.
I think what threw them was that the first part of the obituary dealt with his leadership tenure — and, not surprisingly, its politics and the issues he faced. Even there, it reflected his commitment to the church:
“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...”
What also may be troubling to them is that obituary, honestly, presented what are, frankly, shocking anti-gay, intolerant, and dated misogynist attitudes and policies. It is likely hard for believers and obituary critics to accept the deep flaws of their church and its bigoted leaders.
The second part of the obituary provided ample details of his life and his accomplishments, which they largely ignored.
I'll highlight details in Part #2, to show how fair its coverage was.
I had not previously read the Thomas Monson obituary. After having read this response, I then read the obituary of Thomas Monson as well as past NYT obituaries for Pope John Paul II as well as the obituaries of several prominent Rabbis, Imams and Presidents of World religious Federations/Councils.
I do see the reason for discontent. In the other obituaries the titles of Rabbi, Imam, Pope, Bishop and President were carried throughout the piece. Moreover, the life teachings and human side of these world religious leaders were presented in equal measure to the political issues they dealt with. Thus, there does seem to be a double standard of some sort in the presentation of this obituary.
I feel like I'm being told by people who have not walked in my shoes that I'm a chump who only wants to hear "Golly Pres. Monson was a great guy!"
From reading the response I have a greater appreciation that a journalist has to report news. But I too feel that the arc of Thomas S Monson's life was absent. I am not writing because all things Mormon must look super awesome so I can prove I'm super awesome. I'm writing because of a sadly lost opportunity to point out his main legacy--humanitarian work and human kindness. This is how he is remembered by his community.
46
The obit included all of that. Your complaint is baseless.
His position in the church was the only reason he had an obit, which naturally focussed on that. But it ended with everything you claim it lacked.
The point of a New York Times obituary is not to remember him to his community, especially with the uncritical warmth they will, but to mark the passing of a newsworthy person and give context to those less familiar with his life.
What's "super awesome" mean?
If "the facts of life" are what "paint the picture," then why fill the obituary with headlines about policies, which were decided by the governing councils of the church...not just President Monson himself (and we believe by divine inspiration, but you don't have to believe that for purposes of my point here). If "the facts of life paint the picture" then why throw in a whole paragraph about polygamy, a practice which was ended decades before he was even born?
We are not asking for the "best light." We just want the light actually to be on Thomas S. Monson. That's our agenda: to have an obituary focus on the individual about whom it is being written.
That being said, the argument behind including controversies is valid, but the editors claim that the positions "of the faithful and others who questioned church policies" were "accurately portrayed" is, well, inaccurate. The push back from "the faithful" against this paper's obituary in particular (and not over others who also included details of the "controversies") stands as evidence of that neither our position, nor (I would say) the position of President Monson were accurately portrayed.
23
If we welcome gay marriage and transgenders and non-binary people, why can we not include polygamists in our rainbow of diversity? The very point is to embrace and love and welcome all colors, orientations, identities, religions, body shapes and abilities into a space of safety. (Though I personally might draw the line at including elderly "white" males of Europe, to be consistent we should probably let them in so long as they behave themselves.)
Your objections and those of others do not refute the accuracy of the obit, but only its focus.
His position in the church is what merited an obit, which was why it began with that.
His life was described in more detail in the last part. Nothing you write about was left out.
As prophet, he technically has veto power dear. The US President gets blame for things he allows through too. Besides, there is absolutely no tone of blame in the article.
Responses of a mob, do not a fact make.
I appreciate the insight offered by this reflection.
I don't understand the concerns about the obituary. It read as a respectful description of one man's life. As Mr. McDonald says, taking a prominent role in any organization necessarily requires people to have their lives acknowledged by reference to who they are and what they have done. In this way, the leader of a religious group is no different than an important politician or corporate executive.
As to the good work the man may have done--certainly part of any obituary. But I wouldn't expect to be told that a pope or a chief rabbi or the Archbishop of Canterbury supported charitable ventures and tried not to kick dogs.
40
Not once did the article mention the millions of dollars spent in humanitarian aid (food, clothing, medicine, shelter, water, and personnel) to disaster sites and third-world countries or how the Mormon church mobilizes armies of volunteers to help clean up after natural disasters. The perpetual education fund - which gives small loans for people in poor countries to attend school or begin a small business - allowing people to move up the socio-economic scale was also not mentioned. Neither was the new online college education option, through the nationally accredited BYU-Idaho, mentioned. This program allows students in the US to earn a 4 year college education for about $5,000. Students from Nicaragua or Mexico wound spend only $1000 for the same education.
All of these efforts come through the church hierarchy and are initiated by the president of the church. The church humanitarian efforts doubled under the leadership of Thomas Monson because his focus was on helping the individual. That's also why he was so concerned with the ability of young people to earn a good education without paying back loans for 20 years. None of this was covered.
Instead the article focused on a handful of disgruntled, former members and their personal desire to remake an entire church to fit their personal world -view, not the millions who recognized the good done by this one man.
One issue, though, is that Thomas S. Monson served as an apostle, the second-most senior quorum next to the Presidency from 1963-1985, and there was literally no mention of any of his work in that over twenty years. Then, he was a councilor in the presidency for another 23 years before becoming president himself. That’s nearly fifty years of service that goes entirely undiscussed.
There should be two kinds of obituaries; one as a eulogy, written by family and the other as a review of a person's career, written by those who knew him best in carrying out their job --warts and all.
12
As a born and raised New Yorker and lifelong Mormon, I almost cancelled my decades-long subscription to the New York Times over this obituary. As many commenters pointed out, it felt so blatantly politicized, an irony the day after your new publisher's letter. To Mormons, it mocked our deeply held value that a person's life is defined by the strength of character she reveals in private, not the successes she has in the public sphere. We resented the obit not because it wasn't factually accurate or that we wanted it to be a eulogy, but because it completely discounted the effect Monson had on us, the audience he raised to higher levels of love and integrity.
This response is admirable. Thank you. While I don't agree with everything your editor said, the fact that we were heard and that he took the time to respond is meaningful. Hopefully the Times will be more sensitive in the future to the fact that there are legions of thoughtful, intelligent and curious Mormons who love the Times and don't want religion - theirs or any other - to be dismissed or politicized so blatantly.
34
The LDS Church involves itself in politics, often to the detriment of non-Mormons, including people of color and LGBTQs.
The obituary decribed this involvement. It did not "politicize" it.
1
Sorry, but the church is deeply political and deeply sexist. It's also markedly anti-gay. All that's been well-documented.
Monson presided over a series of controversies, many from dissenters within the faith, and, while he did many good things, he also sustained an intolerant, bigoted, and patronizing hierarchy and set of policies.
Ignoring that would have been whitewashing his leadership and views. Describing those things is not "politicizing" his life or the church; it is honestly reflecting what he did and what the church has done.
