Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cardinal Biggles
CTR B
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:02 pm

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

Post by Cardinal Biggles »

Nevo wrote:I'm done with this place.


You mean, you're DUNN with this place. Ba-dum ching!

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

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

Post by sock puppet »

moksha wrote:No one ever faulted inspirational speaker Napoleon Hill for his made up stories. Whether fictional or not they added to the point he was making and the audience enjoyed them. Why worry about these bits and flecks of unreality, when the purpose they served was real enough. Stories help advance the point the teller is trying to make and hopefully serve to enlighten and entertain us.

If Thomas S. Monson is nothing more than an inspirational speaker, then he's on terra firma.

But as to the claim he's a prophet of god, a lie is the antithesis of truth, even if told to give listener's warm fuzzies.

User avatar
Madison54
God
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:37 pm

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

Post by Madison54 »

I don't post on here often, but I do read on here often.

This thread has been interesting to read. I have felt for a very long time that speakers at General Conference, Church Education Weeks, etc., either fabricate or embellish stories greatly. I would come home from BYU Education Week year after year wondering, "Why do some people have so many earth shattering, inspiring events happen in their (almost) daily lives and I have nothing like that happen to me???" Then I got to know someone who knew one of the speakers extremely well (her sister was married to him) and she told me that practically none of the stories he'd told were the truth (or at least the complete, honest, unembellished truth)....but that he justified it by how inspiring a speaker he was.

I just have to wonder how many on here who are defending Pres. Monson's (and other's) right to "lie" or at least embellish or stretch the truth would also defend one of their teenage children (or someone else close to them) doing the same? How about a spouse fudging the truth or forgetting the facts regarding who or where they were the night before? How about a teenager doing the same about who they were with, what they were doing, what party they'd attended, what went on there, etc., etc.?

Why defend the Prophet of God who quite honestly should most likely even be held to a higher standard?

What example is that to your children who you are trying to teach to be honest at all times and who you are also trying to teach to look to their Prophet as an example in all things?

Just saying.....

My 2 cents for what they are worth....

Yoda

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

Post by Yoda »

I agree with the statement about lies being harmful when you are referring to a private situation. I just think that too much is being made of Dunn's aggrandizement of things from the pulpit. As far as President Monson is concerned, I'm still not convinced that he lied...at least, intentionally.

Of course, part of my view regarding tales from the pulpit comes from the fact that I believe the LDS Church to have the same man-made elements as many other churches. I don't view it as the "one, true Church". I DO view the LDS Church as a positive organization which preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I think that, over the years, it has fallen victim to man-made mistakes, just like other churches in the world have. This is part of my NOM philosophy that I get beat up for all the time by both sides of the aisle. But, guess what? It's the only way I was able to deal with my personal crisis of faith. There are elements of the gospel, such as polygamy, and various pieces of Church history that I have never been able to reconcile, or be at complete peace with. Allowing myself to segment what works for me is how I am able to maintain my membership in the Church, and keep peace with my family. If people don't like it, they can lump it.

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

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

Post by Chap »

liz3564 wrote:I agree with the statement about lies being harmful when you are referring to a private situation.


These words suggest you think lies might not be harmful in a non-private, i.e. public situation. I am sure you don't actually mean that. That is not meant ironically.

liz3564 wrote:As far as President Monson is concerned, I'm still not convinced that he lied...at least, intentionally.


I think that he showed that he was rather reckless about truth, which is I agree not the same as flat out conscious lying.

liz3564 wrote: Allowing myself to segment what works for me is how I am able to maintain my membership in the Church, and keep peace with my family. If people don't like it, they can lump it.


Quite right too. We all have to find a way to live, starting from where we and those we love actually are rather than from some kind of idealized position. Human life is (in my view) so short that it does no great harm if we simply do the best we can with the tiny space in which we are able to exercise choice.
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.

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

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

Post by sock puppet »

liz3564 wrote:I agree with the statement about lies being harmful when you are referring to a private situation. I just think that too much is being made of Dunn's aggrandizement of things from the pulpit. As far as President Monson is concerned, I'm still not convinced that he lied...at least, intentionally.

Of course, part of my view regarding tales from the pulpit comes from the fact that I believe the LDS Church to have the same man-made elements as many other churches. I don't view it as the "one, true Church". I DO view the LDS Church as a positive organization which preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I think that, over the years, it has fallen victim to man-made mistakes, just like other churches in the world have. This is part of my NOM philosophy that I get beat up for all the time by both sides of the aisle. But, guess what? It's the only way I was able to deal with my personal crisis of faith. There are elements of the gospel, such as polygamy, and various pieces of Church history that I have never been able to reconcile, or be at complete peace with. Allowing myself to segment what works for me is how I am able to maintain my membership in the Church, and keep peace with my family. If people don't like it, they can lump it.

