DiscussMormonism.com

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....