Remember as well that the obituary described his many forward moves -- expanding women in the missionary force, opening up records to scholars, and joining with Muslims, Christians, and Jews in helping the less fortunate. It even described his upholding the faith and the church's principles-- stating "he did not bend" to the dissent from within.
It's hard for those immersed within a worldview or dedicated to a faith to step outside of that perspective and see what's going on. Listening more to dissenters within the faith -- and being open to change -- would be a good place to start.
Threatening to cancel subscriptions -- or, actually doing so -- over a rich, detailed obituary, accomplishes little. In fact, it may reinforce stereotypes of church members' intolerance!
2
I don't remember the obituary saying that Thomas Monson was senile during all of his tenure as church president. That may have been the most important thing to say about the man.
It was well known. I remember seeing on television a birthday celebration for him in a large hall several years ago that he attended. Oddly, he turned and watched on a screen with everyone else a pre-recorded video of him giving a short speech of thanks. Very surreal. My relatives told me that that was done because no one knew what he might say in a live speech.
That's not unusual in a church where the president is by custom the longest-serving member of the Quorum of the Twelve, its highest governing body. Ezra Taft Benson was barely alive and completely unresponsive during the last part of his presidency, yet the church kept up the pretense that he was still in charge. That prompted his grandson, political cartoonist Steve Benson, to leave the church.
That unfortunate practice of feeble or completely incapacitated leaders looks to continue as Thomas Monson's successor Russell Nelson is himself 93!
78
John, President Monson only took a serious turn for the worse healthwise in the final year or so of his life. He continued to address the church in semi-annual General Conferences until last April. Yes, he was burdened with age. We would all be blessed to age so gracefully. As for Russell M. Nelson, he may be 93, but doesn't look or act a day over 70!
If you have ever heard Russell Nelson speak, you would not say such things. When you live a clean life your chances of being able to live longer is much greater.
Before you dismiss Russell M. Nelson based on a number, try looking up his biography. He brings to the table a broad life experience. And try listening to his public addresses from the past few years (search for Russell Nelson General Conference). He's hardly feeble or incapacitated.
Dismissing Thomas Monson based on rumors from your relatives (who know how?) seems a bit unfair as well.
Why didn’t the article talk about what he was most famous for? He visited the 85 widows who were in his congregation as a young Bishop in his 20’s, and then continued to visit each of them regularly until they had all died decades later. Why didn’t they talk about the fact that he had been the most beloved story teller in the church since my mother was a kid in the 60’s? (I’m 40). His tender stories of kind service and love shown always left us inspired to lift and love our fellow men (all of them, even when—no, especially when they had different beliefs than us). Why no mention of the most profound change in emphasis in the church under his tenure? He added “caring for the poor and the needy” to the threefold mission of the church, thus adding a totally new branch of emphasis. His theme during his tenure was caring for the “one”, seeking out the “one”. It was all about lifting, loving, serving one person to another, as Christ did. Why no mention of the billions of charitable aid given to the poor, needy, hungry, and those in war-torn or disaster ridden areas around the world? Food and shelters in Haiti? Churches opened to flood victims in Houston? Wheel chairs by tens of thousands to the crippled around the globe? Thousands of wells dug in Africa to finally supply the dignity of clean water to the worlds poorest?
I could go on with what he has done to help make this world a better place and yet we heard none of it. Shame on the Times for not better honoring his goodness.
34
With all due respect, aren't these all things you would expect any good minister of whatever faith to do? And what many ministers of many faiths do do? I've never seen an obituary that said either in effect or in so many words, "He did what he was supposed to do."
1
You have offered many additional details, but you overlooked all that was in the obituary, including points relating to his working with the poor and less fortunate, which you claimed was ignored!
— “On Mr. Monson’s watch, the church enlarged its global missionary force to 69,200 from 52,000 and, in ... a major achievement, doubled the number of young women in its missionary ranks”
— "embraced humanitarian causes with Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups supporting homeless shelters, food banks, nursing homes and disaster relief efforts in the United States and abroad.”
Re-read the obituary -- but read the second part first. I think you'll discover they did a decent job.
You also need to keep in mind that an obituary is NOT a eulogy.
It focuses on the major life events and accomplishments of an individual, especially what happened during his time as a leader.
His story telling would be apropos for a funeral service, not an obituary.
1
The LDS Church denies civil rights to minorities and LGBTQs, then offers them "charity."
The world would be a better place without this cult founded by a lecherous charlatan.
1
Dear Mr. Wm. McDonald, Thank you very much for your responses to questions from readers' feedback regarding the obituary which you wrote on the life of our dear and beloved Prophet, Seer and Revelator, President Thomas S. Monson, for the New York Times. President Monson's profession was in the publishing business, and I am sure that he would also be grateful for your obituary.
6
I didn't like the obituary. Fell short in a major way. I recommend the writer read about him and learn something about how a noteworthy person like Monson lived his incredible life. Monson loved everyone.
12
I doubt that Mr. Monson "loved everyone." Some of his own statements belie that fiction.
While it is true that a journalist has a responsibility to present an objective "warts and all" picture of a person's life, McDonald chose to focus on the warts to the almost complete exclusion of the "all." I was surprised such a respected reporter from such a respected publication would end up with a final product that read like the work of a rookie reporter who is still learning to keep their biases in check. The obituary took the time to rehash the history of LDS polygamy, which President Monson had no part in, but couldn't spare any time to speak of many things he did lead the church in, including tens of millions of dollars' worth of humanitarian aid projects each year, including a great increase in focus on serving refugees and the homeless. It was a shame Mr. McDonald chose to hijack the obituary of a respected humanitarian to push his personal anti-Mormon biases.
79
Monson was involved in the controversy created by the new revelations about the church's history, which was why it was included in his obit.
It was not a "rehash of old issues," but a revival of them, of which revival Monson was a part.
1
Respected Publication is pretty strong here, but okay.
William McDonald states that "[They] have to let the facts of the life paint the picture." and "In [his] experience, when [they] do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints."
Is that comment meant to be a soft acknowledgement that the obituary in question was poorly written? They seemed to miss most of the facts of Thomas Monson's life and focus on a few decisions of church policy that; although they sparked emotional and widespread responses, were minor reflections of this man's leadership and life.
It is also of interest that the Mr. McDonald made the above claim and yet also claims to "try to give a flavor of the man or woman" and "try to trace the arc of a life, from birth - in part to suggest what may have driven a person to succeed." I think that the large discontent with the Times obituary for Mr. Monson is that they treated his flavor and arc of life like a green skittle, whimsically changing and ignoring them to satiate popular opinion. I expect better from a usually top-quality newspaper.
24
The "minor reflections" to which you refer include issues that are the gist of the church of which Monson was the leader.
