Trying to Get a New Monson Obituary Written by NYT

[LucyHoneychurch]

I agree the NYT obituaries are fair, factual, secular takes on the public lives and leadership of notable individuals. You're right. I think my initial reaction was to how the Times tweeted a summary and the link. I saw the negative slant as disrespectful. I'm not going to search and post it. You can Google it, if you're interested.

[LucyHoneychurch]

Here is an article that intelligently evaluates a possible reason for the LDS reaction to the Times obit:

https://newrepublic.com/article/146589/ ... isis-faith

[Jeffret]

My sense is that those who find the tone disrespectful are reacting to the definitely secular point of view the writer projects.

For myself, I don't find the obit truly disrespectful - but it does come across as dismissive of believers and religion in general. That's always going to ruffle the feathers of righteous indignation.

That's a strong piece of it. I'm sure that's much of what has some people upset, the secular point of view. The members want The Times to present Monson as they see him, as devoted followers. But, The Times doesn't share that perspective. Nor do the vast majority of their readers.

I do disagree, though, that it comes "across as dismissive of believers and religion and general". That's a poor characterization, in my opinion. It's back to that secular point of view. It's not really that it's dismissive, it's simply that it doesn't given special deference to religion, religious leaders, in general or their specific ones. The Times sees no reason to give special consideration or deference to religious leaders, particularly of relatively minor religions. That's what galls them.

The LDS Church's big efforts towards "religious freedom", particularly as driven by Oaks, really isn't about religious freedom. It's about trying to maintain their special privilege of deference and consideration as religious leaders. They want their pronouncements to be given special weight. They want to have people listen, in and out of the church, when they speak. They want to be above criticism. They want their opinions to carry more weight than scientists, politicians, or the general populace. They see that deference eroding and worry about the loss of their religious privilege.

Much of this same sense also shows up other representatives of the dominant religion. They want to maintain their special privileges and get upset when others give no greater consideration or they have to meet people on an equal footing. Sometimes other members of the majority religions will support Mormons in this push, for their own deference and benefit, and sometimes they'll attack them, because they certainly don't want Mormon leaders to get special consideration over themselves.