Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

[_sock puppet]

That's all very well, sockpuppet, but you're quoting all that out of context, so your point is moot.

You're right, Chap. How could I expect Mormon general authorities, even its 'prophet, seer and revelator', to adhere to the same high standards of honesty that the COJCOLDS expects of Mormon lawyers and Mormon lawyers-in-training? I guess I'm just being a silly idealist again. (Trying to beat stemelbow to the punch of calling me silly for having quoted such an outdated--18 years+--position of COJCOLDS, as delivered by one of its FP/12.)

[_Yoda]

So how does Thomas S Monson's passing off incorrect details of a story as if true measure up to this standard?

Based on the circumstances of the inconsistencies and what actually did occur, I think that it is pretty clear that President Monson genuinely got some details mixed up due to his age. The man is 87 years old.

This was not a case of Monson intentionally lying. He thought he was telling the truth. His mixing up some event details is what is known as an honest mistake.

[_sock puppet]

So how does Thomas S Monson's passing off incorrect details of a story as if true measure up to this standard?

Based on the circumstances of the inconsistencies and what actually did occur, I think that it is pretty clear that President Monson genuinely got some details mixed up due to his age. The man is 87 years old.

This was not a case of Monson intentionally lying. He thought he was telling the truth. His mixing up some event details is what is known as an honest mistake.

Monson was 45 in 1969 when he got some of those details mixed up. Has he had mental difficulties since he was 45?

[Guest]

In his 1969 General Conference sermon, Monson claims he looked out the window down at the Coral Sea while on a commercial flight from Australia to California, at which time he and the rest of the passengers were told by the pilot over the intercom that this site they were gazing upon was the location of a great WW II sea battle.

Armed with that information, Monson proceeds to falsely tell his Conference audience that Arthur Patton went down on the U.S.S. Lexington, in the Coral Sea, in 1942.

That falsehood of Monson's remains uncorrected by Monson until 2007, when he finally changes his story to claim that Patton had died in a naval battle against the Japanese off the coast of Saipan in 1944.

In his latest 2007 latest version of events, Monson also says he received a letter from Patton's mother shortly after Monson had given his 1969 sermon (the one in which he had wrongly declared that Arthur Patton had died in 1942 in the Battle of Coral Sea aboard the U.S.S. Lexington). In that letter, Monson reports that Mrs. Patton told Monson that her son had died on 5 July 1944.

First of all, why did Monson wait so long--nearly 40 years--to make his correction? Why did he not quickly follow up in a subsequent Conference talk while his 1969 version was still fresh in faithful Mormon minds and amend his demonstrably untrue record of events?

Another question: Could it be that Monson not only got it wrong in 1969 on Patton dying aboard the U.S.S. Lexington in 1942 but that he did not have access to reliable information at that point in 1969 for later revising his sermon to claim that Patton had died in the Saipan theater battling the Japanese in 1944? Monson otherwise inexplicably waits almost four decades to publicly deep-six the bogus Coral Sea story--but then goes on to complicate matters by making new claims of an arguably questionable nature.

Whatever Monson's source, with his new death-at-Saipan revelations in hand, in his 2007 talk Monson proceeds to definitively declare that Patton was killed while fighting the Japanese off Saipan in 1944. But if, for the sake of argument, Monson did have in his possession information by 2007 that proved Patton had died during combat operations in 1944 against the enemy off the coast of Saipan while aboard the U.S.S White Plains, where did he get that information?

It is certainly unlikely to have come from the U.S. military itself since the official U.S. Navy casualty compilation list of July 1946 fails to show that Arthur Patton was among those killed in action during WW II. Could the military's death notifiers have told Mrs. Patton that her son had died in a sea battle near Saipan? Possibly, but if they did then why did she not seem to have passed on that basic fact to Monson, given that Monson says she and he were so close?

Could Monson, in fact, have gotten that information from Mrs. Patton? In his covertly corrected 2007 talk, Monson finally gets around to updating his inaccurate 1969 talk and, in the process, informing his new and unsuspecting Conference crowd some 38 years later that Mrs. Patton, in her 1969 letter to him, told Monson that her son Arthur had actually died on 5 July 1944. One would think that if Mrs. Patton had also shared with Monson where her son Arthur was killed in combat, Monson would have eagerly shared that notable piece of information with his Conference audience. Yet, Monson does not tell his 2007 audience that Mrs. Patton told him in 1969 that Arthur's death occurred in battle off the coast of Saipan. (Monson also does not tell his 2007 audience that he, Monson, was wrong in fundamental ways in his 1969 version of events on the time or place of Patton's death, or on the actual ship on which Patton is said to have perished).

