Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
Nevo
God
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Nevo »

jon wrote:
Nevo wrote:
Obviously, President Monson didn't know the details of Arthur's death (nobody does).


He stated "Arthur died quickly".

In your post that I've quoted you show that you acknowledge that it was a disingenuous statement.

No, I don't "acknowledge that it was a disingenuous statement." It was a reasonable inference given President Monson's belief that Arthur was killed during an attack on his ship. Dying of massive blood loss or blunt trauma or drowning is, generally speaking, "quick."
Last edited by Nevo on Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jon
God
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by jon »

Nevo, a reasonable inference would be something like this...

"Arthur probably died quickly"

Whereas

"Arthur died quickly" is a statement of certainty.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 14164
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Chap »

jon wrote:Nevo, a reasonable inference would be something like this...

"Arthur probably died quickly"

Whereas

"Arthur died quickly" is a statement of certainty.


The man's a prophet. People expect him to know - once he lets his guard down with 'might have' or 'probably' all the other Apostles will be scrambling to get his job.

(And the neat thing is - so long as he sounds sure of himself, he can more or less make it up as he goes along as if facts don't matter - a guy who probably fell off a ship "due to his own misconduct" in a peaceful harbor in 1944 becomes a hero who went down fighting with a different ship in 1942, and they queue up to tell us we are pedantic for pointing this out.)
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

Nevo
God
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Nevo »

jon wrote:Nevo, a reasonable inference would be something like this...

"Arthur probably died quickly"

Whereas

"Arthur died quickly" is a statement of certainty.

Well, the context of the statement is "Arthur died quickly. Others linger."

In the first talk, Arthur was believed to have gone down with the Lexington on 8 May 1942. Anyone who went down with the ship that day did die quickly. A lot more quickly than someone dying of, say, a terminal illness. Drowning isn't exactly "a long goodbye."

In the second talk, President Monson quoted Mrs. Patton's letter, which stated that Arthur "was killed...on July 5, 1944." Normally, when someone is "killed," a quick death rather than a lingering death is implied. So I don't see that President Monson misspoke here.

Steve Benson
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:15 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Steve Benson »

Monson did not meaningfully know any of the circumstances surrounding Patton's shrouded "death."

In that vacuum and given his ego-saturated tendency to exaggerate in ways that are now coming back to bite him, Monson embellished, ignored and manufactured key elements of the Patton story, deliberately giving the "pattonly" false impression that he was speaking the factualized truth in critical particulars. In reality, however, Monson's versions of events are fictionalized in severely compromising ways which have shredded his credibility.

The facts on this are coming out and will continue to come out--at Monson's expense.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by harmony »

interested wrote:The facts on this are coming out and will continue to come out--at Monson's expense.


Seriously... I don't think this is going to effect his quality of life at all. If he ever even notices that he made a mistake, we'll certainly never hear about it.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

Steve Benson
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:15 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Steve Benson »

It might not affect the quality of his life but it will affect the quality of his believability.

Nevo
God
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Nevo »

interested wrote:In that vacuum and given his ego-saturated tendency to exaggerate in ways that are now coming back to bite him, Monson embellished, ignored and manufactured key elements of the Patton story, deliberately giving the "pattonly" false impression that he was speaking the factualized truth in critical particulars. In reality, however, Monson's versions of events are fictionalized in severely compromising ways which have shredded his credibility.

Speaking of an "ego-saturated tendency to exaggerate in ways that are now coming back to bite him"...

LOL.

I anxiously await your big reveal of the "key elements" and "critical particulars" of the story that were fabricated.

Steve Benson
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:15 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Steve Benson »

Apologists for Mormonism rarely anxiously await contrary evidence which undermines their fanciful rationalizations--unless it is to anxiously dismiss such evidence out of hand as good, blindly faithful and unquestioningly obedient Mormons so often do. This tendency seems apparent in your fixation over defending Monson's "quick death" claim about a death he knew next to nothing about.

Perhaps God lit a rock with his finger and showed it to him, peepstone-like.

jon
God
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by jon »

Nevo wrote:In the first talk, Arthur was believed to have gone down with the Lexington on 8 May 1942. Anyone who went down with the ship that day did die quickly. A lot more quickly than someone dying of, say, a terminal illness. Drowning isn't exactly "a long goodbye."

In the second talk, President Monson quoted Mrs. Patton's letter, which stated that Arthur "was killed...on July 5, 1944." Normally, when someone is "killed," a quick death rather than a lingering death is implied. So I don't see that President Monson misspoke here.


Nevo, I assume you've never drowned, so I don't think you can comment on it not being "a long goodbye".

Also, in any of the actual records (not Monsons version) where does it say he drowned? The only person that believed Arthur had gone down with the Lexington was Monson - and he was flat out wrong.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.

User avatar
Nomad
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Nomad »

Chap wrote:
jon wrote:Nevo, a reasonable inference would be something like this...

"Arthur probably died quickly"

Whereas

"Arthur died quickly" is a statement of certainty.


The man's a prophet. People expect him to know - once he lets his guard down with 'might have' or 'probably' all the other Apostles will be scrambling to get his job.

Oh ... my ... gosh!

Yeah, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are just like the Kremlin!