Those issues affect not only LDS members, but non-Mormons who experience the positions the church takes when it involves itself in politics.
To try to claim that Monson was above all this because he was a "good person" is disingenuous.
Charity is not an excuse for using power to uphold positions that do actual harm to others, such as the church's shameful opposition to civil rights for minorities and LGBTQs.
Stay with the honorifics. Makes for a better read and upholds a standard....there is alot to be said for both.
4
The most accurate thing in this whole article:
“We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture. In my experience, when we do that fairly and accurately, there are few complaints.”
The number of complaints that this article has received, then, should imply to you that something has gone wrong in your “fair and accurate” reporting in this case. If more time were spent truly learning the facts of Thomas Monson’s life, you could paint a much more accurate picture, and wouldn’t be receiving so many complaints.
68
I agree. It seems the only research done on Monson's life was to rehash old articles about controversy that really were a very minor part of his life. Had they done any real research the article would have been much less a tirade and more of the "arc" of his life.
Maybe not from Mormons. Likely from the objects of Mormon persecution.
1
Yes! Why isn't McDonald and the Times understanding this?
Kind of you to take the time for some added explanation. Kind of you to commemorate his passing at all.
His truest memorial will always be City Creek Mall anyway.
17
Thank you for your response to the emotional reactions surrounding President Monson’s obituary. While a nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (LDS) is the “Mormon Church”—it’s just that, a nickname. May I request that in future NY Times publications that the correct name of this church be used? Many misconceptions are born from the use of the nickname and the primary use of the full name of the LDS Church would help to dispel some of the confusion, as well as portray a more accurate and respectful view of this religious organization.
21
The APstylebook that most journalists use dictates that “Mormon church” is acceptable in references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the official name should be used first. In the article, the author mentions stylebook usage when explaining his use of honorifics. This is another example.
I thought the obit for Mr. or President Monson was fine. There was no slander, there was no falsity. It had facts and it delivered facts. Just because it wasn’t all roses doesn’t mean it was a horrible obit. The Pope’s would read similar. A bipartisan view. Maybe think real hard about why you’re offended with the words written and you’ll see the issue isn’t with the obituary.
108
I'm going to disagree here. I think the current pope's NYT obituary would read very differently.
2
I do not disagree that the article contained facts. The fact and rub for me is that many of the positive and easily accessible facts were omitted.
This is a reasoned, professional response. Well done.
52
"We don’t stop there, of course; we also try to trace the arc of a life, from birth."
So when and where was Thomas S. Monson born? I have looked over that thing you call an 'obituary' and I see no mention of where he was born, where he went to school, his wife, his children, the profession he had before he dedicated his life to the LDS church- you know, things you typically see in an obituary. How about what he did before he was ordained the president of the LDS church in 2008? The only things you focused on was what happened during the last five years of his life. There is absolutely no examination of his 90 years. You didn't cover it at all. I am not buying the 'we try to cover the arc of a life'- because you didn't. And you say you reached out to the LDS church representatives- did you get a response? If so, what was that response?
I see nothing but lame excuses here. You fouled up- the obituary for Thomas S. Monson that you printed was an OPINION piece- the writer obviously doesn't agree with the teachings of the LDS church, and that's fine, but then you should have picked someone on the staff to write the obit that could keep their personal feelings out, if such a person exists on your staff. The least you could do is move that obituary to the editorials where it belongs.
102
The great majority of the New York Times's readers are not Mormon church members, so giving the background of the man's life and leadership seems appropriate.
The obituary certainly was not an opinion piece. Utahns (and I was born and raised in Logan as a Mormon though I am no longer a Mormon or a Utahn) need to accept the fact that people outside the Mormon church will not be writing the hagiographies that people inside the church demand.
68
Mr. Smithson, I certainly understand The Times has a wider audience, and I’m not expecting a fawning tribute to Monson here, but you can’t tell me it’s normal to completely fail to mention over fifty years of apostolic ministry, or anything that occured in that time (a time which saw many nationally newsworthy events in the church he helped oversee).
1
I'm sorry, did you read the obituary?
"Thomas Spencer Monson was born in Salt Lake City on Aug. 21, 1927, the second of six children of George Spencer Monson and the former Gladys Condie. He grew up in a tight-knit extended Mormon family that lived in proximity and that often worked, vacationed and worshiped together. At 12, he began working in a printing business his father managed.
He graduated from West High School in Salt Lake City in 1944. After starting at the University of Utah, he joined the Naval Reserve in 1945. World War II ended months later, and after stateside training, his tour of duty ended in 1946. He re-entered the University of Utah, graduating in 1948 with honors and a bachelor’s degree in marketing, and earned a Master of Business Administration degree from Brigham Young University in 1974.
In 1948, he married Frances Beverly Johnson. She died in 2013. Survivors include their three children, Thomas and Clark Monson and Ann Dibb; eight grandchildren; and 12 great-grandchildren.
As is common in Mormonism, Mr. Monson’s life straddled the worlds of business and religion. A printer by trade, he was an advertising executive with The Deseret News in the 1940s, and rose in the 1960s to general manager of the Deseret News Press, a church-affiliated printing firm. He was a longtime director and board chairman of the Deseret News Publishing Company."
3
Was it an obituary or an editorial? The two should be separate articles.
33
From the outraged and indignant responses, I'd say what Monson's followers wanted from the obit was hagiography. That's for them and their church to provide, not the New York Times.
195
No, a hagiography would be longer, but I understand your point. We didn't want a hagiography, we just didn't want an article that originally focused mostly on the controversial issues Monson addressed and very little on his accomplishments and achievements.
No what we wanted was an actual Obit. The first 3/4ths of the article attacked our church and our doctrine under the guise of discussing his death. The last 1/4th of the article discussed monson's accomplishments briefly.... that was it. About a paragraph and a half of "oh and he did some nice things" after nearly two pages of attacking church policy and doctrine.
1
Perhaps, but don’t you find it odd that the obit. spends the majority of space discussing the last five years of Monson’s life, along with a rough outline of his first twenty years— entirely neglecting a fifty-year ministry as an apostle involved in many nationally newsworthy events involving the church?
2
at a glance it seems you gave more column inches and thought to your NOT an apology but a splaining than you did to the obituary. #fail
26
Why didn't the first 1/3 obituary of the Pope cover all the controversy of his church? From the inquisition to molesting priests? Including same issues with LGBT? Is it because Mormons are a smaller group and easier to pick on?
I'm a long time paying subscriber and I'm just disappointed in your "obituary." You have tarnished yourselves.
80
Actually, the point you raise is the opposite of what you intended.
The obit of the Pope should have begun with his tenure over a church riddled with corruption and greed.
After all, were he not Pope, there would not be an obit about him.
The same goes for Monson, were he not president ofthe LDS Church.
