NOM

I'm rarely on Facebook, I don't have an account because I'd be flaming people constantly all day, and who's got time for that? But Sis. M's Facebook page has been inundated with pleas to sign the petition to have Thomas Monson's NYT obit re-written "in a more respectful tone." Even Sis M is upset at the hatchet job on her beloved prophet, and has posted the petition and has actually signed it. We had an interesting chat about it, when I asked her what was wrong about the obit? Did the NYT get it wrong? Did they lie? She reluctantly agreed that it was just reporting, but in her mind, it was poor taste to do that after someone dies. So I asked her, what about dictators? Do we have to find something nice about them? She retorted that Monson was no dictator, so it doesn't apply. And on and on, until we both saw an argument coming and shut the discussion down. Which means we're learning!

In any event, what says NOM about this? To me, it kind of illustrates how clueless Mormons are on how the wider world sees them, and the problems of having zero loyal opposition, or in the immortal words of Oaks "criticizing leaders of the church is wrong, even if the criticism is true." Members cannot see the challenges of their own church, even when it's reported in a neutral fashion in a major newspaper (albeit a notoriously liberal one.)

The best obit I saw, a middle ground between the fawning of Deseret News and the NYT obit, is on the faithful blog By Common Consent.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/04/ ... ore-104521

For those with zero time, it basically lauds the guy for being a service oriented dude, which he was, but then says this in a key paragraph:

"But gosh, the 10 years of his presidency were difficult. I’ll probably look back on this era not as one of increased compassion and charity, but as a divisive period when so many friends and loved ones left the church. I don’t know if that’s fair to President Monson. The world changed so fast during his tenure, and I may never know which church actions and policies should be attributed to him. There isn’t a lot of information about his deteriorating mental faculties, the mechanics of how specific decisions were made, or his views on crucial issues."

And that's how I view the Monson presidency; he was personally a good dude, but clearly there's been a large leadership vacuum even when he wasn't suffering from dementia. The gulf between conservative/liberal Mormons is even wider, and the Google apostasy has taken firm root during his tenure. And like the author, I'm not sure it's TSM's fault. But it DID happen under his watch, and I think the NYT was fair in pointing it out, along with the Ordain Woman and LGBTQ controversies. What say you?

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:23 pm And that's how I view the Monson presidency; he was personally a good dude, but clearly there's been a large leadership vacuum even when he wasn't suffering from dementia. The gulf between conservative/liberal Mormons is even wider, and the Google apostasy has taken firm root during his tenure. And like the author, I'm not sure it's TSM's fault. But it DID happen under his watch, and I think the NYT was fair in pointing it out, along with the Ordain Woman and LGBTQ controversies. What say you?

The bigger question is why his action / inaction on all these issues is upsetting to people. If it's true, and you rather not think about it, or you sign a petition hoping that others won't write about it, then maybe there's something there to be ashamed of. It's not as if there are personal consequences for people who read what's essentially a news report. No one's going to go online to report, "Oh my god guys. The NY Times just talked about Monson and Ordain Women. Now my family has disowned me and I've lost all my friends."

I think this demand for respect has very little to do with how members want President Monson to be remembered by outsiders. I think the obituary brought up too many things that the members themselves don't want to remember. These things don't fit with "only true" and "best way" and "happiest" and other superlatives claimed by the church.

Nobody likes to be humbled. Nobody likes to be shamed into recognizing when they're wrong or not acting their best. This goes double for people who believe that they - or rather the organization they belong to - can do no wrong. It goes quadruple for people who think that explicitly but deep down are afraid that it's not true.

What Mormons need to remember is that the NYT was not writing an obituary for them. It was commenting on how out of sync their church is with social progress. Writing a gushing obituary will not fix that. We remember Thomas Monson as a very nice man who gave chickens to widows, told heart-warming stories, and wiggled his ears for the kids. The rest of the world cannot help but see him as someone who blocked the path of equal rights in an organization that commanded millions of people. Maybe the real point that should stand out for members is that the church is basically incarcerating old men in a prison of love that keeps them propped up as idols until they die. If the church members really, really cared about their prophets more than they care about their needs for an imaginary ideal of a prophet, maybe they would be signing a petition to let their leaders enjoy a few years of retirement before they die.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:23 pm In any event, what says NOM about this?

I actually find it hilarious that current believers literally want to whitewash current history. As mentioned in the OP, there was literally nothing untrue in the obituary.


I also find it hilarious that current believers think that anyone outside the mormon bubble cares. The vast majority of the population that reads the NYT more than likely completely skipped over the Monson Obit. OK, maybe they at least read the title. In other words: Nobody Cares.