Well, here's the thing liz, despite our exhange of posts on that other thread, I am betting that when you give a talk at church, you do not embellish the facts of a story you might relate, or fabricate them. I'd also suspect that if you do include a story in your talk, you fact check those aspects you might not be certain of before the talk is finalized and given.

Blixa has related a corroborating instance that involved her father and Thomas S. Monson, showing Thomas S. Monson's propensity to create a story around a few facts he learns.

It just seems odd, liz, that you'd defend a practice, a corroborated practice, by the man, Thomas S. Monson, that you yourself would not do.

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 »

liz:
As far as President Monson is concerned, I'm still not convinced that he lied...at least, intentionally.


How can you lie unintentionally?

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

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

Post by sock puppet »

interested wrote:liz:
As far as President Monson is concerned, I'm still not convinced that he lied...at least, intentionally.


How can you lie unintentionally?

A misrepresentation may be intentional or unintentional. All that is required is that the facts are wrong as represented.

A "lie" is usually regarded as intentional, but there is growing use of 'lie' as a synonym of or shorthand for misrepresentation. I suppose liz was using the word in this regard.

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

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

Post by harmony »

It's entirely possible to be wrong, without being a liar.
(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 »

A "lie" is usually regarded as intentional, but there is growing use of 'lie' as a synonym of or shorthand for misrepresentation. I suppose liz was using the word in this regard.


I know of no "growing use" of the word "lie" to mean simply some kind of unintentional misrepresentation.

Quite to the contrary, "Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language," defines "lie" as both (1) a verb and (2) a noun, in a very straightforward and limited context:

1. "to make a statement that one knows is false"

2. "a false statement made with intent to deceive"

To lie is to, ipso facto, intend to deceive when making a false statement.

One, therefore, in common parlance, cannot unintentionally lie. A lie is a purposeful act of deception.

Quit cutting Monson undeserved breaks here.

Plain and simple, he lied by making claims that were patently false, that were not based on demonstrable factual foundations and that he had no reaonable basis for believing were literally true. If Monson believed they were true, then why did he not provide supporting, verifiable information to back them up? Because he did not have that information and therefore deliberately and knowingly invented (i.e., fabricated) false story elements in that narrative vacuum in order to dramatically juice up his tale.

That can be reasonably deduced from the fact that Monson's false statements in his original 1969 sermon--that Patton had died on 8 May 1942 aboard the U.S.S. Lexington in the Coral Sea--were redacted from his 2007 rewrite of events. Obviously, he (or his speechwriters) came upon information that Patton had not died in the 1942 Battle of Coral Sea, given that Patton was alive during 1942 and 1943. Perhaps Monson was made aware of that fact from the letter he cites from Mrs. Patton who tells him shortly after his errant 1969 sermon that her son Arthur had died on 5 July 1944. So, theoretically, Monson curiously waits for almost 40 years but then when he delivers the 2007 sermon he updates his tale by removing (without telling his audience) the false information about Arthur dying on the wrong ship in the wrong body of water in the wrong year in the wrong battle.

But then Monson goes on to insert claims in that same 2007 story about Arthur Patton supposedly dying ("quickly," no less) in combat with the enemy--being "lost at sea," Monson asserts, off Saipan in 1944. Such claims are seriously undermined, if not directly contradicted, by available U.S. naval crew tranfer logs from the U.S.S. White Plains itself, as well as by U.S. Navy WW II casuality compliations covering the duration of the war. Patton has never been officially declared by U.S. military documentation as having been killed in combat action during WW II or as having been lost at sea during WW II.

What is actually revealed by accessible U.S. military documents is that Patton was declared "missing" on 2 July 1944 due to his "own misconduct" while his ship was temporarily heading to port at an atoll outside the combat zone, after combat operations for that vesel had been recently completed. If Monson had access to that military data and did not mention it, Monson lied by making up elements of his story that did not comport with the known facts. If Monson did not have access to that information, he also lied by making up elements for his story that did not factually interface with that military data. (Or in the best of scenarios for Monson, he simply repeated unverified stories that were told to him by unnamed others).

The evidence strongly points to Monson inventing key parts of his Patton narrative.

Finally, Monson is not somehow exonerated if he purposely deceived with the rationalization secretly in his head that it is an acceptable practice to "lie for the Lord" in order to achieve the higher purpose of giving listeners the emotional tinglies.
Last edited by Steve Benson on Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Yoda

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

Post by Yoda »

Monson is not somehow exonerated if he purposely deceived with the rationalization secretly in his head that it is an acceptable practice to "lie for the Lord" in order to achieve the higher purpose of giving listeners the emotional tinglies


I don't believe that is what he did. I think that he got his facts mixed up, and honestly thought he was telling the truth. That is a completely different situation than lying.

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

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

Post by sock puppet »

interested wrote:Quit cutting Monson undeserved breaks here.

I've never before been accused of cutting Monson undeserved breaks.

All I was doing was explaining a colloquial use of the term 'lie' that I have heard not infrequently in the last several years.

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 »

Read my edited-in additions to flesh the facts out for you in more detail.

