Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

[_jon]

Perhaps the records kept on the boat are wrong.

I think you have alluded to records being wrong a few times on this thread. Do you have a reason for thinking that the records are wrong? What do you think is wrong about the records?

Stem, across the two accounts, what word most accurately describes the amount of what Monson states as fact is actually false?
None...Some...Half...Most...

What percentage of errant facts would it need to be for you to stop trying to lay possible blame at the door of anyone and everyone else and just accept that Monson told a complete fabrication of a tale he only knew scant details about, but in which he comes off as being Gods instrument in 'rescuing' a widow?

[_Nevo]

Monson told a complete fabrication of a tale he only knew scant details about, but in which he comes off as being Gods instrument in 'rescuing' a widow

Good grief. After all of the information that has been brought forward in this thread, you're still claiming the story is a fabrication? The story checks out in just about every possible way.

Obviously, President Monson didn't know the details of Arthur's death (nobody does). He believed—as Arthur's mother apparently did—that Arthur was lost at sea. And in the initial telling of the story he didn't know all the details of Arthur's deployment. He thought Arthur was on one aircraft carrier (the Lexington) when in fact he was on another (the White Plains). So what? All that shows is that President Monson was either misinformed or remembered incorrectly.

Has President Monson been "outed" on this thread as another Paul H. Dunn? Not at all. At worst, he has been unveiled as someone with merely human (as opposed to superhuman) powers of recall. Big deal.

[_subgenius]

...."Caution: this talk is intended to make you feel good. It is a faith supplement only, and may not contain actual facts"."

in this context why would a "caution" be necessary?
The contradictions, confusions, or inconsistencies in that type of story are relevant to those who can only give credence to that which can be dissected properly on a wax tray. This is, once again, an example of the fundamental learning disability for the atheist and natural man - that only "facts" are real. Ayn Rand is dead and so is that objectivist tripe, so bid it farewell.
The persistent flaw of the atheist mind is the inability to discern the spiritual, and it is this mental handicap that prevents them passing religion 101. The "truth" is not exclusive to that which is subject to a peer review or that which is tabulated, measured, and boiled-down.
This is why it is almost laughable when the atheist/cynic proclaims that they have come out "on top" of any meaningful religious or spiritual discussion, for they know not of what they speak of. They are myopic to the point of being blind.

[_Nomad]

Monson told a complete fabrication of a tale he only knew scant details about, but in which he comes off as being Gods instrument in 'rescuing' a widow

Good grief. After all of the information that has been brought forward in this thread, you're still claiming the story is a fabrication? The story checks out in just about every possible way.

Obviously, President Monson didn't know the details of Arthur's death (nobody does). He believed—as Arthur's mother apparently did—that Arthur was lost at sea. And in the initial telling of the story he didn't know all the details of Arthur's deployment. He thought Arthur was on one aircraft carrier (the Lexington) when in fact he was on another (the White Plains). So what? All that shows is that President Monson was either misinformed or remembered incorrectly.

Has President Monson been "outed" on this thread as another Paul H. Dunn? Not at all. At worst, he has been unveiled as someone with merely human (as opposed to superhuman) powers of recall. Big deal.

This is one of the most amazing and telling threads EVER on this message board. And that's really saying something. Talk about trying to make something out of nothing.

This place is just one smear attempt after another.

[_Buffalo]

This is one of the most amazing and telling threads EVER on this message board. And that's really saying something. Talk about trying to make something out of nothing.

This place is just one smear attempt after another.

Will, can you find anything disagreeable about this disclaimer for GC talks?

"Caution: this talk is intended to make you feel good. It is a faith supplement only, and may not contain actual facts"

[_jon]

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.

[4xbros]

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."

[_jon]

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

"Arthur probably died quickly"

Whereas

"Arthur died quickly" is a statement of certainty.

[_Chap]

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.)

[_Nevo]

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.