Could be because Catholicism is far better known to the average leader than is the LDS Church. A recent Pew study found that 21% of Americans consider themselves Catholic vs. 2% LDS...and that 2% includes both active and inactive members.
2
Because the Catholic Church's news is worldwide news, everyone knows about the scandals. It's true this was different BECAUSE yours is smaller but not "easier to pick on", it's scandals are simply not known to outsiders so it IS relevant to readers.
2
Did the Reverend Sun Myung Moon get this kind of flack over his obit? I mean a cult is a cult right?
73
During his long tenure, Mr. Monson and his fellow leaders used their resources to oppose the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the ERA in the 1970s, and since the mid-1990s deployed in opposition for full civil rights for the LGBT. It is hard to find another institution so intent on suffocating the civil rights of others. This is a religion that has declared other Christian denominations to be abominations and they have the audacity to baptize the dead of other faiths. The editorial was far too kind to Mr. Monson.
168
Ah yes, the millions it spent (secretly,) in California to oppose Same-sex Marriage, and then money spent in court fighting the publication of the amount of money they spent.
2
Mr. Brown, I don't think you have a substantive understanding of the evolution of faiths over the last century and pose the responsibility of change as one man's responsibility ignorantly and inappropriately. Religion is not about generational mores, nor is it about political capital. Please use some discernment when objectifying a man who dedicated his life to what he felt (at his core) was right - even if you felt he was not aligned with the times. The LDS faith is ahead and behind many parts of our social evolution - as is the place for faith. It is an anchor for people, not a revolutionary movement. The one thig is is clearly evident about kindness, is that you reserve yours for those with a similar political agenda - perhaps it is you who need to better understand kindness before you assess another person.
Another mischaracterization perpetuated by the example set here by the NYTimes. Also this, like the article, entirely dismisses the majority of other activities performed by this man whose tenure of 7 decades had countless other successes.
I have not read the obituary and, thus, have no comment on it.
However, the standards and editorial policies McDonald expounds in this column are excellent, standards I wish were applied more broadly at the Times. Whether those standards were applied in this case, I obviously cannot say.
Below are excerpts from McDonald's comments which, I believe, represent fundamentally good journalistic standards.
"We’re not in the business of paying tribute. We’re journalists first and foremost. I think in tracing the life of a religious leader, it would almost go without saying that he or she had won the respect and admiration of those who put them in positions to lead."
"But we’re careful not to perform the role of eulogist, simply singing someone’s praises. We don’t write tributes. We strive for warts-and-all biography, in short form."
"We do think about particular audiences. We understand that those audiences will be the ones that scrutinize our work most closely....We also understand that these audiences will be more sensitive than most to how we portray someone known to them. Some may have an agenda of some kind, wanting us to portray someone as they want that person to be remembered, perhaps in a light that best serves their interests. We can’t bend to that, of course. We have to let the facts of the life paint the picture."
16
I would suggest that focusing only on the controversy of someone's life and glossing over all of the commendable things they have done represents the opposite of what is suggested above. The author suggests that "some may have an agenda wanting us to portray someone as they want that person to be remembered" Actually most of the criticism of the author is that he himself focused on how he wanted the person to be remembered, perhaps in a bad light that best serves his interests. He seemed to have no problem bending to that. He conveniently excluded the facts of the man's life that would paint an alternative picture. I read over 15 obituaries on the man and this one was the most biased in this regard.
Agreed, these are great standards, and its my opinion that the Atlantic Obit hit the right tone and balance, discussing some of the controversies, and also talking about the mans actual life. However, when an author purposefully ignores the actual life of the actual man for the first 3/4ths of the obit, using that space and the instance of his death to attack a faith and its doctrine as "controversial" and "embattled", and then the last 1/4th of the obit is an "oh and by the way here's a little tidbit about his actual ministry and accomplishments" then yea.... its not an obit. Its a hit piece.
Here's the main problem, LDS people (mormons) get a lot of hate from our detractors anyway. A lot of anti-Mormon material is published and circulated both tot he right and the left of where the church is politically (which is relatively moderate on most issues). The first 3/4ths of this "Obit" reads exactly like what most of that dross reads like.
1
Living in Utah, I'm aware of how anything related to the LDS religion/corporation is big news. The Utah papers are skewed to put the Mormon church and it's leaders in the best light regardless of the facts. So when a national paper writes a non-emotional and fact-based obituary, I can understand why the members of the church are offended. They seem to forget that only a small percentage of the world's population revere him as a "prophet." To the rest of the world, he is merely a corporate head. All the facts listed in the obituary were accurate. It was appropriate for the newspaper audience for which it was written. There are plenty of papers, articles, and even freeway billboards in this state that are oozing with sentiment and praise for this man. Please continue to honor the facts, more than the man. Uthans honor him enough for the entire world.
222
The problem here is Monson was treated different than those who subscribe to the Time's political and moral view; many examples are written other responses. If you mean the Time's audience is only written for secular liberals and not inclusive of those that don't have the same point of view your right.
1
It's almost entirely unanimous from a worldwide audience that NYT Missed the facts here.
1
Vicki, thank you for recognizing how this obit is offensive. I do not want or expect a hagiography. He was not perfect, as none of us are. The NYT missed out on a whole lot about his life, purposely or not, that I think we agree on, and this is very disappointing. Unfortunately it is a microcosm of my faith, perhaps not in the mountain west and Utah, but elsewhere, Mormons are a clear target, as are other faiths.
1
I feel like it's akin to saying Ghandi was just someone who starved himself and let his wife die when she needed medical care. This is definitely not what I would classify as good or even decent journalism. It felt inexperienced and without an attempt to understand. It was clearly the perspective of someone outside of his faith and, in my opinion, good journalism (with that as a main defense) seeks to tell more than that. I feel like non-Christian religions or non-religious people that make the news get better than this. It's like it's trendy to cry tolerance as you attack. Someone who has been about peace and tolerance for decades gets this but someone who's life is about objectifying young women gets...? So by your definition, good journalism doesn't include insider perspective, doesn't include a big picture, doesn't include...anything but bias and controversy over a man who JUST DIED. Good journalism indeed. Another "news" source I can skip.
22
The LDS Church may claim to be about "tolerance," but it is not about equal rights for minorites and LGBTQs.
You can keep your "tolerance." Just please stop participating in political movements to deny others their rights.
An my name is joe smith, you may know me as famed treasure seeker using my renowned rock for locating lost treasure and let me tell you something about inexperience. you know who was really inexperienced? Fanny Alger thats who that 16 year old girl couldent even keep a secret from Emma! so inexperienced...
Why not address the question about biases towards Chávez and Hefner? I believe that’s a tougher question to answer - it seems clear to a layman that NYT did not apply the same methodology.
55
Way to be unapologetic about focusing on the "prominent issues" rather than the 60 years of selfless service, humanitarian and spiritual outreach of this great man and prophet.
