I have watched with a bit of confusion the furor surrounding the New York Times obituary of President Thomas Monson. Social media is awash in bitter complaints by LDS Church members that the obituary had an unfairly negative slant. The NYT responded to the complaints, defending the obituary’s wording.
I see the NYT obituary as covering the newsworthy elements of President Monson’s life from an outsider’s perspective, so I hear the complaints as so much whining. Remember, to an outsider, unfamiliar with President Monson (i.e., the average reader of the NYT), the Church’s hostility to LGBT causes and engagement in the Culture Wars are probably the most newsworthy events in the tenure of President Monson. The obituary reflects this.
I know a lot of the complaints stem from the NYT referring to President Monson as “Mr. Monson”, the focus on controversial topics, and overall tone of the obituary, presumably because it wasn’t fawning, which might be jarring for members accustomed to the leader worship of modern LDS culture. Indeed, there does seem to be a tone of resentment within the piece, or at least no effort to spin events in the most positive light possible, something that may also seem foreign to Church members.
It seems to me that the NYT’s tone in the obituary, and the corresponding complaints by Church members, represent some sort of proxy in the Culture Wars, with each side signaling through the argument their greater positions within America’s Culture Wars. Such a situation is unfortunate, but the Church has invested a great deal of political capital on the Culture Wars, and President Monson has been an important leader and even president during that time. It seems unreasonable to have spent so much political capital on specific Culture War battles, only to then cry foul when one’s church is associated with its position in those battles.
An institution’s political capital is defined as its money, institutional focus, rhetoric, organizational efforts, trust, and earned goodwill. All of these have been expended in great amounts as the Church has engaged in the Culture Wars. Indeed, most recently the Church has defined itself more by what it is against than what it is for. We have defined our Christianity as anti-LGBT and have aligned ourselves with Evangelicals and deeply conservative Christians on these topics. We cannot complain that we are then painted with the same brush as they are. We have chosen to define ourselves in this way.
Consider Mother Teresa. She is an icon of selfless work for the poor and downtrodden. She is the Kleenex of kindness and selflessness, with people saying things like, “He’s no Mother Teresa…” As a Catholic she probably agreed with her church’s stance on divorce, contraception, homosexuality, and women’s ordination; however, she chose to define herself by her selflessness and thus became an icon of Christian virtue.
Imagine if the LDS Church expended its considerable political capital and organizational resources to eradicate homelessness, provide nutritional supplements to those in need, or run women’s shelters rather than fight same-sex marriage and the baking of cakes for gay couples. How different might that NYT obituary read?
Wheat & Tares 
Cody—Amen!
I believe there exists among UT Mormons, a underlying inferiority complex that sometimes results in heightened defensiveness. I became aware of it growing up there and more aware of it when I moved away. I believe the reaction to Pres Monson’s obit is an illustration of this tendency.
As a reader of church-owned Deseret News, I find it interesting the number of articles focused on anything and everything (mostly positive) related to UT. For example, recent coverage of The Bachelor show because a contestant(s) from UT are participating. It seems at times, DN has someone on staff whose sole job is to search high and low for any mention of something (mostly positive or fame -oriented) about UT. I’ve not noticed this tendency to such a great extent in the local newspapers of other cities, and states I’ve lived in.
You’ve gotten me to engage on this one.
I think the real issue is that this is the true legacy of Monson, as reflected here: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/09/black-mormon-support-group-laments-loss-of-their-prophet-champion-looks-to-the-genesis-of-even-greater-influence/
The rest is all dog whistles.
The Times knew, or should have known that, and their focus shows that to them, Monson wa misguided in his life long endeavors.
As a devout Mormon youth, I remember being shaken by the Washington Post’s obituary for President Benson. It was probably my first time seeing a church leader receive a no-nonsense journalistic obituary. I’m sure many years later, as an agnostic, it would not read as toxic to me.
