Benson blows Monson's Arthur Patton tale out of the water

[_Res Ipsa]

Do you really think so? The timelines look so tight to me that I really can't draw that conclusion. Am I missing something in the timelines I sketched out? Is it really that unlikely that Steve's SO and you found the same key fact by looking at the crew manifests or whatever?

You wrote in your timeline for 10/5/11:

5:22 AM Steve Benson "teases" research results at RfM, crediting the legwork to his significant other
1:31 PM Nevo posts at Mormon Discussions that Patton was recorded as missing due to his own misconduct in the ship's records.
8:32 PM Steve Benson posts at Mormon Discussions on the Patton issue, confirming that Patton was recorded as missing due to his own misconduct.

Steve didn't report any "research results" until several hours after I provided the links to Patton's ship records.

As late as 3:03 PM (or 3:18 PM, take your pick) he posted on RFM: "In the meantime, my significant other is painstakingly forging ahead, making interesting discoveries while urging caution as to proper interpretation and context."

Apparently he hadn't checked in on the Mormon Discussions thread yet.

By 8:30 PM, yes, he was "confirming" my research, as you put it. Later that evening, he posted RFM that "some very peculiar facts are coming to the surface which appear to run strikingly counter to basic claims made by Monson." Contrast that breathless notice with the earlier one.

Pardon my skepticism, but I do think it is unlikely that Steve's SO happened to independently uncover the same information hours after I did.

Does Steve even claim this, by the way? Since it is obvious he places a premium on honesty and integrity, I'd like to hear his account of how he came across this information.

I think that's a fair question. Steve posted early in the morning of the fifth that his SO was researching Patton. Here's what he said:

Special thanks in this research effort must deservedly go to my significant other who comes from a military family; who is an amazing genealogist; who is a keen-eyed, insatiable and responsible researcher; who spent time growing up as a child in Ogden, Utah, where she loved the aroma coming from the local KFC (and who smells a rat on this meandering Monson storytelling binge); who is a straight-talking never-Mo directly related to Hosea Stout (Joseph Smith's Nauvoo chief of police and devoted dastardly Danite); and who has a damn lot of patience combined with tenacity.

Steve first got interested in the subject two days before. I see no reason to believe he's lying in that entry about his SO. So, I think it's reasonable to conclude that she'd been doing research the day before (or else she got up really, really early....) Steve's post that followed yours was his first in the thread, so I see no reason to conclude that his SO discovered the information hours after you did. She could have discovered it at any time after she started researching. And if she comes from a military family, that may very well have given her a leg up on knowing the kinds of records to look for.

Steve's first post at MD can easily be understood as independent confirmation of what you posted. Still, if he first learned about the new information about Patton being listed as missing from reading your post, he should credit you even if he or his SO looked it up to confirm your information.

[_Res Ipsa]

A very competent researcher friend of mine has been able to fact-check/cross-check claims for me by locating actual documents and their sources. Again, if you deservedly wish be quoted as saying something important and insightful about such docs, then that's good. My approach is to quote in those situations, since it is not appropriate to invoke the actual words of another without giving credit. If I am wishing to quote from posts of others, I quote from them, and provide acknowledgment.

Keep in mind, however, that RfM does not allow direct referencing to MD and blocks certain key words that would appear in links to the sites it blocks reference to. Offer quotes and I will quote them if they are important to the effort at hand, as is my practice. But RfM's banning policy does not allow me to I link directly to this site as a place of posting. I don't make the rules in that regard and it can be frustrating

Thanks for the reminder on the RfM linking policy. As I was reading through your posts, I was mentally cursing you for entries where you did quote from posters on other boards but provided no links. I uncurse you.

[Guest]

Your memory does not serve you correctly and I have frequently criticized the writings of Skousen.

And yet you emulate his exemplary analytical skills. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, you know.

W. Cleon Skousen is to Communism as Steve Benson is to Mormonism. The Communist conspiracy is fueled by fluoridation. The Mormon conspiracy is held together by Dr. Pepper and recycled anecdotes about widows and cookies.