17
There was much talk of contradictions being addressed while President Monson was at the head of the church, but there was no real controversy. They were controversial themes for society, not for the church. The doctrine was always quite clear and objective regarding homosexual conduct, President Monson was consistent in following the doctrine of the church, of which he was the leader.
Regarding the age change for missionary service, it has changed for women, but also changed for men. And why is this a question? The role of women within the church is absolutely respectable, we are partakers of creation, we do not need the priesthood. We do not want the priesthood for us, we respect and like the way Jesus Christ organized. We only ask for more respect, because there was no contradiction.
The prophet Monson would not change anything, nor would he authorize anything contrary to the doctrine of the church.
21
There are many Mormons who disagree with you, and many who have left the church because of its unbending biases towards women, minorities, and LGBTQs.
You can't pretend the controversies don't exist, just because you don't want the church to change.
He wouldn't authorize anything contrary to the doctrine of the church? I disagree. Punishing the children of same-sex couples is not at all in keeping with a Christian doctrine, and Mormons constantly declare that they are indeed Christians. So why aren't children of same-sex couples allowed to be baptized? Never punish the son/daughter for the sins of the father/mother.
Mormon stance regarding blacks being unfit for the priesthood and being cursed in their skin color was once "clear doctrine". Until, suddenly, it wasn't.
That's the funny thing about doctrine. It always bends to evolving societal norms. Never the other way around. The Mormon stance on gays will change too. Because society's position is based on science, observation, fairness and empathy, and the church's position isn't. No doubt they will dress up the reversal as a "revelation" as they did in the late 70s, and then move on to the next cultural flashpoint. Religions evolve to survive. It was ever thus.
And yet you still don’t have the decency or respect to address him with his correct title of President Monson when even the President of the United States was able to show that.
13
The media don't usually address people as "President someone" unless it is of the nation.
The presidents of colleges, associations, clubs, boards of directors, and other organizations are usually addressed as Mr./Mrs./Ms.
And even the president of the US is usually so addressed.
Honorifics are elitist anyway. We're all just people.
1
This was addressed.
"No disrespect was intended. We might have referred to him as “President Monson” at least once, in keeping with our stylebook, but that book also says, “Mr. and Dr. are also appropriate.”
In any case, “Mr.” is a common honorific in our pages for ministers (we’re obliged to say “Mr. Jones” on second reference, not “Reverend Jones”) and even presidents of the United States (you’ll find plenty of “Mr. Trump”s in our pages).
Incidentally, I noticed that the Deseret News in Utah used “President” on each reference to Mr. Monson, but that The Salt Lake Tribune — like almost every other American publication — dispensed with any honorific altogether. To my ear, “Mr. Monson” sounds far more respectful than just “Monson.”"
I get the journalism should be honest. I get that it doesn't have to be a tribute (or, making something good from something that might be bad). I get that Monson as a person is going to be very hard to separate from the church (he was the president, and therefore prominent, and assumed to be fully in charge).
But why not do that in an editorial? It seems to me, the obituary should be short and personal, and you could use another page to slather on the details about the intimacy of what happened for an organization during the tenure of a president?
I mean, the ARE stories about what Monson actually did while claiming to be a representative of the church. You probably could've contacted a few people to give you at least a few dozen stories about what he did with his own hands rather than lump it ALL into the church. It was his death -- why not write specifically about him? The church didn't die.
17
As a non-Mormon living in Utah, I believe the NYT did what they were supposed to do and what I have seen in countless other obits about the famous and infamous. Of course, I do not believe that Mr. Monson was an actual prophet or a saint or that he is now preparing to become the god of his own planet; those beliefs are not part of my dogma. I also found some of Mr. Monson's "revelations" unbelievably hurtful, especially the idea that children of gay parents must choose between the LDS church and their parents and I agree that these are worthy of mention in an obituary. Members of the LDS faith are of course entitled to believe as they choose but they forget on a regular basis that this does not entitle them to impose their beliefs on others.
184
Hello Carol,
actually, the Church's policy on children in families with gay parents is intended to protect them from "having" to choose between the Church and their parents until they are of an age to be accountable for their own decisions. I understand that to most it looks like what you described. The revelation is intended to be merciful, not hurtful. Also, most people, I've found, complain that Mormons try to impose our beliefs on others, all the while insisting that we accept, tolerate, and even support the beliefs of others that are being legally and socially imposed upon us. This is a double standard, where I have seen time and again that the Church works to avoid such double standards in every way. We simply insist that our own members uphold our standards, not everyone else in the world. We are proponents for the Freedom of Religion in every regard.
Lora
8
Carol, I agree with you on many points and I think living in the Utah culture is a bizarre and disorienting experience for anyone who is not LDS, or who is Mormon and was raised elsewhere (as I was).
That being said, I must vehemently disagree with your statement that children of gay parents must choose between the LDS church and their parents. The church's recent policy promotes the COMPLETE opposite. Their policy puts fealty to one's parents as paramount by not even giving the option to choose the church over parents -- that is why they cannot be baptized into a church that opposes gay marriage. Why would any gay parents want their child to be confused (and I would argue damaged) by these conflicting feelings? I genuinely don't know the answer to this question. Love and honor of parents is far more important to mental and emotional wellness. The church is strongly opposed to gay marriage; that is how it stands. But they also put respect for gay-parent families and the wellbeing of children above trying to increase their numbers.
1
Lora,
You are being disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.
The LDS Church through its political activities does indeed impose its beliefs on others.
Its opposition to civil rights for women, minorities, and gays has influenced legislation, and not just in Utah.
Claiming that this is just being faithful to church doctrine does not excuse it. On the contrary, it's a condemnation of church doctrine.
1
It is interesting to me that his obituary includes what the man did not do, rather than what he did do. What he did not do was change his church's doctrine. Are we shocked that the Pope also does not radically change Catholic doctrine? I don't think so. Mormon and Catholic stances are quite similar when it comes to marriage and priesthood. I have a hard time believing that NTY would report the same things of the Pope if he were to die even though he made similar decisions to President Monson concerning the same topics.
I don't expect an obituary to be a tribute, but I do expect it to report the deaths of important figures without editorial in them. If you'd like to comment on his life and decisions, by all means write an editorial.
37
The obit reported the facts. It did not give the writer's opinion.
If you want to show where it seemed to you like an editorial, by all means please do so.
Seems like an obvious miss to not draw attention to the fact that as a young 22-year-old bishop he had to watch over all those people and especially the 85 (or whatever the number was) widows without pay. Or that he came from a poor neighborhood. Or that he lived in an extremely humble home his entire life. Or that he added an official 4th mission to the church: to care for the poor and needy. He lived a far more humble life than most religious leaders. Take a look at the Salt Lake Tribune editorial about it, then please amend your obituary to be balanced. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2018/01/05/tribune-editorial-mo...
