The New York Times has published a balanced obituary that examines the highlights and lowlights of Monson's church career. Apparently the facts do not sit well with some of the faithful (check the comments.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html?hpw&rref=obituaries&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Facts are well known reagents for angering up the blood of those who can't handle the truth.

Plus it's why the mormon ghawd created Deseret Nudes.

Mormons do hate those pesky facts whether about Brother Joseph or Brother Thomas.

The article would have been a lot more fair if it had included some of Prophet Monson's prophecies...if there were any.

The TBM readers’ comments are typical of the Mormon cult mindset—we are misunderstood, you didn’t get the facts correctly, and we are a persecuted people. Grow up folks! If you want a Mormon-based account, the Ensign was undoubtedly has a faith-promoting obituary edition ready.

I disliked Monson not because of him, personally, but for the organization he led (or at least was the figurehead of), and the cult’s abuse and manipulation of people under his leadership.

Here's a clip from one of the upset members.

"I'm a member of the LDS Church, and believe this article grossly represents President Monson's life and legacy, as many other readers have already expressed.

His life was given in selfless service to all those around him. He taught, upheld and supported every point of doctrine of his proclaimed religion. In a country where we claim to support religious freedom, why would one criticize a man who has sought to uphold his beliefs?" ~ Amanda

I got news for you Amanda. NYT only published a handful of obituaries so you count your stars that some editor decided to publish an obituary about a man that ruled over an insignificant cult called Mormonism. Most of the world doesn't even know who the ear wiggler was. However, many are watching this church and others attempt to hide behind religion in an effort to openly discriminate against people within and outside of its religion.

Secondly, I want to know what his selfless service was. Was it living in posh apartments and condos or riding around in his Audi? Maybe it was redeveloping downtown factories and train yards into a condo-mall boondoggle.

Moreover, it was his leadership that backed Prop 8, fought against reform from within the ranks [Ordain Women] and created an "inspired" revelation/policy that forbids children of gay members to become baptized. That is his legacy and people will rightly be critical of him.

I also love how at least a couple of the members blame some of the church's exclusionary policies under Monson on God. It's not Monson's fault, he's merely following what Heavenly Father wants him to do! Just like Joseph and his flaming sword.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "He taught, upheld and supported
> every point of doctrine of his proclaimed
> religion. In a country where we claim to support
> religious freedom, why would one criticize a man
> who has sought to uphold his beliefs?" ~ Amanda"

If those beliefs are ridiculous and harmful to others, they merit all the criticism they get. No matter how much Tommy sought to uphold them. And the fact that he sought to uphold them itself is worthy of criticism.

I'm betting this Amanda would like an obituary of Hitler that read, "He taught, upheld and supported every point of doctrine of his proclaimed beliefs. What a wonderful man!"

The problem is, she thinks everyone ought to think her beliefs are wonderful. They're not. They're dishonest, ignorant, discriminatory, harmful poop. She's free to hold them, we're free to point out how stupid and harmful they are.

"Secondly, I want to know what his selfless service was."

Me too. They all T.A.L.K...about his service, but other than leading (by default, maybe), the building of City Creek and giving, generic, faceless, uninspiring speeches at GC.

Heading up the charge also to build more temples, which costs tons of money only so Holocaust victims, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahlmer, etc can be baptized after death, and then become good, productive Mormons in the afterlife, is condescending to the unwashed nonmos and a complete waste of money for the Mormons...

After baptizing holocaust victims (oops, we did it again), I wouldn’t expect the NYT to treat TSCC with kid gloves.

Any time an obiturary is written about someone who accomplished things in a big way, like a CEO of a large company, or a religious/cult leader that brings in billions of dollars in revenues each year, that obituary is typically not small. The person's life achievements (good or bad) are fair game to write about in an obituary. Thomas Monson did well for Thomas Monson. The church is wealthier now than when he took leadership of it. He had the power to do more to help the poor with the church's wealth, and he chose not to. The comments that came with the article are just from church members who are upset that Monson was not praised in the article in any way that supports their beliefs, nor his accomplishments exaggerated to make him appear larger than life, and god-like, to meet their expectations. Well, boo-hoo for them. Not everyone is brainwashed as they are.

It reads like a fair and balanced obituary for the leader of TSCC.

It wasn't his life that was the controversy the NYT writes of. It is the controversial church views since Monson became president that give more breadth to the article.

Just imagine if some Mormons read that NYT article and decide they need to do further vetting on their own because the church isn't going to for them.

It may get some to start thinking for themselves.

Agree!!

+100000000000000000

This wasnt an obituary for a private person written by a grieving family. Monson was a public person and the obituary was factual and even handed. There was nothing wrong with it. It was a news story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 04:21PM by bona dea.

