It is my honest hope and intent that the following post will by no means bring disrespect to the persons and families of the about-to-be-mentioned. The passing away of a loved one is indeed a sensitive time, but nonetheless a part of life, and with this in mind I would like to proceed with an observation:

Within the past two weeks, and within a week of one another, two religious figures have passed away: Dr. L. Russ Bush of Southeastern Seminary, 22 January, and Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), 27 January. After attending a Friday night lecture on the Mormon view of the soul, death, and the afterlife at the local LDS stake in Wake Forest, I was interested to read how the death of their president would be presented to the public. This would be a prime opportunity to demonstrate through the death of President Hinckley their views on death and the afterlife. I expected headlines on the official LDS web site to contain some sort of religious euphemism that would hint at their beliefs, such as: “President Hinckley Has Gone to Be with the Lord” or “Hinckley Now Becomes as God Now Is.” Nothing to this effect was published, but “Beloved Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley, Dies at 97.”

Call this a missed opportunity or professional journalism avoiding religious jargon, but I, honestly, was surprised. I clicked the headline to read the whole article, thinking that surely inside would be the religious language the title had forgone. “President Gordon B. Hinckley, who led The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through twelve years of global expansion, has died at the age of 97…President Hinckley was known, even at the age of 97, as a tireless leader who always put in a full day at the office and traveled extensively around the world to mix with Church members, now numbering 13 million in 171 nations.” No mention of what I was looking for; but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

I wouldn’t be writing this, however, if Dr. L. Russ Bush hadn’t passed so closely to Hinckley. The title of the article written bringing the news of his passing is very different than that of Hinckley: “The Homegoing of Dr. L. Russ Bush.” “Homegoing ” says it all. Dr. Bush has not become a homemaker as Hinckley, but has gone home to be with the risen Savior. President Akin remembers Bush as “a champion and faithful warrior for the cause of Christ.” Dean of the Faculty at Southeastern, David Nelson, sums up what is contained in the article’s heading when he says, “We are truly grieved at [Bush’s] passing, because he was a kind, gracious friend and leader, but of course, because of his faith in Christ, ours is a hopeful grief as we know he is in the presence of the Lord he loved.” Dr. Bush preached the Gospel in life but also in death: when he passed it was said of him that he is in the presence of the Lord he loved. Journalist opportunity seized: the result of a life lived in devotion to Christ is shown to the public.

Maybe I’m making more out of this observation than it merits, but nonetheless, it is an observation. Has Mormon journalism merely foregone religious jargon or absconded with their beliefs? Baptist journalists and spokesmen gladly publicized the Christian view on death and the afterlife, giving the reader a peek into Christian theology, a theology that doesn’t have anything to hide to save face. Contrasting orthodox Christianity and Mormonism on such basic tenets as death and the afterlife show them to be very dissimilar, and for a faith that considers itself Abrahamic as well as Christian, it has much to fear in open, public juxtaposition of the two which could have taken place had Mormon journalists openly shared their beliefs. It then makes sense why a non-religious obituary should be published.