Monson also does not inform his 2007 audience that according to the U.S. Navy's own crew transfer log from the U.S.S. White Plains that was compiled by that ship for the date of 4 July 1944 that Patton was "missing" due to "his own misconduct." On that same log for 4 July 1944, the word "transferred" is crossed out on the line for Patton's status and the word "missing" handwritten in over it. That particular crew transfer log appears to be the only currently available U.S. military characterization of Patton's personal circumstances in the area of Saipan that can be contemporaily associated with his status around the time of U.S. Navy combat operations in the Saipan area. Recall that Patton's status is described by the U.S. military at that time as "missing" due to Patton's "own misconduct"--not because of Patton being (as Monson claims) "lost at sea" during "battle" with the enemy. Also recall that Patton's status as "missing" was noted in the U.S.S. White Plain's list on 4 July 1944, two days after the vessel had set sail for an atoll outside of the zone of combat operations in which the ship had been immediately previously engaged.

Now, perhaps Monson did not know in 2007 that Patton had been officially designated as "missing" in July 1944 due to "his own misconduct." But how did Monson know by 2007 that Patton had supposedly died in naval combat against the Japanese in operations off Saipan in 1944? Monson doesn't claim to his 2007 audience that Mrs. Patton told him that Arthur was killed off Saipan in 1944. All he shares with the audience is Mrs Patton's 1969 notification by mail to Monson that her son had died on 5 July 1944, where she does not mention to him the location of where he was killed. Remember that the U.S. military casualty compliations for WW II do not list Patton as having been killed during combat with the Japanese enemy near Saipan (not to mention killed at all)--and that his own ship's crew log lists him only as being "missing" around Saipan due to his "own misconduct."

How many more excuses are going to be heard from devoted defenders of Monson's pious penchant for spectacular storytelling --one that, in this case alone, is being riddled with more and more cannon fire the more it is scrutinzed?

[_moksha]

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.

[Guest]

This is exactly the same lame defense employed by former General Authority Paul H. Dunn who, when confronted by undeniable proof that exposed his war stories as being largely fabricated, insisted that their intent was not to be seen as literally true accounts but, rather, as faith-promoting stories offered up as a testimony to the life and mission of the Mormon Savior.

Trouble is, Dunn never informed his audiences when he was telling these yarns that they were designed as faith-building fables or metaphors; rather, he spun them as actual historical events. Indeed, the power and popularity of Dunn's fairy tales was that Mormons believed them to be real-time events in every particular.

Kinda like Monson's.

And why lower the bar for "prophet" Thomas S. Monson to the level for non-Mormon fiction writer Napolean Hill? Monson is supposed to be telling the truth for and in behalf of God. At least Jesus gave a heads-up to his listeners by informing them when he was about to deliver a parable. Why shouldn't Monson do the same?

[_Yoda]

This is exactly the same lame defense employed by former General Authority Paul H. Dunn who, when confronted by undeniable proof that exposed his war stories as being largely fabricated, insisted that their intent was not to be seen as literally true accounts but, rather, as faith-promoting stories offered up as a testimony to the life and mission of the Mormon Savior.

Trouble is, Dunn never informed his audiences when he was telling these yarns that they were designed as faith-building fables or metaphors; rather, he spun them as actual historical events. Indeed, the power and popularity of Dunn's fairy tales was that Mormons believed them to be real-time events in every particular.

Kinda like Monson's.

Who did Dunn's stories hurt?

Dunn was actually the one who suffered the most...when the truth came out.

[_Steve Benson]

They certainly did hurt Dunn, as they should have, since he was the one who told the untruths.

They also hurt those who had sincerely believed them to actually be true but who then eventually found out he had made them up.

Again, kinda llke Monson--as the truth comes out.

[_Yoda]

They certainly did hurt Dunn, as they should have, since he was the one who told the untruths.

They also hurt those who had sincerely believed them to actually be true but who then eventually found out he had made them up.

Again, kinda llke Monson--as the truth comes out.

In the grand scheme of things, how were those people hurt? If Dunn's stories uplifted them, and inspired them to live righteously, or have hope, how were they hurt?

How was their comfort or strength in getting through a difficult time any less real?

I can understand someone feeling tricked...but I can also see that same person weighing things out from a big picture perspective as well. If Dunn's story inspired that person to do good, then how is the situation all that horrible?

[_jon]

So how does Thomas S Monson's passing off incorrect details of a story as if true measure up to this standard?

Based on the circumstances of the inconsistencies and what actually did occur, I think that it is pretty clear that President Monson genuinely got some details mixed up due to his age. The man is 87 years old.

Liz,
The problem with the defence of age in this case is that Monson got nearly everything wrong in 1969, when he was in his mid forties.