As for the “Mr.” Monson, the NY Times’ has established standard style choices for titles of address (Mr., Ms. being generally preferred). As I learned working for a university newspaper, professional editors often work with the Associated Press style guide, or some in-house variation. These guide books provide specific guidelines on a range of grammar, punctuation, and usage issues. Where else do we see such comprehensive oversight of published materials?
I think comparing the different obituaries for President Monson can be a valuable learning experience for seeing how tone and emphasis change from publication to publication, even while the basic facts remain the same. I’ve read at least four, including the praise-driven Deseret News version. They all have something to offer, and especially for major public figures, reading at least a couple obituaries is a good idea.
(I think my comment is as accurate as the post in the way it reads the tea leaves. Which means that my comment, above, isn’t accurate at all. The NYT didn’t really care, they did a “meh” job that took no reporting, just a casual brush off. The Church has tried to engage in areas, such as supporting refugees and immigrants. It has spent political capital on equal pay and housing protections — the anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation statues and policies in Salt Lake date back to the late 1970s and I was impressed in ’82 with just how emplaced they were — in an era when the conduct protected was still criminalized in most of the United States).
The truth is, most news is shallow. Most doesn’t really care. Utah is a fly-over zone.
Much of the reaction is as much to the fact that the Times didn’t care enough to actually do any real reporting as to the tone.
But, it is the New York Times, emphasis New York. Provincial. I don’t expect any more from them, and “meh” really captures how it all hits me.
Though I do mourn with those who mourn and who feel greif at his passing.
Just not that upset with the Times. “Meh.”
I agree with the NYT’s assessment of the impact of President Monson’s tenure and the big issues the church had regretibly chosen to fight under his leadership. He made LGBT issues a defining hallmark of his administration. Although his personal ministry to select individuals in SLC focused on charity to the elderly, we didn’t see the church, or even President Monson championing legislation for elderly care, or addressing end of life issues, or calling the saints and the world to a new respect and duty to the elderly. No. It was LGBT and women’s issues (some positive, some not). Had he leaned into who he was and his astounding legacy as a personal minister, we wouldn’t be under scrutiny.
The NYT reported as they usually do, and provided us with a mirror – an honest non-mormon perspective. Tough pill to swallow? Too bad. The NYT should have taken care to address the cultural divide more carefully. They would have been wise to have approached LDS culture in the same way as black culture and a notable black American leader beloved by his/her culture, but potentially misunderstood or controversial in the larger culture’s eyes.
The consequence of the cultural insensitivity (technically accurate or not) is mistrust and a rift between the NYT and the mostly red Mormon community which desperately needs to connect with the NYT and other professsional journalists regarding much larger national news and crises. The result is broken trust and a reflexive “fake news” or “enemy” reaction, which is the real tragedy.
Under these circumstances, business as usual was a poor choice for the times, they needed to have approached the obit with extreme cultural sensitivity while retaining their integrity and standards. They only achieved the latter.
Jack, indeed. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/obituaries/cardinal-bernard-law-dead.html Mr. Law’s obituary reflects that well. 😉
Again, they don’t care enough to use the titles if it isn’t local. “Meh” I say to the Times. Meh.
And “Meh” to my comments as well. 🙂 Typos and all.
Getting beyond an excuse to mock myself, an interesting look is at http://mormonmidrashim.blogspot.ca/2018/01/thoughts-on-new-york-times-obituary-for.html?m=1
Quote:
“Most commentators haven’t focused on the carelessness of the obituary, but on its tone–which is either dominated by tough journalistic rigor or open hostility, depending on your perspective. Several people have contrasted the piece to the obituaries of figures like Hugh Hefner, which seemed more generous–not to mention less soulless and perfunctory.
In response to complaints, the Times ran a piece in their Reader Center covering messages they’d received and offering their obituaries editor a chance to reflect on his team’s work. The editor largely doubles down on the piece. I personally found his discussion a little condescending. But then again, it is entirely possible that I am an oversensitive religious zealot from the distant provinces of America with no appreciation for Real Journalism. ”
And
“I have been worried for a long time about the partisan fracturing of America. Years ago, I was in an experimental play where I responded to God’s absence by going to fetch a golden elephant and a golden donkey, and the image has lingered with me ever since. I worry that our political and cultural positions have become idolatrous–and that organizing so much of the diverse complexity of reality through the lens of partisan fervor makes it hard to talk to, and to trust, each other at a moment when we desperately need talk and trust to face difficult problems.