Skousen had no meaningful analytical skills, in my opinion. Even my grandfather thought Skousen's notion that the Mormon God could be voted out of power by majority rule through a vote of his spirit children was questionable. (Of course, that idea of Skousen's was not an analytical one; it was just plain religious goofiness).

But more to the point, as I have noted publicly, I threatened to sue Skousen for deliberately altering my cartoon work so as to destroy its original message, then publishing it in his NCCS magazine. He called me, claiming that a legal settlement at his expense would put him out of business. I relented but demanded that he acknowledge having altered my work. I then discontinued my syndication service to him. I do not take plagiarism lightly.

[_Steve Benson]

Thanks. That site is currently not opening for me, either by clicking on it here or by pasting it into a search engine bar. Will try again later.

Hopefully the link will at least open for your longtime researcher.

The researcher accessed it on their own computer. The National Archives site, I was told, appears to limit inquiries about service record information to those having a genealogical relationship to the deceased veteran. with that connection being ascertained through initial questions that, if answered satisfactorily, then move the inquirer on in the site-search process. If that is the case, it may be possible to acquire the service record through other means.

[_Res Ipsa]

The researcher accessed it on their own computer. The National Archives site, I was told, appears to limit inquiries about service record information to those having a genealogical relationship to the deceased veteran. with that connection being ascertained through initial questions that, if answered satisfactorily, then move the inquirer on in the site-search process. If that is the case, it may be possible to acquire the service record through other means.

Oh good heavens, Steve. The linked page clearly says that ANYONE can get copies of files for servicemen and women who were detached from the service before 1952. No genealogical relationship is required.

[_Steve Benson]

The researcher accessed it on their own computer. The National Archives site, I was told, appears to limit inquiries about service record information to those having a genealogical relationship to the deceased veteran. with that connection being ascertained through initial questions that, if answered satisfactorily, then move the inquirer on in the site-search process. If that is the case, it may be possible to acquire the service record through other means.

Oh good heavens, Steve. The linked page clearly says that ANYONE can get copies of files for servicemen and women who were detached from the service before 1952. No genealogical relationship is required.

That is what I was told, as I noted. I will pursue this further, based upon what you have shared. Thanks.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't think anyone ought to expect the Chicago Manual of Style (or Turabian or *insert style) citation. However, it's easy to say you have an anonymous "source" who doesn't want to be outed (interesting how he respects that, but doesn't respect anonymity on message boards), which essentially frees you up to plagiarize others' findings with impunity.

Anyway, it's not that hard to cite a source, an anonymous source, a website, an author of a post on a website, or provide documentation of documentation.

The reason why people want citation and documentation is ascertain the credibility of the message being received. When one fails to do that the focus shifts from the message to the messenger, as it should. In this case, Mr. Benson is guilty of essentially everything he claims Mr. Monson has or has not done. The former can try and shift the burden of proof to the accused, but that doesn't recuse him of shoddy research, ad hoc argumentation, multiple edits without alerting the audience of having done so, inventing stuff (after all there's no citation/documentation to "factual information"), and frankly obfuscation on his methods of research.

Additionally, Mr. Benson hasn't demonstrated why anecdotes are verboten for use by religious leaders. He himself relies heavily on anecdotes to relate his various stories. We all do.

Finally, Mr. Benson does seem to get pretty nasty with Mormons. That's all good and fine, but it distracts from his message, in my opinion. Pointing out hypocrisy is great, but remember we all live in glass houses. I believe sticking to doctrine and policy is better than attacking nonsense anecdotes and trying to attach a bigger importance to them than is necessary.

- Doc

[_Bret Ripley]

The Communist conspiracy is fueled by fluoridation. The Mormon conspiracy is held together by Dr. Pepper and recycled anecdotes about widows and cookies.

Last edited by Bret Ripley on Tue Jan 15, 2014 7:21 am, edited 831 time in total.

[_just me]

Are you going to use me (and the old thread) as a source? With or without permission?

I have not seen any research points from you along the way that are different from what was posted here back in October 2011.

