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
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

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

Post by just me »

Awesome. I wonder if the service records would have more details.

Missing is certainly different than killed in battle. I wonder if going missing due to misconduct would preclude someone from being listed on the MIA list. I am not a military buff so I don't know the rules of such things.

Mrs. Patton would have had 2 stars in her window. She had 4 children. Her husband actually was buried the same day Arthur enlisted.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

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

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

Post by Nevo »

just me wrote:I wonder if going missing due to misconduct would preclude someone from being listed on the MIA list.

This seems to be the case. Blake Pauley (b. 16 Feb 1927) isn't listed as KIA or MIA either. These guys were young: Patton was 18 and Pauley was only 17. Who knows what stupid thing they did to get themselves killed. Evidently their bodies weren't recovered.

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 »

The U.S.S. White Plains crew status log for July 1944 indicates Patton as "missing," due to "own misconduct."

If, for the sake of argument, Patton went "missing" in July 1944 (meaning as in AWOL), he would have been listed in U.S. military records as such, not as missing.

Again, for the sake of argument, perhaps Patton (along with his shipmate) failed to get back on the ship and thus were considered "missing" but not AWOL. Consider the following: Per U.S. military law, one can be "missing" and not considered dead or AWOL under certain "misconduct" conditions:

“Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design MISSES [emphasis added] the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

"Elements.

"(1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;

"(2) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;

"(3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and

"(4) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.

"Explanation.

"(1) Movement.

"'Movement' as used in Article 87 includes a move, transfer, or shift of a ship, aircraft, or unit involving a substantial distance and period of time. Whether a particular movement is substantial is a question to be determined by the court-martial considering all the circumstances. Changes which do not constitute a 'movement' include practice marches of a short duration with a return to the point of departure, and minor changes in location of ships, aircraft, or units, as when a ship is shifted from one berth to another in the same shipyard or harbor or when a unit is moved from one barracks to another on the same post."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitive ... s/a/87.htm

Putting aside the notion that Patton had missed his boat, perhaps he (along with his missing shipmate) engaged in some unwise personal conduct which got themselves killed.

However, Patton's name does not show up in any official U.S. military records covering World War II as dead, missing or wounded. Regarding American casualties in that conflict, the U.S. Department of the Navy has posted online the military records for "[c]asualties listed represent[ing] only those on active duty in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, resulting directly from enemy action or from operational activities against the enemy in war zones from December 7, 1941, to the end of the war." It adds that "[c]asualties in the United States area or as a result of disease, homicide, or suicide in any location are not included."

The report describes itself as "a State summary taken from casualty lists released by the Navy Department, corrected as to the most recent casualty status and recorded residence of next of kin."

The official casualty status of Patton (were it to be found anywhere) would therefore be in this Navy document: "[A] State Summary of War Casualties [Utah], U.S. Navy 1946, Compiled July 1946 by Casualty Section, Office of Public Information, Navy Department." If Patton had been killed in the performance of military combat duties, his name would have appeared under "Killed in Action, Died of Wounds, or Lost Lives as Result of Operational Movements in War Zones," alphabetized by name under "P," in "Dead" section, p. 5, at: http://archives.utah.gov/research/guide ... s-utah.pdf

However, Arthur Patton's name does not appear anywhere in this document (including in its section of "Missing in Action or During Operational War Missions."

Adding further mystery to the matter, it seems odd that Patton's mother was reportedly notified (barely one day after Patton was deemed missing on 4 July 1944 ) that he had been killed on 5 July 1944. This appears to be an extraordinarily rapid response to the case of a missing 18-year-old Navy private off the coast of Saipan during a fighting lull for his ship, which headed out of the combat zone on 2 July 1944 for a week at Eniwetok.

It is also worth noting that Patton's mother (at least so the story goes) apparently did not tell Monson how her son was killed. Yet, the Monson story reports Patton as having been "lost at sea," when no official U.S. government military records for World War II are known to substantiate that claim.

Moreover, Monson misstates the facts (once again) in falsely declaring in his 2007 retelling of these alleged events:

"In March 1944, with the war now raging, Arthur was transferred from the USS Dorsey, a destroyer, to the USS White Plains, an aircraft carrier. While at Saipan in the South Pacific, the ship was attacked. Arthur was one of those on board who was lost at sea."

http://LDS.org/general-conference/2007/ ... s?lang=eng

For the record, Patton turned up missing in July 1944, not in March 1944, during the U.S.S. White Plain's absence from the combat operations zone from 2 July to 9 July. Again, Patton was officially classified as missing on 4 July. Patton therefore could not have been "lost at sea" while onboard a ship that was not under enemy attack during the time he was noted on his ship's crew list as being "missing" due to his "own misconduct."

Of course, it does not make for a faith-promoting story told before a General Conference audience to declare that Patton ended up missing due to his personal misconduct. "Lost at sea" sounds much more gallant.

It also sounds fishy.
Last edited by Steve Benson on Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm

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

Post by Morley »

Welcome to the board, good sir.