Like many Americans, liberal and conservative, I’ve been particularly concerned about the way political conversations have looked during the Trump campaign and presidency. I worry about the extent to which the president plays fast and loose with facts, the impulsive and emotive way he responds to private citizens and foreign leaders alike, the playground bully tone he employs on a daily basis. In a historical moment like this, I long for increased trust in public institutions where Americans can come together across old political lines to make sense of what has happened. As sobriety and dignity have left the Oval Office, I want to find them elsewhere.
As the president attacks the media, I want them to do their best to act in a way I can accept as measured, careful, dignified, and open to a broad rather than a niche public. It’s not really fair of me, of course, to expect that from media institutions with bills to pay and polarized audiences to serve. But I can wish for it.
And this moment would have been such an easy opportunity. The Times needed to cover the controversies and the causes celebre of their left-leaning, intellectual-establishment base. But it shouldn’t have been that hard for them, with a decade to prepare, to use the moment of a longtime leader’s death to reach out. If capturing Thomas S. Monson’s personal ethos seemed too small for them, there are plenty of other angles they could have used to explore his legacy. After all, Thomas S. Monson was called as an apostle in 1963. They could have mentioned his interaction with Mormons behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. They could have commented on his position as a religious leader during nearly six decades of significant cultural and religious change in the United States.
I don’t think they even would have needed to say anything nice about him, quite frankly. Dignifying him as someone who interacted with the grand scope of a long history would have been enough to stake a claim to a public sphere, where major religious leaders are a meaningful part of the history of the country.
Instead, they left Monson’s life squeezed somewhere between Kate Kelly and oncedelivered.net in his own obituary. And in doing so, they reinforced existing narratives–narratives the current President has worked hard to exploit–about the liberal bias of traditional media outlets and about their disrespect for broad demographic segments of the American populace. Mormons, who run civic-minded, have been open to caution about Trump even as they’re remained by and large faithful to the Republican Party. Mormons are a community, arguably, moved by the moment to seek civic spaces for shared conversation that transcends partisanship. ”
Read the rest for a thoughtful take on the matter.
Cody, I’ll add to Lois’s amen. The furor over the obituary highlights the hypocrisy of mainstream Mormonism in several ways:
1) I thought we weren’t supposed to care what the world thought of us? If that’s really the case, why do we give a hoot at all about this non-story? The sad part is that President Monson himself probably didn’t care one whit how the NYT might choose to write his obituary.
2) We always teach the importance of decisions and their consequences, as well as making the repeated point that if the church is truly of God, then it will bear good fruits. What TBM’s can’t seem to realize in this case is that President Monson’s tenure, to non Mormons anyway, involved both ramping up discriminatory practices against homosexuals and their children and continuing to deny women equal access to God’s power and authority. Mormon’s can read that how they like, but these are at least some of the facts of President Monson’s tenure and administration. I think TBMs who are objecting to the obituary are unable to see the harm that such policies cause and instead want only to heap praise on their beloved prophet. That’s an understandable impulse, I suppose, but it blinds them to the fact of President Monson’s mixed legacy. Yes, he was, by all accounts, an extremely kind and generous-hearted man who indeed looked after the widows in his ward when he was a bishop. That’s his legacy. And the church also, under his direction, continued (and encouraged) discriminatory practices against homosexuals and continued the power imbalance inherent in the church’s insistence on the patriarchal order of things. That’s his legacy, too. So there were good and not so good fruits borne. Sort of like in everyone else’s life.