20
"In the 1950s, he was the bishop of a ward, akin to a parish, of 1,000 Mormons, including 85 widows whom he visited regularly and 23 men serving in the Korean War to whom he wrote personal letters weekly."
"Awaiting his turn for the presidency, he embraced humanitarian causes with Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups supporting homeless shelters, food banks, nursing homes and disaster relief efforts in the United States and abroad."
These topics were touched on in the obituary written by the NYT.
2
The Salt Lake Tribune depends upon the advertising of members of the LDS Church.
Also, an obit is not an editorial.
1
Here’s the rub, the NYT gave a factual, bulletted synopses of the man and President of the Mormon Church. It was fair and objective. What it lacked was emotion (as it should). What members of the church seem to be expecting us for it to be an emotional piece, a special tribute to a man they love and adore. The fact is, it is unreasonable for others outside the faith feel the same way about the man. They will respect him (or not) for the things he’s done or has presided over, not by what he means to his committed followers.
He has done and allowed many great things by many, but he has also done and allowed many not so great things by others.
Apologizes should not be expected or given for not seeing a man in the same light that his followers do. That’s just childish.
129
Cody, two paragraphs were devoted to Joseph Smith's polygamy. Why?
2
Tom, thanks for the question. I’m not sure. My best guess is based off the assumption that, again, this piece was written in regards to how outsiders view the church and it’s leaders and not how church members view the church and it’s leaders.
It did not lack emotion. It exuded a visceral attack couched as objectivity. This was an effort at the author to even the score against "politics" he found offensive.
I think it is more about the headline and 2 sentence summary that most people saw and read to be bothersome. You focused on what you perceived to be social injustices (but equates to apostasy in the Church) that went unchanged under his tenure as President. You held him accountable for what you deem to be wrong yet he stayed true to what faithful Mormons believe to be revealed from God since its founding in 1830.
15
First, this is not an apology. Second, I don’t think most readers deny the truth about the post or the fact that you have the right to post what you want. It’s the fact that the leading title reflected the controversy surrounding the church. Others who have done terrible things were given a more respectful title. Out of respect, lead with the good. He did way more good during his lifetime then the few controversial/political things of the past few years. You are influencing a generation of readers. Remember that.
22
And the LDS Church in its political activities adversely affected millions of people.
Who was the leader of that church? Let's see ...
1
I have not read the obituary and, thus, have no comment on it nor on whether William McDonald, the Obituary Editor, does in fact accurately portray the obituary. However, the standards and editorial policies McDonald expounds in this column are excellent, standards I wish were applied more broadly at the Times.
7
There is a link to the obit right in the article.
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I understand that you feel professionally obligated to "fully air . . . from both sides" the prominent issues faced by President Monson during his life. However, by so doing, the real man became unrecognizable to millions who knew him from afar or up close. That result must also violate some journalistic canon.
Among the many tributes, the following captures for me the essence of Thomas S. Monson. This was some years ago and would have been unknown if one of his colleagues had not mentioned it in 2014. This man was always doing small acts of charity to individuals, and not looking for any thanks or recognition. With all due respect, this is the man deserving of illumination in your obit.
[I pay a personal tribute to President Thomas Spencer Monson. I have been blessed by an association with this man for 47 years now, and the image of him I will cherish until I die is of him flying home from then–economically devastated East Germany in his house slippers because he had given away not only his second suit and his extra shirts but the very shoes from off his feet. “How beautiful upon the mountains [and shuffling through an airline terminal] are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace.” [Isaiah 52:7.] More than any man I know, President Monson has “done all he could” for the widow and the fatherless, the poor and the oppressed. [Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Are We Not All Beggars?, LDS General Conference, October 2014.]]
13
Thank you!
The LDS Church glorifies the man after he is elected as prophet, seer and revelator. LDS members assume that he is a great man, and build him up because he is selected. How he is in his his private life is another matter.
Its the Church that does these humanitarian things, he follows, because he is loyal, they attribute these things to him personally, but in actuality, its the policy of the church, and a whole group of men.
7
Patricia, you are totally mistaken. First of all, there aren't "elections" in the Church and I'm pretty sure you know that very well. Also, LDS Church doesn't glorify the prophet. We glorify Jesus Christ. Finally, if this obituary were about the Pope I'm sure the journalists would be a lot more respectful only because he is a leader of a famous religion. President Monson was far more than what it was written here.
12
I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree with this to an extent. Most of the things we honor President Monson for were very personal and were things he did as an individual that went above and beyond what most church leaders even do. He personally left a war torn country in his slippers because he had given a man the shoes off his feet. He spent a large part of Christmas day visiting lonely widows so they would not spend the day totally alone. Yes, we ask leaders and other church members to take care of the lonely, but President Monson actually did it and to an extra degree. So I totally get what you're saying about members putting the president on a pedestal, and you're absolutely right that most of the policies, etc. he is known for are made by a whole group of men with him being the most visible. But he was truly remarkable in living what he taught.
12
All journalist have an agenda. They defend it but they are all biased. They may not see it but they are all disrespectful and care more about the amount of people that read their publications than about the truth or really getting to know the issues or the people. That is how they make their money. They end up thinking they touch many but nowadays, all that is written is forgotten very soon. They just have to go and write more about groups that do not threaten them ( for thy are either afraid of the mainstream or certain groups so they attack whoever is popular to attack at the moment or whoever fits their prejudice) and pretend to be cool and hope more people will read and the more that it is read the more they think they are important. That is all. No one really cares about what they write because they are in a hurry to write something catchy or something shocking to get more readers so they stay employed. My recommendation is not to even get offended with what one person gathered in a hurry about a person and a subject without any desire to really be fair, but they only thing they care about is the shock factor and that is all. So instead of promoting understanding, civilization and decency for the most part they just divide the public more and make people take sides.
6
I think you missed the point. An article covering Mr.Monson's death would have been more appropriate to write your opinion reporting of him. An obituary is supposed to be a brief description of the good a person has accomplished in their life as well as mentioning their survivors and family who preceded them in death. What you wrote was not deemed an obituary. The thing you failed to realize is that Latter-day Saint doctrine and teachings will be upheld by whomever the Prophet is. So to say all of that Mormon doctrinal things that Mr.Monson upheld was not necessary. An obituary is not the place for that.
25
You are confusing an obituary with a eulogy.
1
"Mr. Monson’s life included strong community and humanitarian work..."
But did he, from his position of power, help bend the arc of moral justice? Or was he just a good person serving a community that resists progressive change?
39
"The arc of moral justice" is subjective. For some, he may have resisted progressive change but for others, they didn't see the need for President Monson to "bend the arc" because moral values are what they are, even throughout time.
