Another magazine article about the LDS church

[Comprehend]

This article seems FAR from being anti-Mormon.

Well, the church seemed to have a enough of a problem with the article that they mentioned it by name in a news release...


LDS Newsroom: An Invitation to Journalists

"“I think it is disturbing and distressing the way the Mormon religion is being written and talked about in the context of the election," Mr. Foxman is quoted as saying. "There is a looseness to it and almost a disrespect of it that if it were applied to Catholicism or to Judaism, we would find it offensive." ...

At about the time that Abraham Foxman was making his comments in New York, an online magazine called The Week produced an 1,100-word article for its readers under a photograph of Mitt Romney and the heading “What Mormons Believe.” The article falls into Mr. Foxman’s definition of problematic “loose” reporting. According to the report, Mormons believe that Jesus is only “semi-divine,” that Missouri will be the site of Jesus’ second coming, that “divorce is unthinkable” and that Mormons wear “long, bulky underwear.”
This “looseness” — mischaracterizations, distortions and errors — is not necessarily typical of news media reports, but it is common. Professional religion writers, on the whole, tend to get it right. Part of the problem for writers who are untrained in the subject may be the difficulty in selecting accurate material from an overabundance of information sources on the Web.
There is much valuable material and good scholarship available about the Church on the Internet, but there is an enormous amount that ranges from the merely dubious to simple anti-Mormon polemics...

For writers or producers who want to avoid “loose” reporting and best serve their audiences, the core beliefs that define Latter-day Saints are summarized clearly on this Web site. When there are additional questions or a need for clarification, we welcome a phone call or e-mail. "

 

[nutshell]

Well, the church seemed to have a enough of a problem with the article that they mentioned it by name in a news release...


LDS Newsroom: An Invitation to Journalists

"“I think it is disturbing and distressing the way the Mormon religion is being written and talked about in the context of the election," Mr. Foxman is quoted as saying. "There is a looseness to it and almost a disrespect of it that if it were applied to Catholicism or to Judaism, we would find it offensive." ...

At about the time that Abraham Foxman was making his comments in New York, an online magazine called The Week produced an 1,100-word article for its readers under a photograph of Mitt Romney and the heading “What Mormons Believe.” The article falls into Mr. Foxman’s definition of problematic “loose” reporting. According to the report, Mormons believe that Jesus is only “semi-divine,” that Missouri will be the site of Jesus’ second coming, that “divorce is unthinkable” and that Mormons wear “long, bulky underwear.”
This “looseness” — mischaracterizations, distortions and errors — is not necessarily typical of news media reports, but it is common. Professional religion writers, on the whole, tend to get it right. Part of the problem for writers who are untrained in the subject may be the difficulty in selecting accurate material from an overabundance of information sources on the Web.
There is much valuable material and good scholarship available about the Church on the Internet, but there is an enormous amount that ranges from the merely dubious to simple anti-Mormon polemics...

For writers or producers who want to avoid “loose” reporting and best serve their audiences, the core beliefs that define Latter-day Saints are summarized clearly on this Web site. When there are additional questions or a need for clarification, we welcome a phone call or e-mail. "

That's interesting.

I stand by my claim. There is a difference between loose and anti-.

 

[Comprehend]

That's interesting.

I stand by my claim. There is a difference between loose and anti-.

That's ok, not everyone has the ability to see the obvious... That is not to say that it is you that does not have the ability to see the obvious. Clearly you are a man of incredible logic and deductive ability and I would never presume to guess at your cognitive abilities. My comment that not everyone has the ability to see the obvious is a general observation and is in no way directed at any person, least of all Nutshell whom I hold in the highest respect.

 

[SoyLeche]

That's interesting.

I stand by my claim. There is a difference between loose and anti-.

I agree with you. This wasn't anti - it was just really bad reporting. Someone needs to hire a fact checker.

I found it interesting that the only person they really quoted (meaning that it looked like they actually talked to) was a teenager. What's up with that?