You people have gone from simply silly to pathologically disturbed, skipping the exit to extraordinarily ridiculous along the way.

(And the neat thing is - so long as he sounds sure of himself, he can more or less make it up as he goes along as if facts don't matter - a guy who probably fell off a ship "due to his own misconduct" in a peaceful harbor in 1944 becomes a hero who went down fighting with a different ship in 1942, and they queue up to tell us we are pedantic for pointing this out.)

It's not so much that you are "pedantic" as it is you are petty. As others have said, there are lots of very reasonable explanations for the discrepancy in the two stories told decades apart. The most likely one is that Elder/President Monson was either misinformed or misremembered the name of the ship Patton was serving on. It's a relatively minor detail in the larger context of the story. He got it right in the later telling, indicating that he learned the correct details and incorporated them into his later retelling of the story. That shows an interest in "getting it right" rather than distorting it for propaganda purposes.

If you want to see how people go about distorting things for propaganda purposes, just review this thread. It's a textbook example.
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)

User avatar
Nomad
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Nomad »

Nevo wrote:
interested wrote:In that vacuum and given his ego-saturated tendency to exaggerate in ways that are now coming back to bite him, Monson embellished, ignored and manufactured key elements of the Patton story, deliberately giving the "pattonly" false impression that he was speaking the factualized truth in critical particulars. In reality, however, Monson's versions of events are fictionalized in severely compromising ways which have shredded his credibility.

Speaking of an "ego-saturated tendency to exaggerate in ways that are now coming back to bite him"...

LOL.

I anxiously await your big reveal of the "key elements" and "critical particulars" of the story that were fabricated.

If we ever needed a good reason to join DCP and Will in leaving this board forever, I think this thread qualifies. Isn't it perfectly obvious to you that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with these people anymore? This thread has left me shaking my head like few others I have ever seen on this board, and that is really saying something. There is a violent, irrational undercurrent that has started to accompany almost every discussion that goes on here. To me, it's very disturbing. Like some kind of corner has been turned and suddenly it's not all fun and games anymore. There's no more point in trying to talk to them. It's gone way past that.
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)

jon
God
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by jon »

Nomad wrote: There is a violent, irrational undercurrent that has started to accompany almost every discussion that goes on here.


Hmmm....do you think you could show examples from "almost every discussion" of violent undercurrents?

Interestingly, from what I see, the substance of most discussions has improved, there's far less name calling between posters, there's been an increase in tolerance and consideration for others points of view and some fantastic humorous banter.

Well, apart from your posts obviously Will.

Now don't forget to post those numerous examples of violent undercurrents....
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 13228
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by subgenius »

Image
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

jon
God
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by jon »

Oh, I think we'll get to the culmination of the subject all in good time my dear sub, but I suspect you won't like where it ends up...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.

stemelbow
God
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by stemelbow »

This thread clearly amounts to critics quibbling about inconsequential things and attributing nefarious motives to an LDS person based on such petty quibbling. And it started out on some witch-hunt to determine if there really ever was a guy who Monson knew who enlisted in the Navy. I think its clear, many critics here will take some of the most innocuous and innocent things said by an LDS person and make mountains out of molehills.

I don't know how many of these threads are active right now, but there are a few. Its a shame. the hostility is disappointing.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.

User avatar
Fifth Columnist
High Priest
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Fifth Columnist »

It sounds like Monson knew his friend died and wanted to use his story to emphasize his belief in the resurrection. To Monson and his defenders, the actual facts are just unimportant details. The important thing is that members get that spiritual feeling.

Nevo
God
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Nevo »

Nomad wrote:If we ever needed a good reason to join DCP and Will in leaving this board forever, I think this thread qualifies. Isn't it perfectly obvious to you that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with these people anymore? This thread has left me shaking my head like few others I have ever seen on this board, and that is really saying something. There is a violent, irrational undercurrent that has started to accompany almost every discussion that goes on here. To me, it's very disturbing. Like some kind of corner has been turned and suddenly it's not all fun and games anymore. There's no more point in trying to talk to them. It's gone way past that.

I agree. This board has turned into RfM. I'm done with this place.

User avatar
Corpsegrinder
Area Authority
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:33 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Corpsegrinder »

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

User avatar
Buffalo
God
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by Buffalo »

Nomad wrote:If we ever needed a good reason to join DCP and Will in leaving this board forever, I think this thread qualifies. Isn't it perfectly obvious to you that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with these people anymore? This thread has left me shaking my head like few others I have ever seen on this board, and that is really saying something. There is a violent, irrational undercurrent that has started to accompany almost every discussion that goes on here. To me, it's very disturbing. Like some kind of corner has been turned and suddenly it's not all fun and games anymore. There's no more point in trying to talk to them. It's gone way past that.


You keep promising to leave Will, but you keep coming back with different monikers.

LOL at "violent undercurrent." You guys just love to wallow in your persecution fetish. If only you could find someone to actually persecute you.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 13228
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

Post by subgenius »

Corpsegrinder wrote:Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

wow, a legal reference..... unfortunately it only applies to "willful" falsification, and that has not, nor will it be, proven.

but hey, if it being in latin makes it more "true" for you then here is one for your ears:
fidem scit

(just make sure you pronounce it correctly, you good little roman you)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

Post Reply