The NYT actually responded to the request to whitewash the Monson Obit. Does anyone have a link to that handy? I was too lazy to read through either the entire original Obit, or the NYT response to the mormon "outcry".

I can see both points. The typical obituary you see in the paper is might include:

1. Where the deceased was born
2. The parents
3. Education
4. Noted employment
5. Survivors such as wives (strictly for Mormons), children, siblings, and numbers of further descendants.
6. Time and place of memorial and burial.

This is different for newsworthy people who have died. The media reports what is newsworthy. For instance, famed polka clarinetist Yosh Shmenge might have well known instances listed of the time he and his brother Stan were tossed out of a BYU dance for playing their song "Cabbage Rolls and Coffee", or the time Yosh broke the record at the Podlasie Club in Chicago for the most glasses of Schnapps consumed in one evening.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:09 pm The NYT actually responded to the request to whitewash the Monson Obit. Does anyone have a link to that handy? I was too lazy to read through either the entire original Obit, or the NYT response to the mormon "outcry".

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/read ... tuary.html

Yesterday Facebook was filled with petitions to the NYT. Today my feed is filled with "likes" for Greg Trimble's opinion: Monson would not support a petition, he would have just loved them, and the NYT knows not what they do. Why do I always want to gouge out my eyes after going to Trimble's site?

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:36 pm Yesterday Facebook was filled with petitions to the NYT. Today my feed is filled with "likes" for Greg Trimble's opinion: Monson would not support a petition, he would have just loved them, and the NYT knows not what they do. Why do I always want to gouge out my eyes after going to Trimble's site?

It's the natural reaction.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:36 pm Why do I always want to gouge out my eyes after going to Trimble's site?

The very best thing to do with Trimble is to never, under any circumstances whatsoever visit his site.

Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:55 pm I think this demand for respect has very little to do with how members want President Monson to be remembered by outsiders. I think the obituary brought up too many things that the members themselves don't want to remember. These things don't fit with "only true" and "best way" and "happiest" and other superlatives claimed by the church.

Nobody likes to be humbled. Nobody likes to be shamed into recognizing when they're wrong or not acting their best. This goes double for people who believe that they - or rather the organization they belong to - can do no wrong. It goes quadruple for people who think that explicitly but deep down are afraid that it's not true.

Yep. And we have a lovely tradition of doing whatever we can to stop the press from saying true but embarrassing things.

NYT posted a favorable story about Monson. My idiot fb family are posting as if it's a redo/ redaction of the othet story. It says "corrected" in it, because they corrected some dates. So TBMs are feeling deliciously vindicated and righteous and have zero clue that not only is it not redacted,

1- the original is still the first hit when you Google
2- the tribute one is buried
3- NYT wrote a Q&A on why they stand by their original and are NOT redacting it or anything of the sort because n it's all true and newsworthy information.

If they're so ashamed, they should consider why they are embarrassed when they most likely agree 100% with his positions on political issues.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:36 pm Yesterday Facebook was filled with petitions to the NYT. Today my feed is filled with "likes" for Greg Trimble's opinion: Monson would not support a petition, he would have just loved them, and the NYT knows not what they do. Why do I always want to gouge out my eyes after going to Trimble's site?

Same here. I think the whole petition is embarrassing. TBMs sound like a bunch of petulant, whining children. And Greg Trimble's site-OMG! Is he even for-real! His site makes me want to do a parody site with articles that make stupid analogies and are also poorly written. "Marriage is Like a Taco Bell Drive-Through" or "8 Garunteed Ways to Make Your Carwash Experience the Best Ever!"
And on more sober note, did he think about how the title of his latest book "Dads Who Stay and Fight" would affect domestic abuse survivors?

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:01 pm

If they're so ashamed, they should consider why they are embarrassed when they most likely agree 100% with his positions on political issues.

So true! If the TBMs really supported and sustained the things he did, they should have been happy that the obit pointed out how he didn't bend to the "ways of the world"

Babies. They sound like a bunch of freakin' babies. Of course the NYT times didn't bear testimony of the divinity of President Monson and his holy prophetic powers. They are all just mad because it pointed out some unflattering but true things. This is hardly the persecution members are acting like it is.

President Monson was a crap leader. He loved the attention and the accolades, but when it came to actually leading he didn't seem to have much interest in it. Yeah, most of his talks were service-oriented, but he usually was patting himself on the back for visiting widows and sick people, he was the hero in most of his stories. Sorry to sound cynical, but it is hard for me to see it as anything but him tooting his own horn about all the service he had done.