3) I think this is a good example of the bizarre and extreme level of Mormon leader worship. Because Mormons are so convinced they have the truth when others don’t, it’s really hard for them to have any kind of healthy perspective about seeing the validity of someone else’s viewpoint. It’s fine if you want to revere the prophet, but that’s not really his purpose. His purpose is to bring people closer to Christ, not be some kind of Mormon rock star. Leader worship has always struck me as an act of desperation; a need to believe too strongly in something/someone rather than the healthier response of respecting someone who you recognize as your leader and trying to take his advice to heart.
IMHO, we just need to stop this crap with the NYT’s obituary. By reacting the way some folks are, we’re merely demonstrating our naivete and making ourselves look even more like the gullible rubes that we are.
I will in some ways continue the “meh” theme from Stephen. I do feel the obituary didn’t lean on the side of emphasizing the positives of President Monson, especially the man himself. But like Cody I don’t get the reaction. It is about what I would expect, just like the SLTrib wrote about what I expected as well as Desseret News. For some making the charge that the obituary needs to be redone, I want them to come live outside of Utah. I think you will better understand how the church is viewed outside the “bubble”. It also seems more evidence of the deep persecution complex. This isn’t just one writer at the NYT. I have had more than one professional colleague find out I was Mormon and in not so many words say, “Why do you guys hate gays so much?” After some interaction they realize that I am nowhere clear holding that position. They then generally move to, “so why do you stay a Mormon when you are so different than the church.” From what I can tell, the people around me (those not in the church) generally think of the church as family oriented and hating gays. I agree with the Mother Teresa analogy. To draw parallel, I remember a saying a few years ago of, “If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough proof to convict you?” I would argue the folks around me don’t see enough proof that the church isn’t anti-LGBT. They don’t know about items such as the church getting into Utah politics to support anti-discrimination work and housing laws.
It also reminds me of the comment I saw referring to a talk Elder Bednar gave on being offended:
To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. … You and I cannot control the intentions or behavior of other people. However, we do determine how we will act. Please remember that you and I are agents endowed with moral agency, and we can choose not to be offended.
“And Nothing Shall Offend Them” David A. Bednar https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng
Yup, my exact reaction was ‘Meh’ as well. I’d have been more shocked if the NYT had published a glowing, faith-affirming obituary. I mean, it’s the NYTs and this is exactly how a good portion of the country views the last 10 years of Mormonism.
I do like the grass-roots effort to get the papers attention though. I just wish it was for something truly important We have SO many problems in the world at the moment that this is a meaningless blip.
The NYT obit was clearly part of the culture wars.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fidel-castro-got-a-much-more-favorable-new-york-times-obituary-than-the-late-mormon-faith-leader/article/2644973
My first reaction to seeing all the calls to sign the petition complaining about it was to recoil. Good grief, I thought, that sort of reaction sure doesn’t seem very Christian (I’m generally opposed to our society’s jump to outrage). But on the other hand, there are certain groups that seem to be fair game for public derision (Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) and Mormons are definitely included. If you don’t squeak when you get stepped on, is there any reason you won’t get stepped on again? I think the Church’s response to the BOM musical was definitely the right one, but every once in a while I find myself sympathizing with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
If the NYT wrote an obituary at the death of Jesus, how would it read?
My big problem with the obituary is that it seems to overemphasize the role President Monson had on these policies and procedures. In a least a couple places, the article seemed to imply that if not for Monson, the Church would be ordaining women to the priesthood and solemnizing gay marriages in the temple. Maybe Monson played a bigger role in preventing these innovations than I would think at first glance, but it still seems like a stretch for a man who never, to my knowledge, commented publicly on gay marriage or many other controversial topics.
I don’t say this as a prophet worshipper or someone with a persecution complex. As I recall, the Times posted an obituary on Boyd K. Packer that focused similarly on his opposition to same-sex marriage, but that accurately sums up the image he tried to portray, as he gave several conference talks on the issue. It’s just that after reading up on incapacitated presidents of the Church, I’ve realized that they serve more as figureheads than active policymakers. Nobody really knows the extent of Monson’s influence over these decisions, but evidence suggests that it isn’t as large as we might think. We shouldn’t expect the Times to capture some of the finer points of Mormonism, and this is a good example of that.