5
You misunderstand. President Monson's was not a
"position of power." It was a position of service; first to God, second to His earthly church and third, to every living individual because each one of us is a child of God. It was never his job to "bend the arc of moral justice." He was not "resisting progressive change." He was upholding the Divine Laws and Precepts of the only One to whom he answered: Heavenly Father. To this end, President Monson did his job faithfully and as fully as any human being can manage in a lifetime dedicated to loving and serving the Lord through selfless service to others.
Lora
5
Lora,
Obeying the commands of an imaginary god does not justify positions that oppose the rights of others.
Loyalty is not an end in itself.
I believe the writer and/or editor need to be reminded that with so much bad and tragic being reported on daily why not look to break the cycle with writing about that which is Good. Thomas S. Monson exemplified and embodied all that was good and his story can uplift and encourage many in a world that sensationalizes violence, cruelty and hatred. His service to the lonely elderly, giving the literal suit off his back on a number of occasions as well as his shoes (walking through an airport in slippers as a result) to those in need and his leadership of so many faithful teaching us all to love our neighbour as ourselves. Why highlight whatever controversy when so much Good came of his life? Why challenge the beliefs of a religion who sustains their prophet? Your homework was not thorough enough because if it was then I am certain your hearts would be touched by the incredible achievements of this man we call President Monson. It is my hope one day that you will revisit the life of this tender soul and spiritual giant to see with better eyes and greater understanding. Yes there is free speech....but there is always a choice and writing about Good will serve the greater purpose always.
15
Yes, he gave the suit off his back, and the shoes off his feet. Those items were purchased with the corporate credit card and replaced using the same funds. Therefore, it was the tithes of the lay members of the church that paid for those shoes and clothes. It wasn't a sacrifice for Monson to give away something he received for free and replaced for free.
29
I highly doubt it. Mormon leaders don't make a lot of money and they most certainly don't have a clothing allowance. For years, they didn't even stay in hotels when they traveled but in the homes of members. When Mormon leaders from Salt Lake go to other areas, they eat meals prepared by the members either at the members' homes or in church buildings. However one might feel about the Mormon church, one cannot say that they are extravagant.
1
I feel like some of these responses are a bunch of malarkey. William McDonald mentions multiple times in this response that they were trying to create an outline of President Monson's life. However there isn't one. The whole article is about controversy. To name one it mentions the excommunication of a someone "for organizing a group called ordain women" without mentioning that that group encouraged women to boycott church and disrespect leadership as a means of protest (which is a more understandable grounds for excommunication in my opinion). Several other social controversies were brought up and represented in a negative light and without context or explanation. In the last quarter of the obituary we FINALLY hear President Monson's birth date, about his family, where he went to college, about his humanitarian efforts and his outreach with other religious leaders. How is that an outline of his life?
On top of that I am not buying the excuse that Mr. Monson is the same to you as any other honorific and that it is typical not to use their authoritative title. In the Obituary to Pope John Paul II in 2005 he was referred to as the Pope. Also the idea you can't just say people loved him. Back to the Pope's obit it quotes the president saying "Pope John Paul II was himself an inspiration to millions of Americans and to so many more throughout the world." So why couldn't Trump's comments be quoted? Or anyone else's recognizing his general goodness? We aren't buying it NYTimes.
57
The obit did quote someone commenting on Monson's life.
Silly to compare the term "the Pope" with the use of "Mr." in referring to Monson. Did you expect the obit to refer to Monson as "the President"?
There is only one Pope, and "the President" always refers to the president of the US.
The obituary, like many others prepared by news outlets, was likely written before Mr. Monson died...and thus before Mr. Trump had any time to tweet a remark.
The LDS adherents were not going to be truly happy unless it was a glowing endorsement of everything Monson did. I think the obit could have added a expounded more on his military service and charitable works, but really even then they were not going to be happy because his wort were presented as well and they think/thought of him as almost perfect and the embodiment of good.
47
I have to disagree. I'm a member, and I didn't mind them expounding on controversies. All they said was true, and I have no problem with it. Honestly, I don't think President Monson would have any problem with it. He did everything they said openly and without shame, and he did so for a reason. I can read the obituary and say, yes, all of that is true and not mind that it was said at all. What I did find surprising was the fact that the Times seemed to focus only on the controversial instead of overviewing a life which is what an obituary is for. I don't even think anything needed to be taken away necessarily. I do think a broader view was needed to include who he was as a person to both member and nonmember alike throughout his life.
18
Janna,
The only reason Monson had an editorial in the Times was that he was president of the church.
So it was appropiate that the obit first focus on that.
“I think the obituary was a faithful accounting of the more prominent issues that Mr. Monson encountered and dealt with publicly during his tenure. “
This first sentence shows you have no grasp on Mormon culture or doctrine. The whole women in the priesthood was such a small event in the eyes of me and fellow church members. It was a topic of discussion for a couple of weeks maybe less. Anyone in the church feels the strong love an acceptance for both sexes, and the belief that we are equal with different responsibilities. It’s laughable that this was presented in the article as a huge controversy that shook a large groups faith.
12
I agree. I feel that this was such a tiny group of women going against what the majority of church women would want (we already run the church - why on earth would we want to add the priesthood responsibilities to our lists), and yet it was portrayed as though church women are clamoring for ordination when it was a such a small group.
3
Janna,
Regardless of the size of the group, it represents an issue that is important beyond the doctrinare insularity of the LDS Church.
You may dismiss it, but even the leaders of your own church have over the past century and a half found fit to amend church doctrine with changing times.
You seem to be insisting that the obit in the NYT should reflect your own point of view, or that of church members. What a peculiar demand.
5
The big issue was the tweet that picked the most controversial point that had the least to do with Monson as a person or as a leader and made no reference to the broad scope of his work. Still doesn't clarify that the "vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage" were mostly led by nonmembers and even the subject of woman ordination is not popular among the general church members.
Still doesn't explain the inclusions that have nothing to do with Monson. For instance, the article implies that the excommunication of Kate Kelly and other related sanctions were ordered by Monson, but they were in fact issued by local leaders without the advice of general leadership. The paragraphs about Joseph Smith and polygamy also digress from the discussion of Monson. And the article also fails to mention what Monson had to do with the Church's recent relationship with the BSA, as it was previously announced that Monson had essentially stopped working by that point.
Finally, although the article mentions reaching out to the Church for comment, it does not confirm they left enough time for the Church to respond (on what was probably a busy day for the Church's public affairs department). But speaking about style guides, is the New York Times aware of the resources for the media at mormonnewsroom.org? Because even the title of the obituary doesn't follow the provided style guide.
23
The fact that the majority of Mormons agree with the church's policies is irrelevant.
There are significant members and non-members who do not, and many of us outsiders who see the church as misogynist, racist, and homophobic.
The events you cite happened during Monson's tenure and are therefore relevant to his obituary.