Hi just me,

I remember following the thread with your research on this (If I recall correctly, you posted about it on NOM and in a lengthy thread on here). It was of interest to me because I had looked up Arthur Patton on the day I heard Pres. Monson tell the story in General Conference (I was watching it on TV).

I looked Patton up on a whim because I was in the middle of writing my own Father's military history and had found all the online military resources and thought "Hey! Just for fun, I'll look up information on this childhood friend of the Prophet!"

I was still semi active at that time but teetering. I actually couldn't find anything on Patton except I found no one by that name died from Utah in WWII and then I discovered Monson's 2 different versions of the story. I looked up the battle records of these two ships and found that Patton couldn't have been KIA on either one of these ships on the dates listed.

Anyway....it was just one of the pieces for my belief in the church to dissolve. It wasn't one of the bigger pieces but it still contributed somewhat as I felt that he'd lied (I thought that he'd fabricated the person and entire story).

I'd kind of forgotten about it until I saw your threads and followed your excellent research. You did an amazing job!

I remember you found that Arthur had a brother who was also in the service (so there should have been 2 stars in the window, etc.). You listed all of the discrepancies and information in one great post If I recall correctly.

Did you keep that information? If not, I'll try to search for that old post on here and repost it because it was very concise.

Thank you, and yes I do have all my research. I was actually just thinking this morning about how this all got started over on NOM. I wish I could remember who originally brought up the changed stories.

I was thrilled with that thread here in 2011 because people such as Nevo found new records that I had not previously seen. We made a lot of headway on the story in that thread! Despite Steve's claim that I am claiming all research to myself, I am grateful for the other members of this forum who spent a few minutes doing searches to really get things going.

Well, friends, I will be sending in my order for Arthur Patton's service records today. I regret waiting for Steve Benson to do it. I believed that he and his genealogist wife were gonna crack this wide open.

My paper will be a bit different in nature and tone, anyway.

One thing can be said for sure, Steve Benson does not understand genealogy or the genealogy community at all. It's because of people like him that real researchers don't share their finds.

[_just me]

Do you really think so? The timelines look so tight to me that I really can't draw that conclusion. Am I missing something in the timelines I sketched out? Is it really that unlikely that Steve's SO and you found the same key fact by looking at the crew manifests or whatever?

You wrote in your timeline for 10/5/11:

5:22 AM Steve Benson "teases" research results at RfM, crediting the legwork to his significant other
1:31 PM Nevo posts at Mormon Discussions that Patton was recorded as missing due to his own misconduct in the ship's records.
8:32 PM Steve Benson posts at Mormon Discussions on the Patton issue, confirming that Patton was recorded as missing due to his own misconduct.

Steve didn't report any "research results" until several hours after I provided the links to Patton's ship records.

As late as 3:03 PM (or 3:18 PM, take your pick) he posted on RFM: "In the meantime, my significant other is painstakingly forging ahead, making interesting discoveries while urging caution as to proper interpretation and context."

Apparently he hadn't checked in on the Mormon Discussions thread yet.

By 8:30 PM, yes, he was "confirming" my research, as you put it. Later that evening, he posted RFM that "some very peculiar facts are coming to the surface which appear to run strikingly counter to basic claims made by Monson." Contrast that breathless notice with the earlier one.

Pardon my skepticism, but I do think it is unlikely that Steve's SO happened to independently uncover the same information hours after I did.

Does Steve even claim this, by the way? Since it is obvious he places a premium on honesty and integrity, I'd like to hear his account of how he came across this information.

I'm with you, Nevo. Benson TOTALLY acted like all the research done by others was done by him. Double checking the sources cited by others does not mean you found it "all by yourself." It means, thanks to other researchers who pointed out resources to you you were able to find pertinent documents and information.

What is so annoying is that I can't come up with much, if anything, that he/his researcher came up with independently. I have several more pieces of information that I held back that I have never seen revealed by Steve. In fact, can anyone point to a piece of information about Arthur Patton that was not first revealed by someone else?