Thank you for the comments thus far. I have appreciated reading the various perspectives. It’s what I love about this community.
I am with several here that the obit was a “meh” for me. As Stephen mentioned, there seemed to be some dog whistling going on in it, but the reaction was unfounded, I think. Sure, the obit was a salvo in the Culture War, but rather than engage in it ourselves we can instead just change the narrative. We control that narrative to a large degree by what we focus on. Quit whining, quit marginalizing LGBT people, and instead point our immense resources at causes that are obviously Jesus-oriented. Do what he did, in other words.
The Media, in their obituaries, are influenced by either a measure of admiration for the person to include positive comments, or a fear of retaliation by printing negative comments. There are some religious leaders that would never have controversial positions be part of their obit; as the media outlet would find itself subject to severe, even violent, responses. The objections by LDS members are very tame and manageable.
I’ve wanted an excuse to make fun of my own comments for a while.
I agree with Cody that we should quit whining.
Excellent article (once again) Cody. My compliments. As I’ve thought about this “obituary phenomena” over the past week, several thoughts have percolated to the top of my mind. First; I think many church members live in a state of perpetual anxiety, fear and with a certain amount of paranoia over impending doom. Sadly, much of this (either deliberately or by design) has been fueled by the belief, and comments and and teachings from the pulpit, that “the Church” has been – and forever will be – constantly persecuted. (I’ve heard some describe this state of being as “The Mormon Persecution Complex”). In my opinion, the negative reaction to the NYT Obituary was a HUGE over-reaction and vastly overblown. Personally, I read it – spent five minutes on it – and went on about my day.
However, it has been my experience in all kinds of organizations (large and small) in business and in church settings, that fear and anxiety can only be an effective control agent or a motivator for a short period of time; and are generally utilized by borderline sociopaths and “power-heads”. Ultimately, people are ground down by these negative emotions to the point of either strongly pushing back in self defense OR throwing their hands up in exasperation and declaring “oh, to hell with this” and then walk away. Sometimes “Mormons” can be an emotional mess in dealing with the world.
Mean’t to say “Sadly, much of this (either by default or design”) has been fueled by the belief, comments and teachings from the pulpit that “The Church”…..
My apologies for the mis-step.
Wheat and Tares Team: Might we have an “Edit” function integrated into the website? Thank you!
Maybe follow Bednar’s advice and choose not to be offended.
I would agree that people are overreacting to the NY Times obit. We should be following the traditional Mormon reaction, exemplified by taking out ads in the BOM musical playbills, of brushing this off and considering any publicity as good publicity. The petition against the NY Times is yet another symptom of how social media creates groupthink.
That being said, I do think the NY Times performed poorly. I was particularly frustrated not so much at the content but because other news organizations did a much better job. Both the AP and the Washington Post balanced critique and praise while still educating people about President Monson and Mormons. Most people I know have little if any knowledge about the church and basically believe whatever they hear about Mormons. Reading the Times obit, they would learn next to nothing about the church (or, as Dylan Hansen pointed out, Pres Monson’s actual role in deciding these key issues). Again, the AP and the Washington Post especially gave significant context as to President Monson’s role, other newsworthy initiatives of the church, and the beliefs which motivate Mormons. Whether you like or dislike the church’s positions, Mormons are a misunderstood cultural and religious minority. Mainstream news outlets have a journalistic duty to educate people on what they don’t understand or risk reinforcing ignorance.
I first saw commentary on the NYT obituary from a non-LDS article. Yes, the author was pointing this out as yet another slight and/or attack in the broader culture war. It makes sense that the NYT would be relatively insensitive to religious figures and Mormons, while other outlets like the WaPost would be more in tune with who President Monson was. There are a far higher percentage of Mormons in DC than in NYC and there are many power players that are known as Mormons in the capitol. It is much easier for a lazy, liberal, NYT writer to put on the cultural blinders than for a writer in DC. The Times reaction is also poor. Many conservatives have smelled the blood in the water and rightly pounded the Times for giving thugs and despicable people better press than a true humanitarian like President Monson. They have hit a sore spot for many, especially Mormons, and gotten good press and lots of clicks. Why not be altruistic and get good press?