Maybe I'm a geezer - strike that - elderly (just not the same flavor), but obits don't normally have a comments section, do they? There's often a link to "view full obituary," and the link is also a bereavement site, where one may leave sympathies.

The NYT is more of an article, and I think it a sort of slight that it didn't rate as a full-fledged article, but more of an "Oh, yeah, btw...." and stuck it in the obits. Maybe that's how they do obits in NY.



O/T - not to hijack - In the attempt at self-deprecation, re: geezer, I realize that my definition of geezer does not so much describe an age, as it does a reluctance or an unwillingness to adapt to an ever-changing world, due to a degradation from insideous overuse of one's adaptation mechanisms, which has a cumulative effect over time. What's the PC word for that condition?

Not Youngish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's the PC word for that
> condition?

I consulted my PC dictionary, and it said:

geezer

:)

Long live the word "geezer." Doesn't P.C. stand for Proper Crap?

I thought it was "Particularly Crappy?"

Hmm, where's my dictionary to define terms in my PC dictionary?

:)

Je suis Geezer!

The Mormon church gets embroiled in political hot potatoes like taking the opposition stance on gay marriage among other issues, like feminism.

For the NYT article not to cover the political aspect of Mormonism, it wouldn't be accurate journalism.

This looks like an organized, concentrated comment writing campaign. Most have the exact same form of complaints, not like the real world comments in the D-News. I smell church involvement.

. . . .did they happen to mention how Monson and Hinckley manipulated E.T. Benson's declining health and mental status with the signature machine to achieve power themselves?

Steve Benson?

My favorite from Hayden: "As a Mormon, I should be used to the mischaracterization of my faith. It's been happening since the Churchs establishment in 1830. . . "

Poor persecuted things! Although, how do verifiable facts fall into The persecution category? Hmmmnnn

Like, uh, everything listed in the obit actually happened. So, uh, Hayden, why the pity party?

They did stop at saying Monson was a prick. Doesn't that count for something?

I guess they would prefer something like what would emerge from the North Korean press office about the passing of a "Great Leader."

I think it's a fair and neutral article/obit; no yellow journalism. She is upset because it's not slanted in his favor.

The caption to the photograph of Monson shaking hands with Bush makes no mention of the actual Masonic handshake.

After reading the comments after the article/obit, I must say there are a heckuva lot of Mormons who need to look up the word "selfless" in the dictionary.

The New York Times does their reporting in the real world, and are under no obligation to candy-coat something to appease Mormons. I found this obituary to be refreshingly honest.

No "Patty-Cake" or "Taffy-Pull."

I challenge any Mormon to state items from the article that are not true.

The ending of that obit is sooooo weak- It should have said:

"Awaiting his turn for the presidency, he ... oversaw secretive gay aversion programs at church-owned Brigham young university, designed to torture men, without informed consent, with electric shocks on their bodies when shown gay pornography, all under the cruelest guise of psychological research, an affront to all humanity. Why he never went to jail for torture should shock the public conscience."

I think Mormons just forget that the sun doesn't spin around their prophet, and NYT isn't Deseret News, where only the good things will be highlighted. But ...never mind. They think the sun spins around them

Mormons were lucky to have the publicity and I didn't see anything they needed to protest. Facts are facts. There was nothing about him in the paper I read.

TBMs cannot recognize the truth about Monson in the NYT obituary because they have never dared look at any of the items they have placed on their shelves.

And, yes, I do think they have items on their shelves, at least the majority, or they have become nothing but unthinking programmed robots for the church.


I thought the article was a delight and well-researched.

I like this comment:

"dolly patterson Silicon Valley 7 hours ago
to all of you Mormon commenters who are complaining about this obituary, can you deny one historic fact reported? Monson *might* have had a benevolent heart, but he still was prejudice to a fault/sin. Since when has the church truly honored women, or gays and lesbians (even celibate ones) or for that matter, blacks? I know in 1978 Mormons allowed blacks into the church, Maya Angelou spoke in the temple about this during the time, but how racially diverse is the Mormon church in 2018? Ask Maya?"

An illustration of TBM reading comprehension:

Courtney writes, "This reporter and the NYT should be ashamed of themselves. They didn't even use the actual name of the church in the article."

First line of article: "Thomas S. Monson, who as president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 2008...."

And among the TBM drivel, some gems:

"Mormons have a difficult path ahead of them. If they continue to discriminate against families head by same-sex couples, choosing to believe that is God's will, they will fall further out of step with their fellow Americans. If they embrace the Mormon families amongst them that are headed by same-sex couples, then the vocal minority of Mormons in opposition will cause them great grief. Either way, this is the bed that their church leaders have made for them, and they will now sleep in it."