 

[Comprehend]

I agree with you. This wasn't anti - it was just really bad reporting. Someone needs to hire a fact checker.

I found it interesting that the only person they really quoted (meaning that it looked like they actually talked to) was a teenager. What's up with that?

You think they were so dumb that they didn't think to do proper research?

ok, I guess it isn't so obvious.

 

[SoyLeche]

You think they were so dumb that they didn't think to do proper research?

ok, I guess it isn't so obvious.

Yes, I do. I have lived among people who don't know anything about the church. One of the first conversations I had at lunch with my co-workers had one of them telling me he thought that Jerry Falwell (who I had never heard of) was as famous as John Smith (of course, he meant Joseph Smith - but what did he know? ). I found the irony quite humorous.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that they got their facts wrong. The beliefs of the church aren't understood very well by those outside of it. This was most likely a case of shoddy journalism, not a diliberate misrepresentation.

It's not like it's a great magazine anyway.

 

[Comprehend]

Yes, I do. I have lived among people who don't know anything about the church. One of the first conversations I had at lunch with my co-workers had one of them telling me he thought that Jerry Falwell (who I had never heard of) was as famous as John Smith (of course, he meant Joseph Smith - but what did he know? ). I found the irony quite humorous.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that they got their facts wrong. The beliefs of the church aren't understood very well by those outside of it. This was most likely a case of shoddy journalism, not a diliberate misrepresentation.

It's not like it's a great magazine anyway.

ok. I can imagine that might be the case. I find it difficult to believe that every time they got something wrong it was on the negative side. I can see the average person not knowing much of anything about the church but a magazine doing an article about what mormons believe has the professional responsibility to actually find out what we believe before printing it. Not doing so, is as I said before, willfully negligent. They intentionally did not find out what we believe before printing a story about what we believe.

That means they got the information from somewhere else, and judging by the quality of the information, they got it from a source that either does not like mormons or knows nothing about them. Again, doing this is willfully negligent.

If I were to print some article about what Catholics believe and intentionally not have a Catholic source, there is only one reason that I would do that...

 

[nutshell]

Feel free to take back your previous comment anytime, Comprehend. I guess if it comes from me you roll your eyes and make personal insults, but if it comes from someone else you actually step back and consider it.

 

[Comprehend]

Feel free to take back your jerk comment anytime, Comprehend. I guess if it comes from me you roll your eyes and make personal insults, but if it comes from someone else you actually step back and consider it.

huh? I disagreed with Soy too.

When both of you said the same thing, the only honest thing to do is reconsider my position. I did that. I reconsidered your argumeint and came to the same conclusion. To me, it looks obviously like an anti-mormon article.

I think the difference is that you gave a flippant response and Soy gave a thoughtful one. Your post didn't give much to respond to. Soy's had actual substance and reasoning.

I just responded in kind to your post. Next time, you could give a more thoughtful reply if you would like a thoughtful response.

 

[nutshell]

huh? I disagreed with Soy too.

When both of you said the same thing, the only honest thing to do is reconsider my position. I did that. I reconsidered your argumeint and came to the same conclusion. To me, it looks obviously like an anti-mormon article.

I think the difference is that you gave a flippant response and Soy gave a thoughtful one. Your post didn't give much to respond to. Soy's had actual substance and reasoning.

I just responded in kind to your post. Next time, you could give a more thoughtful reply if you would like a thoughtful response.

No. I made a simple claim.

You, on the other hand, made a personal attack, which is against forum rules.

So you did not respond in kind to my post.

 

[Quiddity]

*MOD REVIEW*
PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL. IF YOUR WORDS CAN AND HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS BEING INFLAMMATORY OR PERSONAL, PLEASE MODIFY YOUR POST.​

 

[nutshell]

That's ok, not everyone has the ability to see the obvious...

Just in case Victor's post wasn't clear, the above is an example of what should be edited. Thanks.

 

[Comprehend]

Just in case Victor's post wasn't clear, the above is an example of what should be edited. Thanks.