I will take issue with the final paragraph of the OP, Cody. There are 3 issues you raise with the wish that the church devote more resources to them vs. the LGBT issues that it has taken a stand on.
The first issue is homelessness, yet the church has devoted enormous resources in combating the #1 root cause of this, namely alcohol and drug addiction. Over Monson’s tenure as an apostle, the church’s efforts against alcohol and drugs is far more than LGBT efforts.
The second issue you raise is getting better nutrition and food to those in need. I am stunned to hear that the church does not make efforts in this area. I have worked on welfare farms since childhood and know that the church has a massive infrastructure to provide food and other basic necessities to those in need. President Monson even specifically raised the effort to “care for the poor and needy” as an additional emphasis. There is zero doubt in my mind that he specifically and the church generally have put more effort into improving nutrition than into the LGBT issues over any period of its history.
The NYT ignored these efforts of the church, but a good writer could have included them without any problem.
el oso: I think you are correct that the LDS Church does some great humanitarian work (most of which isn’t specifically considered humanitarian aid, such as assistance from fast offerings), but honestly, aside from the somewhat recent refugee program, the anti-SSM and “stay in the boat” rhetoric gets a lot more play at General Conference, face-to-face events, etc.
Do we have callings for homelessness outreach? Do our leaders put the amount of effort and rhetoric into fighting sex trafficking that they do talking about “defending traditional marriage”? How much air time does income disparity get? Do our Ward Councils talk about how they are helping with the ward’s monthly soup kitchen assignment? Do we run homeless shelters? Are you asked in a temple recommend interview what Christian service you’ve done? This stuff isn’t a focus for us. We define ourselves by our teetotalism and defense of traditional marriage.
And in regards to nutrition, if the Church was doing its job on this, the Liahona Children’s Foundation wouldn’t exist.
Certainly, there are things the Church does to help in society. We do a lot of good, but one cannot honestly say it is a focus of our efforts. We could do so much better. And my point is that any marginal efforts we are doing are drowned out by the anti-LGBT crap. Our efforts are drowned out because other faiths do far more social justice work than we do, and our political capital is spent fighting SSM in Mexico or defending bakers who don’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple. The NYT and others can see where our hearts are. The obit called that out.
Cody: The OP said: “Imagine if the LDS Church expended its considerable political capital and organizational resources to eradicate homelessness” Actually, this is something that Utah at least has been at the fore on. Stephen Colbert did a great feature on SLC’s innovative method to eradicate homelessness by literally giving the homeless a place to live. They are also right now putting in vending machines for the homeless in downtown SLC. No need to imagine it! It probably could have figured into the obit more, TBH. But having said that, I’m not sure the church has claimed that, even though to most Mormons, the church and the state and one and the same (except when it doesn’t suit them to claim it).
That’s the real core problem. Utah is not that relevant to the rest of the country. Utah might as well still be a territory for the way it’s viewed in the northeast. It’s a place to dump nuclear waste and test nuclear weapons in the 1950s. Flyover state indeed. And to its peril, the church that David McKay first realized had become global really still isn’t global despite having global members. It’s still 100% Utah-centric in its thinking, in the battles it picks, and its influence. I wish that weren’t the case, but it absolutely is. The Proclamation to the World is in name only. Nobody gives a crap because the church has no palpable influence outside that one not-so-populous state, a state most Americans have never visited (although lots of Germans have!).
Those who complain about the honorific “Mr” being used instead of “President” are just showing their 1) ignorance and 2) lack of familiarity with the NYT. The NYT does have a consistent style guide, and they refer to POTUS as “Mr” also and always have.
As for the objections to the obit, I too was taken aback that the NYT extolled Hefner (!) and then tied Monson to causes that, although accurate, aren’t the measure of the man. I liked the angle more that these are issues he faced in his presidency, not that he’s the sole cause of them. We were two steps back and one forward on all of these issues as a church, and the story’s not over. These things didn’t happen in a vacuum. But after the NYT did the pro-Hef obit, Ross Douthat, the NYT OP writer, wrote a scathing and pithy hit piece about a “wicked man” dying as a reaction to the original glowing obit. I think the NYT strives for some balance. There was an outcry when they made Hef seem saintly.