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

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

Post by Nevo »

interested wrote:Adding further mystery to the matter, it seems odd that Patton's mother was reportedly notified (barely one day after Patton was deemed missing on 4 July 1944 ) that he had been killed on 5 July 1944. This appears to be an extraordinarily rapid response to the case of a missing 18-year-old Navy private off the coast of Saipan during a fighting lull for his ship, which headed out of the combat zone on 2 July 1944 for a week at Eniwetok.

I don't think it has been reported anywhere that Mrs. Patton was notified of her son's death "barely one day after Patton was deemed missing." I'm sure she wasn't notified until much later. I apologize if sloppy phrasing on my part gave this impression (I wrote "it appears that Mrs. Patton was told that her son was killed on 5 July").

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 was rather imprecise writing on your part. Thank you for clarifying.

(*Note: Since making your comment in that regard, I have added a further observation about Monson's historical imprecision regarding Saipan-area attacks on the U.S.S. White Plains that Monson inaccurately claims led to Patton being "lost at sea").

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

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

Post by jon »

I would like to know how Monson knows this...

Arthur Patton died quickly.

(from the 2007 version)
'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.

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 have any factual basis for declaring Patton to have been "lost at sea." He may have assured his audience that Patton "died quickly" in this false death scenario through a brazen emotional play to his faithful listeners who could have been understandably hoping, upon hearing Monson spin his embellished tale, that Patton's death was mercifully swift.

In other words, it appears to have been a presentation gimmick on Monson's part. He's been using such heart-string triggers for decades.

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

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

Post by Chap »

So it looks very much as if Arthur Patten went missing from his ship "due to his own misconduct" when the White Plains was peacefully anchored in Eniwetok atoll on 4th July 1944, days after the action at Saipan. Maybe some kind naval officer told his Mom that her son was 'missing in action' to give her the comfort of thinking her son died gallantly for his country, when in reality he fell overboard after celebrating a bit too enthusiastically. We can't tell. Anyway, she is very unlikely to have told the young Monson that he went down with the Lexington in May 1942, rather than going missing from the White Plains in 1944.

It is worth while looking back at the OP and reminding ourselves that in general conference, April 6, 1969, Thomas Monson told his enthralled audience:

The flight from Brisbane, Australia, to San Francisco is a long one. There is time to read, time to sleep, and time to ponder and think. As a passenger on this flight, I was awakened by the calm, resonant sound of the pilot’s voice as he announced: “Ladies and gentlemen, we’re now passing over the Coral Sea, scene of the great sea battle of World War II.”

Through the cabin window I could see billowy, white clouds and far below the azure blue of the vast Pacific. My thoughts turned to the events of that fateful eighth day of May in 1942 when the mammoth aircraft carrier Lexington slipped to its final resting place on the ocean floor. Twenty-seven hundred thirty-five sailors scrambled to safety. Others were not so fortunate. One who went down with his ship was my boyhood friend Arthur Patton.


Can anyone who heard Monson have suspected this was just plain wrong? He can't have had that experience on the plane, because no-one could ever have told him that Patten died in 1942 on the Lexington, And the whole 'battle of the Coral Sea/Lexington sinking' story is crucial to the core element in this faith-promoting talk:

Then came the Battle of the Coral Sea, the sinking of the Lexington, and the death of Arthur Patton. The blue star was taken from its hallowed spot in the front window. It was replaced by one of gold. A light went out in the life of Mrs. Patton. She groped in utter darkness and deep despair.

With a prayer in my heart, I approached the familiar walkway to the Patton home, wondering what words of comfort could come from the lips of a mere boy. The door opened and Mrs. Patton embraced me as she would her own son. Home became a chapel as a grief-stricken mother and a less-than-adequate boy knelt in prayer.


It just can't have happened that way. If the story of when and how Patten died is unreliable, how can we be sure Monson visited Mrs Patten at all? If he had, wouldn't she have told him where and when her son died? It begins to look as though he heard that Patten died in the Pacific, and the rest just fabulated itself into existence.

I am not saying Monson was lying in the sense that he deliberately told an untruth with the intention of deceiving, although he certainly does seem to have been reckless in making statements as if they were true when they were not. It is however clear that his faith promoting talks should carry a health warning along the lines of "Caution: this talk is intended to make you feel good. It is a faith supplement only, and may not contain actual facts".
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.

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

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

Post by jon »

Chap, do you think this is different, In any material way, to that which got Dunn removed from office?
'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:Chap, do you think this is different, In any material way, to that which got Dunn removed from office?


I suspect the difference is one of degree rather than kind.

Phenomena like this seem to me likely to be a result of the systematic training of young minds to put faith and feelings first, and not to let intellectual quibbles get in the way too much. On another thread Dr Shades makes a related point by quoting from the Book of Mormon:

Moroni 7:16

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.


The "way to judge" what someone tells you is evidently to ask whether it 'inviteth' you to perform morally approved acts, and to have correct religious beliefs. Whether what they say is factually true or not is, in comparison, not important enough to be mentioned
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.