Thanks for the help Nutshell, I was having difficulty finding the post that might have been construed as offensive. luckily, you were there to save the day. Thanks again. Your service is of course another example of your greatness. Thank you again, I am forever in your debt.

I hope nobody construes this as somehow being less than serious... It is completely heart felt.

 

[nutshell]

Thanks for the help Nutshell, I was having difficulty finding the post that might have been construed as offensive. luckily, you were there to save the day. Thanks again. Your service is of course another example of your greatness. Thank you again, I am forever in your debt.

I hope nobody construes this as somehow being less than serious... It is completely heart felt.

I'm glad I could be of some assistance. I'm always looking out for those in need.

 

[nutshell]

That's ok, not everyone has the ability to see the obvious... That is not to say that it is you that does not have the ability to see the obvious. Clearly you are a man of incredible logic and deductive ability and I would never presume to guess at your cognitive abilities. My comment that not everyone has the ability to see the obvious is a general observation and is in no way directed at any person, least of all Nutshell whom I hold in the highest respect.

And I too, hold you in the highest respect. I am so happy to know your post was not directed at me. I thought we might be having a falling out, but, obviously, I was wrong. Thank you, kind sir.

 

[Comprehend]

And I too, hold you in the highest respect. I am so happy to know your post was not directed at me. I thought we might be having a falling out, but, obviously, I was wrong. Thank you, kind sir.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[nutshell]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Then I am flattered.

 

[DeepShadow]

There is a difference between loose and anti-.

I totally agree. I think the best evidence that the author is a bad researcher and not deliberately malicious is in the claim that the LDS church is the 7th largest instead of the 4th. That's a big error that does nothing to make the church look bad, and if the author is making those kinds of errors, how many others creep into an article like that?

The characterization of Lamanites and Nephites as "white skin good, dark skin bad" is a gross oversimplification...but it's one that has occured to far too many casual readers of the Book of Mormon to claim that he came up with it himself. Again, base on the shoddy work exemplified in the 7th/4th error, I don't know if I can credit the reporter with being that original.

Other errors strike me the same way, and I attibute them more to the "of course it's true, I saw it on the internet!" mentality of bad journalism than any actual caprice. Reporters are taught to be fair-minded and give both sides of the story, but they don't know how to follow that advice properly. 60 Minutes figured out that giving both sides of the story equal weight was like giving equal weight to the flat earthers. Not all journalists have that kind of saavy, especially not ones who do their other research in this kind of a hurry.

Speaking as a writer, I don't think I can give this guy enough credit to call the article malicious.

 

[nutshell]

I totally agree. I think the best evidence that the author is a bad researcher and not deliberately malicious is in the claim that the LDS church is the 7th largest instead of the 4th. That's a big error that does nothing to make the church look bad, and if the author is making those kinds of errors, how many others creep into an article like that?

The characterization of Lamanites and Nephites as "white skin good, dark skin bad" is a gross oversimplification...but it's one that has occured to far too many casual readers of the Book of Mormon to claim that he came up with it himself. Again, base on the shoddy work exemplified in the 7th/4th error, I don't know if I can credit the reporter with being that original.

Other errors strike me the same way, and I attibute them more to the "of course it's true, I saw it on the internet!" mentality of bad journalism than any actual caprice. Reporters are taught to be fair-minded and give both sides of the story, but they don't know how to follow that advice properly. 60 Minutes figured out that giving both sides of the story equal weight was like giving equal weight to the flat earthers. Not all journalists have that kind of saavy, especially not ones who do their other research in this kind of a hurry.

Speaking as a writer, I don't think I can give this guy enough credit to call the article malicious.

Thanks for your post. I agree.

 

[DeepShadow]

Heh, on a whim, I googled the terms "Mormon" and "7th largest" and got a homemade transcript of the 60 Minutes interview with Gordon B. Hinckley. Apparently that was the position of our church at the time of that interview, and the reporter neglected to see if we had grown in over ten years!

Shoddy journalism all the way, I say.