Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

[_jon]

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.

[_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.

[_jon]

Hoist with your own petard

Meaning

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

[_Chap]

... 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 ...

[_Buffalo]

... 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.

[_stemelbow]

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?

How would I know? I'm not in Monson's mind. As I said, he could have gotten that impression by talking to the kid's mom. he could have heard something about it in the neighborhood. But somehow this detail means Monson fabricated it all to make for a faith promoting story. Even if the kid died while playing hopscotch and fell of the side of the boat the gist he was going for would have been the same.

There are no details recorded of exactly how he died. His mother didn't know,

You don't know that.

the military don't know

You don't know that.

and Monson definitely doesn't know.

I can agree with that in principle, but I can aslo say perhaps he has details none of us do.

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.

Only the mind of a cynic would conjur up these as the only options. As I said, perhaps Monson thought the word on the street in his neighborhood was reliable and perhaps that word on the street told a story quite different then he went missing while not getting back to the boat. Perhaps the records kept on the boat are wrong. We wouldn't know. But apparently that's enough for you to convict Monson because you don't like him.

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.

I disagree about your view of God. I don't' think He gives two pennies about whether Monson knows the cause of death or not. The story might not even be all the faith promoting anyway. But its touching because its personal to MOnson.

[_jon]

I disagree about your view of God. I don't' think He gives two pennies about whether Monson knows the cause of death or not. The story might not even be all the faith promoting anyway. But its touching because its personal to MOnson.

Conference isn't a time for old men to give personal anecdotes.
It's for Prophets and Apostles to rally the troops with inspirational speeches and prophecies and revelations and explanation of doctrines and for them to uplift spiritually the members for whom they have stewardship.

As for what I don't know. I think you'll find, if you read back a little, poor old Arthur died 'due to his own misconduct' and that is all the military recorded. So no, the military don't know, therefore his Mother doesn't know, therefore Monson doesn't know, therefore Monson was....let's say disingenuous.

[_Buffalo]

Conference isn't a time for old men to give personal anecdotes.

Since when? :D

[_stemelbow]

Conference isn't a time for old men to give personal anecdotes.

What? So now you are saying these men can't tell personal stories to illustrate points, or warm up the audience? That's just silly.

It's for Prophets and Apostles to rally the troops with inspirational speeches and prophecies and revelations and explanation of doctrines and for them to uplift spiritually the members for whom they have stewardship.

So you really think that telling personal stories is somehow opposed to all of this?

As for what I don't know. I think you'll find, if you read back a little, poor old Arthur died 'due to his own misconduct' and that is all the military recorded. So no, the military don't know, therefore his Mother doesn't know, therefore Monson doesn't know, therefore Monson was....let's say disingenuous.

I've said my piece here. But I will add for clarification even if that is all the case Monson still could have heard through neighborhood chatter something different then the kid's mom, or what the official military story was. You must find yourself inside Monson's mind to know whether his rendition was something he felt comfortable in or not. I personally assume the good, because that's how I generally proceed with people.

[_Morley]

Patton may not even be dead. He may be pulling a Gauguin.