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

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

Post by jon »

Chap wrote:For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

The "way to judge" what someone tells you is evidently to ask whether it 'inviteth' you to perform morally approved acts, and to have correct religious beliefs. Whether what they say is factually true or not is, in comparison, not important enough to be mentioned


This is my point, it was important enough to result in Dunn's demise. So how can Monson survive something that got an Apostle canned?
'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:
Chap wrote:For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

The "way to judge" what someone tells you is evidently to ask whether it 'inviteth' you to perform morally approved acts, and to have correct religious beliefs. Whether what they say is factually true or not is, in comparison, not important enough to be mentioned


This is my point, it was important enough to result in Dunn's demise. So how can Monson survive something that got an Apostle canned?


Dunn let his creativity have full leash to the extent that it produced a whole career in baseball that never existed - though no doubt he started small, with just a few minor 'improvement' to favorite anecdotes. Monson may just have let a vague reminiscence that a boyhood acquaintance didn't come back from the Pacific grow into yet another falsely modest but self-glorifying widow story with a faith-promoting point.

With Monson, you can perhaps say "maybe he didn't remember it right", but with Dunn you couldn't. So Dunn had to take one for the team when it all came out, whereas supporters of Monson get to play the 'he just misremembered, but that's not important' card.
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.

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 »

Mormon Stories interviewed Greg Prince and one of the topics discussed was Paul Dunn. Greg said that most GAs commonly embellish stories to make them more faith promoting than factual. Paul Dunn was the most aggressive practitioner of the art, but don't kid yourself - they all do it.

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

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

Post by Buffalo »

So, long story short, it's sort of based on a true story, but Monson fudged the important details? Is that what it looks like now?
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.

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

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

Post by stemelbow »

I"m still trying to figure out the big fuss here. Bear with me a minute if you would.

So in 1969 Monson tells a story of a boy he knew that entered WWII and from his perspective was killed, as far as we know Monson heard this news in the neighborhood. While the boy was in service Monson would stop by the house and it appears became friends to some degree with the mother of the boy. After the news came to the mother that the boy was killed Monson also stopped by and chatted with her.

Its an interesting story leaving out many details--details Monson was most likely not privy to, and perhaps even the mother wasn't so privy to.

After mentioning the story in 1969 when Monson was 42 he got a letter from the mother essentially thanking him for remembering, making her feel better, and for answering questions she had.

nearly 40 years later Monson brings it up again with some details different from his 1969 mention. Again who knows how much he actually knew about it all?

So my question is, what does it matter how the kid died? We don't know how, monson doesn't know how? Perhaps he thought he knew how he died? Perhaps he did die earlier and the records weren't precisely kept? We simply don't know. All we do know that this story had an effect on Monson. It was his to tell. He actually knew the kid and his mother. He helped to comfort the mother. The mother was grateful.

This is turning into a witch hunt now. Somehow this equates to the fabrications of Paul Dunn to some of you. I'll wager there are stories yet to be told and stories that have been told that people here are going to scrutinze the same way all because the stories were told by LDS.
Love ya tons,
Stem


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

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

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

Post by jon »

jon wrote:I would like to know how Monson knows this...

Arthur Patton died quickly.

(from the 2007 version)


Stem, if we ignore the obvious differences in specific details between the two accounts that Monson gave. How would you account for the Prophet standing up at conference and stating this as a fact?

There are no details recorded of exactly how he died. His mother didn't know, the military don't know and Monson definitely doesn't know. So if we don't know how he died, how can we possibly know how long he took to die? The above statement by Monson that he gave in Conference is at best disingenuous, at worst it's a falsehood.

And before you or someone else goes on about how that's not important, it's only some inconsequential little detail. He is supposed to be Gods direct representative on Earth. He is supposed to be better. His words, especially at Conference are supposed to be directly inspired from God. From what I know about God, He isn't slapdash about details. He doesn't make stuff up to add spirituality to his stories.
'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
Buffalo
God
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Post by Buffalo »

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 94610aRCRD

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.
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.

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

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

Post by jon »

Hoist with your own petard

Meaning

Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others
'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 »

Buffalo wrote: ... Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.


Yeah, but if we are talking about the Church, that doesn't apply. You mustn't speak the truth if it is to the Church's disadvantage.

I base this on the principle implicit in the view of the great and learned DCP who explained to us on a previous occasion that the gospel injunction to give alms secretly, without boasting about it, only applied to individuals, not to the CoJCoLDS. Mutatis mutandis (can we say that in Celestial?), and there you are ...
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.

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

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

Post by Buffalo »

Chap wrote:
Buffalo wrote: ... Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.


Yeah, but if we are talking about the Church, that doesn't apply. You mustn't speak the truth if it is to the Church's disadvantage.

I base this on the principle implicit in the view of the great and learned DCP who explained to us on a previous occasion that the gospel injunction to give alms secretly, without boasting about it, only applied to individuals, not to the CoJCoLDS. Mutatis mutandis (can we say that in Celestial?), and there you are ...


I've always suspected that the church, as an organization, wouldn't pass a temple review interview. Apparently the church (and its leadership) is held to a lower standard than its lay members. And that's okay, apparently.
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.

Post Reply