I completely agree, almost everything in this article was used in the most negative light it could have been. The pointed out something good he did and then responded with things like: "vetted by leaders"
I used to have respect for nyt... Guess that's gone now.
If you think the NY Times obituary writers are going to break with their standards to follow a Mormon 'style guide,' it's no wonder you're disappointed.
3
Your obits was good for a public figure. He made decisions that affect millions of people and some of those where not of this era. With treating women and LGBTQ with a lower status it wrong and when they do they act like it a big deal. The last think Mr. Monson did was to let young women (12-17 years of age) hand out towels after a baptism been performed. Then started how this will cause rejoice. Or when they passed the November policy about LGBTQ and the suicides of LGBTQ teen skyrocketed. Mr. Monson made no prophecies that help the members or the world.
And as to lowering the age it was a gimmick because they noticed the current generation was leaving the church between high school graduation and the time they could go so they shortened it to b right after the Finished school.
Then what I think is one of the worst things is to let grown men interview teens alone and ask details about their sex life see partition here https://www.gopetition.com/banners/protect-the-children-stop-mormon-mast...
24
Jacob, how do you know he treated LQBTQ and women with lower status? Are you in one of those categories? Is so, how have you been treated differently. Please share.
For some of my coreligionists, anything less than the full Deseret News treatment is proof that The Times thinks more highly of Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, and Hugh Hefner than President Monson. I thought the obituary was fine and fairly represented its deceased subject and the challenges the LDS Church has faced in recent years, although I can see what has set some people off. I accept Mr. McDonald’s comment that, in hindsight, more attention could have been paid to the human side of this religious leader.
56
President Monson was an amazing man, why should the opinion of a few man, who didn't really know him count? It doesn't! I am glad we have the internet nowadays, where people can show the truth, instead of being obligated to believe what the media wants them to believe. President Monson deserved much more. It's unbelievable what you tried to do in the obituary. I am glad I don't read the The New York Times, because it is definitely not reliable.
4
When you state that “many readers” are offended I think a little research may be needed (though likely impossible). “Many readers” would never have known about the obit and are not NY Times readers except that it was published all over local papers, highlighting the issue. I’ve never seen any other NY Times piece featured so intently on the front pages of our local papers before so I can only guess that the religious right in this state were making a point. Your clarification was spot on and if you give it a few weeks the religious right will be on to another topic....
53
deseret news linked it and the hoards arrived.
19
Regardless of how the readers found the NYT article, they became readers when they clicked on the link that led them to the article. Maybe it was highlighted in local newspapers but that doesn't make the opinions of those readers any less important.
3
This "circle the wagons" mentality is so typical of the LDS faith. Anything that is published, anywhere, that is not a glowing, sycophantic reflection of their "religion" or membership is immediately flagged as libel and the masses are alerted to show their outrage. I have seen it elsewhere, and these upset Mormons will scuttle back to the safety of the Deseret News (the local LDS owned mouthpiece) where they belong.
4
The response by the Obits Editor is shallow, self serving, and insincere. He describes accounts of President Monson's individual, uplifting service as moments of personal rather than public life--thus, they do not merit focus. He missed the story.
These accounts, serving the widows, uplifting the downtrodden and encouraging all around him to rise up and become better, are highly public. They reflect President Monson's churchwide policy in creating a fourth church-stated mission for the 16 million members of the church to "Care for the poor and needy." You ignore his public wish that, rather than send him gifts and flowers for his birthday church members "Do something for someone else on that day to make his or her life better. Find someone who is having a hard time or is ill or lonely and do something for them. That's all I would ask." His entire life was dedicated to this very purpose.
These instances of individual service were made public through his talks to millions of people worldwide over decades of living in a public spot light. They were published in books. They reflect church policy and were particularly emphasized under his leadership. These acts were shared to encourage others to do the same. These acts are the essence of his administration as prophet and president of the Church of Jesus Christ. To ignore or diminish this fact, to neglect to highlight this as THE central story of his obituary is to ignore the essence of this man and his public influence.
43
News flash! A religion decides to adopt a policy of ""Care for the poor and needy."! How utterly unremarkable. One would hope that was always a church's mission.
2
Very well said.
Find someone who is having a hard time or is ill or lonely and do something for them. That's all I would ask."
There have been thousands of LGBT Mormons who have been/are lonely and having a hard time in this church. The suicide rate for young people in Utah is through the roof. Asking people to find someone who is lonely and be kind to them is a selective message. If the LDS church were universally humanitarian, it never would have spent so much time, money and effort in Prop 8, amicus briefs to the Supreme Court etc, trying to make same-sex marriage unavailable to LGBT individuals and encouraging its gay members to live lonely lives of celibacy or be excommunicated. History will not look back kindly on this type of church policy just as it has not looked kindly on the exclusion of the blacks from the LDS priesthood before 1978. Thomas S Monson is probably not wholly responsible for this policy as he was obviously in poor health in the final years of his presidency. Nevertheless it occurred under his watch and will forever be part of his legacy.
I found this very informative of why the obit was written the way it was and I'm glad you treat your reader concerns this way.
17
I had commented on the original obit - as having been well written for a non Mormon, like me.
And I appreciate the NYT explaining this obit with this editor.
And I fully agree with explanations which will allow me to appreciate next "controversial" obit even more.
38
In regards to usuing the honorific term of "Mr.", I feel like it's not logical to compare the head of a world wide religious organization to the president of the the United States, especially when a lot of people, journalists included, don't even respect Trump as president. It is much more logical to compare President London to the Pope, in which case you do not refer to Pope Francis as "Mr. Bergoglio" in any of your articles about him.
4
All honorifics are nonsense. We are all just people.
"The pope" is not a title. It is a job description, like "The president."
Trump is often referred to as "Mr. Trump."
Strange comment. President Trump is often referred in print as 'Mr.' (a title also used for every president before him) — regardless of whether the source 'respects' Mr. Trump or not. 'Mr.' does not indicate respect — it's a generic title for a man.
The Pope (which literally means 'Papa' in Latin) is the head of a sovereign city-state that has been around since the 1st century. He is the official head of the Catholic Church, which numbers 1.29 billion members worldwide. His title denotes that position - much like 'His Highness' or 'His Majesty.' The Pope is a leader on the world stage and an influential figure in religion, politics, social justice, etc.
To compare the Pope to the leader of a Christian sect that has been around for less than 200 years and with a membership of only 16 million is not realistic. From all of the glowing testimonies I've read about Mr. Munson in these opinion threads (a disproportionate number of them coming from Utah... hmm) it would seem that the only people who have a problem with Mr. Munson's title in the NY Times are his parishioners. It sounds like he would have been fine with 'Mr.'
And for what it's worth — I'm neither a Catholic or Mormon (or religious at all, for that matter). I just don't like groups demanding fealty or respect simply because they belong to said group.
1