It’s nearly impossible for a newspaper to give the glowing praise that passes for neutral journalism to most church members and still retain its integrity.
Cody,
I want to compliment the bulk of the OP as good insight before addressing your questions above.
In terms of homelessness, there are numerous callings that address this. How about home teacher, visiting teacher, EQP, RSP, and bishop? The last 2 moves in the ward that I helped with were for families being evicted from their home. Did they have to go to homeless shelters? No. They had help from family, friends and ward members to get them into another rented place.
You link the scourge of sex traffic in the same sentence as the church’s defense of traditional marriage. Statistics show that traditional marriage leads to much lower rates of sexual trafficking and similar exploitation among children raised in those homes. The church does put efforts into stopping sex traffic, just not in the way many see it.
We hear nothing at our ward about income disparity, (thank God!), but we hear a lot about self reliance, improving education and training, and many other proven methods for improving income and employment stability.
Our ward council does talk about the soup kitchen work, but it is not yet a monthly occurrence.
In short, the church is doing a lot to address the issues you raise, but they may be doing so in ways that are less visible or not the politically most acceptable way that some would prefer.
Cody … “Do we have callings for homeless outreach….” Well our stake does in Oregon. I and several others in our ward spent a considerable amount of time last night going over our next assignment for the homeless shelter and it is an item on our Ward Council meeting this coming Sunday. For the last few years there has been a clothing drive for the homeless shelter which is held separate from the DI drive. It is not uncommon for our youth to set up activities at our local food pantry and to have them skip Wednesday night activities to go off with another ward to help in the pantry. In our ward we have started a bread day. One of the local bakeries gives us the day old bread and after church once a month the adults can drop by and pick it up and share it with the homeless or neighbors who are in need. Is is perfect? No, but the guy I shared the bread with sure thought it was great. Please don’t take this as I am a Saint….there are far more people in our ward who do far more with much less.
el oso and Mark A. Mash: That is such good news to hear! Lovely! I do so wish our prominent anti-LGBT efforts didn’t drown out such Christian service.
Angela C: Great points. Thank you.
Okay, please let me know if I go overboard with this comment. I have enjoyed the Wheat and Tares community and hope that I voice my opinion in a way that is constructive, though I will admit it will be more pointed than my general comments (well, I hope my other comments aren’t this sharp! If so, apologies!)
I do understand that Thomas S. Monson is not universally loved. I understand that what a fair obituary looks like to one group will not be the same for the other group. (Personally, I thought 90% of the obit fine, but the tweet and lead were the problem. Of course, anyone with cursory knowledge of the print medium also knows those two things get the most eye balls and hence the ire). However, the issue hear isn’t logic, the issue is death and loss. There is sufficient material on the bloggernoccle about how “Mormons should comfort those who are dealing with loss rather than trying try to explain or to blame it away” to fill the Library of Congress–an exact figure mind you! 😉 Right now people who were TSM’s children, grandchildren, colleagues, followers, admirers and friends are grieving. Is waiting until after the funeral to lecture other Mormons on how spot on the NYT obit was really too much to ask? In my humble opinion, the bloggernoccle got a big hypocrisy test, and failed miserably. TSM has had unflattering things published about him from a variety of sources and will continue to in the future, is it really that crazy though that those who love and admire him react in a highly emotion way immediately after his death.
I find this episode quite revealing.
I find it difficult to see how the twitter lede is problematic: 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.
I can’t think of a topic that has generated more ink in both ‘the media’ and the bloggernacle during President Monson’s tenure than gender issues. People who would otherwise be staunchly defending the church’s position on gay marriage and women and the priesthood are upset that President Monson is remembered for those things? It’s almost like they are uncomfortable with the church being known for those things.