You say:
I don't believe that is what [Monson] did. I think that he got his facts mixed up, and honestly thought he was telling the truth. That is a completely different situation than lying.


liz, you said that Monson lied but did so unintentionally. Lies are not unintentional.

Moreover, you employ the words "believe" and "think" when expressing your opinion on this subject, which indicate your own yearnings to salvage a story that has been shot full of holes. Monson's ship has demonstrably been sunk on the Patton story, but you can insist on believing and thinking whatever you wish, despite the evidence and the logic the weighs heavily against your beliefs and thoughts. That's what believers do.

Yoda

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

Post by Yoda »

sock puppet wrote:
interested wrote:Quit cutting Monson undeserved breaks here.

I've never before been accused of cutting Monson undeserved breaks.

All I was doing was explaining a colloquial use of the term 'lie' that I have heard not infrequently in the last several years.

And you are correct in your interpretation of what I meant. Thanks.

Sorry I was unclear.

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 »

sock puppet:
All I was doing was explaining a colloquial use of the term 'lie' that I have heard not infrequently in the last several years.


"not infrequently" is not compelling evidence of "growing use." The fact of the matter is that the standard, traditional and generally-employed defintion of the word "lie" is one that includes INTENT to deceive.
Last edited by Steve Benson on Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yoda

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

Post by Yoda »

I already clarified where I misspoke. I don't believe that Monson lied. He did not intentionally misrepresent the story.

As far as whether I am a believer...in some cases, yes, in some, no. If you want to understand where I am coming from as a NOM, please refer to my prior post regarding Dunn.

I do not apologize for my beliefs. I call things as I see them. Take it or leave it. I really don't care.

interested wrote:Read my edited-in additions to flesh the facts out for you in more detail.

You say:
I don't believe that is what [Monson] did. I think that he got his facts mixed up, and honestly thought he was telling the truth. That is a completely different situation than lying.


liz, you said that Monson lied but did so unintentionally. Lies are not unintentional.

Moreover, you employ the words "believe" and "think" when expressing your opinion on this subject, which indicate your own yearnings to salvage a story that has been shot full of holes. Monson's ship has demonstrably been sunk on the Patton story, but you can insist on believing and thinking whatever you wish, despite the evidence and the logic the weighs heavily against your beliefs and thoughts. That's what believers do.

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 »

liz: I did read your post on Dunn. In essence, you said that there are certain things you choose to believe in order to maintain your membership in the Mormon Church in good standing and to keep relations with your family at a place that is acceptable to you. Then you said that if others didn't like your method, they could lump it.

I'm not lumping it; you can think and believe what you want. The evidence, however, against Monson in terms of exposing him as a liar may not fit neatly with your belief choices; they do fit better with logic and history.

Faith, of course, is not the realm of logic or history. Faith is belief in things that are empirically unknown but accepted as being true.

Yoda

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

Post by Yoda »

interested wrote:liz: I did read your post on Dunn. In essence, you said that there are certain things you choose to believe in order to maintain your membership in the Mormon Church in good standing and to keep relations with your family at a place that is acceptable to you. Then you said that if others didn't like your method, they could lump it.

I'm not lumping it; you can think and believe what you want. The evidence, however, against Monson in terms of exppsing him as a liar may not fit neatly with your belief choices; they do fit better with logic and history.

Faith, of course, is not the realm of logic or history. Faith is belief in things that are empirically unknown but accepted as being true.


Then I guess everybody wins.

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 »

If you consider belief as prevailing over facts, it's a win for you, as you see wins.

Such is the mindset of the believer.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22509
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

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

Post by moksha »

Interested, you would be a tough crowd for most storytellers. You would demand the shell fragments from Mr. Humpty Dumpty, late of Cornwall, England, and an affidavit with a stamped time code from the King's Men that they did all in their power to reconstruct him.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

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 is not a prophet; he is a storyteller posing as a prophet who has been caught in assertions in the course of his Patton storytelling that are demonstrably untrue.

If Monson were telling a story about Humpty Dumpty where he was trying to pass it off as true, then yes, I would ask for the evidence showing that it was true--just like if Monson were asserting that Santa Claus, Mother Goose and unicorns really exist.

In the Patton case (and that's what, of course, we are ultimately talking about here), Monson is presenting his story as being historically true and accurate. Yet, he has already skinned back from his original incarnation of events and timelines because he got fundamental facts strikingly wrong; and in his second retelling he has made further declarations which he presents as being true that based on available, cross-checkable evidence are not true. Yet, Monson provides no counter evidence to support that they are historical facts.

In the meantime, Monson's Patton storytelling is littered with other assertions that, at best, are questionable as to their veracity.

Monson is not only a storyteller, he is a bad storyteller, for this simple reason: He claims that his stories are factual in particulars that are are empirically disprovable.

In short, Thomas S. Monson is like Paul H. Dunn. They are both incurable yarn spinners cut from the same garment.

Post Reply