I didn't interpret that as a defense. I interpreted that as noteworthy and an indication of the complexity of his tenure that wasn't adequately captured.
I think you're almost certainly correct. The "giveaway" to someone from a Mormon background was the inclusion of "Monson led the committees that codified the doctrines taught in every Mormon meetinghouse across the Earth." in the article. This sentence probably sounds completely banal and uninteresting to outsiders, but the "correlation" process, as it is called, it largely hated by both the most fundamental believers AND the most rabid apostates. The believers hate it because it's watered down all the crazy (and frankly much more interesting) parts of Mormon doctrine, Ex-mormons hate it because it whitewashes away many uncomfortable historical truths. The institution is invested in it, however, as a way to try to stamp out the legacy of polygamy.
Like you say, the point of this article is that there's a lot of "there" there, but it takes more digging to find that NYT was willing to invest.
For what it may be worth: As a lifelong member who knows many others and reads a lot, I am completely unaware of anyone hating correlation. It has never come up in any conversation or thing I have read, until now that I see your comment. On the other hand, I am aware of tremendous amounts of original historical source materials and information on many topics that have been published and made freely available on the 'net, to anyone, including about experiences and statistics around polygamy and many other things). When I compare the journals I have read (handed down) and oral family history stories, personalities I have known, etc etc., with what I have seen of Church publicationis and online materials, I see nothing being whitewashed or hidden.