That is great! Here is another good comment

"...[Monson's] failure to recognize the harm being done by the church’s outdated teachings on social issues reveals that he was nothing more than a man blind to his own bigotry."

Actually she is correct...
The official name is The Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

You mean the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," but there are two other tax-exempt corporations operating under the names "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and "Intellectual Reserve," while the church itself is unincorporated.

However--and I didn't know this before looking it up--the trademarked name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," with the "The," while the name without "The" is not trademarked and is used by other Mormon sects.

I think it's interesting that church members treat these leaders like many treat celebrities. They think they know them and in some ways are associated with them more intimately than the strangers they are. Even to the point of feeling a need to defend them for some reason.

I'm not one to speak ill of the dead....so I won't.

However I will tell the truth:

I didn't know the man and as such feel no grief. How some are able to I don't understand. They wouldn't feel so for any other stranger.

The Mormon mindset is very strange. Sometimes I think they feel the will score more points w/ Heavenly Father when they come out in defense of their leaders. They hope that many of their peers will see their comments, and it provides fodder for their testimonies, lessons, talks, etc. E.g. "When the prophet died, I was moved by the spirit to defend the persecution in the NYT...blah blah blah." Much of what Mormons do have ulterior motives, is rarely sincere, hardly ever has anything to do w/ the apparent objective, and usually hinges on scoring points (in their delusions of grandeur).

As a response to their perceived persecution, I'm seeing this posted on FB by TBMs. Cuz, you know, the NYT is just bigoted and hateful.

Edit: I'm posting this here because if I make any comment on FB about this I would start WW 3. Not worth it.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25411/new-york-times-proves-it-hates-religious-americans-ben-shapiro



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2018 12:16PM by eternal1.

The NYT tweet was appropriate -- 'cause Monson did so little as "prophet" or church leader that his discrimination was all he was known for (outside of the fawning church membership).

All of their obits made a short statement about what the person died was known for. It was the same with Monson. TBMs just don't like that all Monson was known for was discrimination. Too bad.

What all these whining TBMs and religious "defenders" fail to realize is that the only reason the outside world cares AT ALL about Monson is for his conservative actions as leader of a backwards organization in a socially progressive world. In that context, it is entirely fair to lead with them in his obituary--because otherwise, he isn't an important figure in the least, and certainly not worthy of a write-up in the NYT.

A Poem for Mormons
(by the Anonymous Poet*)

Petulant Mormons,
What do you want us to do?
Your leaders aren't saints,
And neither are you.

*You can quote me in General Conference, all you Mormon GAs reading this/keeping tabs on us heathens!

That pictures shows the patriarchal grip sure sign of the nail.

The most selfless person since Mother Teresa? Really?

The comments talk continually about what a selfless person he was. Really?

What actual facts demonstrate his selflessness? Did he give tons of money to cancer, homeless shelters, etc., a la Huntsman?

Was it that he loved widows and reportedly sometimes visited them? Did he give them money? Food? Shelter?

Frankly, he struck me as a standard issue corporate functionary.

I thought the obituary was a balanced analysis of the church during the Monson years and of Monson's choices and influence with respect thereto. Monson was a public figure and should be remembered in light of established facts.

What do Mormons want? An article that details each time Monson gave a toddler a lollipop?

The church has been at the forefront of numerous very important issues of the day -- and has continually taken the wrong (and very short-sighted) position on such issues.

Reading the silly comments from devout Mormons was something of an eye-opener. Facts truly don't matter to them. Glad I left the church years ago.

NYCGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do Mormons want?

They wanted the NYT to publish a piece with a headline, "World's Greatest Religious Leader of World's Only True Religion Ascends to Celestial Kingdom!"

What they want is irrelevant...they weren't ever going to get it from a world that largely doesn't give a crap about mormonism, and when it does it's only to point out their nastiness.

I compared Monson's obit to Fred Phelps obit from the NYT and found them to be very similar in style. They were leaders of churches with very specific agendas. It is only fitting in this type of article to list the details of their life's work and their troubling accomplishment. Without discussing Monsons Mormon agenda there is no point to give him an obit in the NYT. He would be just one more who died that day.

You can also contrast both to MLK and see the same pattern of listing the details of a person's success with their own agenda. If there were an afterlife, I would love to be fly on the wall when Monson bumps into MLK.

Newspapers fact check and get in big trouble when they don't or get something wrong. Their reputation depends on fact checking and they can be sued. It's just that once again facts for Mormons are an inconvenient truth.