I keep wondering if church members as a whole really aren’t as comfortable with the Church’s positions on gender issues as they claim to be.
Err, he is Mark A. Marsh — my brother, not “Mash” the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital.
Angela C — all I can note is that the Cardinal got called Cardinal in his obit. The style guide has plenty of room for accommodating titles when it wants to.
Brian: I think that’s an astute observation, that church members who felt the piece was unflattering are unintentionally admitting that they don’t like the church’s stance on women and gays. The twitter feed was, IMO, problematic like all Twitter feeds are. Simply because it didn’t accurately portray the most important parts of the article. It was more inflammatory. But the person who does Twitter is never the one who writes the article, and most social media writers are younger than those who write longer OPs (averages anyway), so it’s not surprising that a younger person would focus on these two things that are alienating our youth (let alone youth not of our fold).
Stephen: Yeah, but a Cardinal is a unique title. President Trump and President Monson both have the same title, and BOTH are referred to as Mr. They are consistent with their style guide. It’s not up to the author of the OP, and it wasn’t meant as a slur against Monson, so taking offense at it is silly. I like when they call Trump Mr. Trump because it reminds me that it’s a temporary title. Whew!
If the NYT obit had appeared in the Ensign, I believe it would have been accepted as positive. In the divisive environment of the Trump Presidency, it is assumed, by the right, that the NYT has an agenda. So when the NYT say he stood against equality for women, and gay marriage, it is assumed to be criticism, if the same thing were in the Ensign it would be praise.
I am assuming those complaining are from the right, certainly those promoting the petition here are those who believe to be a good mormon you have to be a right wing republican.
It must be a bit frustrating to be that kind of mormon here because we have no major political party that opposes gay marriage, abortion or equality for women.
I am a left-leaning, Ordain-Women-sympathizing cafeteria Mormon, and the NYT obit bothered me. Not enough to sign the petition, but just enough to be embarrassed and wish I could whisper to the NYT that its bias was showing. It will be years before I can use it again as a source when debating with my conservative Mormon friends.
It wouldn’t occur to me to be bothered by the “Mr,” but the NYT makes it sound like he personally turned every woman away at the priesthood session — even though this was the year before he almost collapsed while speaking and was likely already cutting back on his responsibilities. It was sloppy to lead with the controversies of his church without even knowing how involved he was with them. I can’t read the whole thing (out of NYT articles for the month), but the lead seems to show he writer couldn’t be bothered with researching Monson’s legacy as a person or even a leader, choosing instead the easier task of clipping a few articles about the church.
I don’t see how Monson is too different than Mother Teresa in the respects the OP points out; his beliefs on controversial issues can easily be assumed, but Mother Teresa’s quotes against abortion (e.g., “It is a poverty that a child must die…”) are much more widely known than anything Monson has said about LGBTQ rights or Ordain Women (if, indeed, he has publicly opined about these things). Monson’s obit leads with the Church’s opposition to gay rights; Castro’s NYT obit buries his militant persecution of gays in one quick sentence toward the end. I was not expecting them to throw flowers, and I would expect the controversies of the church to be included, but not in the first sentence.
On the other hand, I agree that nothing short of lavish praise would have satisfied many Mormons. One friend was annoyed with Deseret News (or maybe it was The Daily Herald) for mentioning that he had largely retired from public appearances towards the end. I can only imagine how she reacted when the NYT obit came out. And I have to say, it’s probably true that if the same words were printed in the Ensign it would be taken as flattering. But it still would have been a bad lead.
The online site for “The New Republic” titled its piece “Mormonism’s Crisis of Faith”:
https://newrepublic.com/article/146589/mormonisms-crisis-faith
The final paragraph includes these words: “So now church leaders must constantly contend with the words of previous prophets, or risk throwing the entire enterprise into question. And to complicate things even more, the church’s membership has been conditioned to defend a crystallized dogma at all cost. If the church doesn’t find some way to free itself from the burden of its own theology, it will be left behind, and the remaining stalwarts will be forever destined to complain about obituaries in The New York Times.”