On pretty much every public controversy the Church encountered during his tenure, he was silent. A complete leadership vaccuum in terms of response to issues facing the Chruch. He spinelessly hid behind President Newsroom, who would make a statement and then President Monson just told another story about him giving service in his next major address. He had no real interest in actually leading the Church, he just liked the attention and perks.

I say the NYT hit the nail on the head - and that is why so many members are upset.

MoPag wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:40 am And Greg Trimble's site-OMG! Is he even for-real!

It always makes me a little sad when someone here discovers Greg Trimble for the first time. Kind of like when your kid finds internet porn for the first time. And mormons aren't able to have a constructive conversation about either.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:43 am President Monson was a crap leader. He loved the attention and the accolades, but when it came to actually leading he didn't seem to have much interest in it. Yeah, most of his talks were service-oriented, but he usually was patting himself on the back for visiting widows and sick people, he was the hero in most of his stories. Sorry to sound cynical, but it is hard for me to see it as anything but him tooting his own horn about all the service he had done.

B-b-but, he gave that talk about setting the hillside on fire!!

And he oversaw the historic construction of City Creek!

Who can forget his immortal words "Let's go shopping!!"?



But who am I kidding, I believe you're correct. Perhaps the most uninspiring religious leader in quite some time.

It's ridiculous.

They're not complaining about inaccuracies or problems. The NYT got things pretty much correct. The only place I would quibble is when they say, "Mr. Monson presided over an unprecedented era of openness about church history". There was some increase in openness, but the Arrington era as historian in the 70's provided much more openness. It's also not really clear that Monson did anything to induce more openness. In many ways he was less open than Hinckley.

The quotes in the article are mostly from believing church members. There is only one, somewhat subdued, from a critic.

They're just upset that outside reporters didn't give their Dear Leader the adulation and deference they're accustomed to giving him. They just don't understand how others see them, or their leaders.

The petition asks, "Would they write similar scathing remarks about the Pope?" The answer is, "Most likely." We haven't had the death of a pope for a while. Benedict resigned and is still alive. The NYT has had some scathing things to say about him, much more so than about Monson. Here's their article on the recent death of another major religious leader: Bernard Law, Powerful Cardinal Disgraced by Priest Abuse Scandal, Dies at 86. There are quite a few similarities between the structure of the two obituaries, but the one for Cardinal Law is much harsher. A big problem with the petition's question, though, is that the article on Monson was not at all scathing. It's a pretty reasonable recounting of what happened during Monson's tenure.

The biggest problem still is that Monson really hasn't done anything. The article talks about what happened to the Church during Monson's tenure or what the Church did, but there is really no indication that Monson had a hand in any of them. To some degree, depending upon his mental faculties, he may have approved them, but very little of them carry the Monson signature, either literally or figuratively.

Another thought that has hit me about this "petition": It screams "The Emperor's New Clothes."

In comparison to the other "obits" it runs on notable deaths, I found the tone of Monson's deeply disrespectful.

LucyHoneychurch wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:13 pm In comparison to the other "obits" it runs on notable deaths, I found the tone of Monson's deeply disrespectful.

Could you please clarify what you found disrespectful about the Monson obituary? I don't see it.

Could you describe how you find it so much more disrespectful than other obituaries? I'd like to use their obituary for Cardinal Bernard Law as the prime comparison: Bernard Law, Powerful Cardinal Disgraced by Priest Abuse Scandal, Dies at 86. Starting right at the title, I find the one for Law much more critical, or disrespectful if you prefer. For Monson, it says, "Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90", quite neutral, whereas for Law it jumps right in with the scandal.

LucyHoneychurch wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:13 pm In comparison to the other "obits" it runs on notable deaths, I found the tone of Monson's deeply disrespectful.

I do get this, and even why Sis M. thinks so, that they did in fact focus on the negative rather than the positive the man did in his life. I really do. But think of it this way; we only know of Monson's service to widows, the one, from his conference talks, which I'm absolutely sure the obit editor of the NYT didn't even bother to listen to or read. If you didn't have that as part of your research base, you would focus on the things that happened during the time he was the head honcho, and that was not a particularly golden moment for Mormonism in general. So that is what a secular obituary, with an agenda I'm sure of badmouthing a very conservative religion, will do. I get it.

But by the same token, I think Mormons in general are so used to hearing one side of the story, one narrative of smiling rainbows and stars of gold, that we forget that not everybody fawns over the leaders as the rank and file do. And when that's exposed, it's not particularly welcome. If the NYT had lied, or stretched the truth, I would understand the outrage. But it WAS just straight reporting. Mormons just don't like it.