There's been a petition going around to attempt to pressure the NYT to present a different obituary for President Monson than the one they published last week. I didn't sign it.
The NYT knows that many (if not most) LDS individuals don't see the world the way they do, and they made it pretty clear that they find that irritating. Is it surprising to any one that the staff at the NYT finds LDS doctrinal positions on marriage and Priesthood problematic? Protesting that they tried to reduce a man of tremendous charity and personal integrity to someone of no more significance or virtue than Fidel Castro will not change the way anyone at the NYT sees President Monson, or our doctrine. Let that rest with them.
Is anything they said untrue? In the face of public criticism, loud protest, and clear disdain from people of the mindset prevalent at places like the NYT, President Monson continued to declare and defend the Lord's doctrine, with kindness and respect, but without apology.
He is the one who told us
Dare to be a Mormon
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
Dare to make it known.
Whatever their intentions, the NYT has paid our dear prophet the profound compliment of declaring to the world that he lived up to those words. President Monson exemplified the standard of moral leadership revealed to another prophet, who was weathering persecution far more intense than a petulant literary swipe: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." That's the spirit we ought to respond in--that's the only spirit that can really change anything and move forward the work of Him who President Monson so boldly and humbly served. Be bold, defend the Lord's doctrine in spite of those who would see it swept away.
The NYT knows that many (if not most) LDS individuals don't see the world the way they do, and they made it pretty clear that they find that irritating. Is it surprising to any one that the staff at the NYT finds LDS doctrinal positions on marriage and Priesthood problematic? Protesting that they tried to reduce a man of tremendous charity and personal integrity to someone of no more significance or virtue than Fidel Castro will not change the way anyone at the NYT sees President Monson, or our doctrine. Let that rest with them.
Is anything they said untrue? In the face of public criticism, loud protest, and clear disdain from people of the mindset prevalent at places like the NYT, President Monson continued to declare and defend the Lord's doctrine, with kindness and respect, but without apology.
He is the one who told us
Dare to be a Mormon
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
Dare to make it known.
Whatever their intentions, the NYT has paid our dear prophet the profound compliment of declaring to the world that he lived up to those words. President Monson exemplified the standard of moral leadership revealed to another prophet, who was weathering persecution far more intense than a petulant literary swipe: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." That's the spirit we ought to respond in--that's the only spirit that can really change anything and move forward the work of Him who President Monson so boldly and humbly served. Be bold, defend the Lord's doctrine in spite of those who would see it swept away.
No comments:
Post a Comment