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

[_Uncle Ed]

Given your propensity to shove your policy prepared on everything in people's faces it looked to me like you were making one of your not so subtle digs, this time about derailing SB's thread to discuss the changes to the Book of Mormon.

SORRY, Darthy....

[_just me]

("Report of Changes of U.S.S. White Plains [CVE 66] for the month ending 19th day of July 1944," line 4 for "Arthur Frank Patton," Service Number: 368 71 14, Date of Enlistment: 10 Dec. 41, Place of Enlistment: Salt Lake City; line 5 for Blake Lewis Pauley, Service Number: 632 44 04, Date of Enlistment: 16 Feb. 42, Place of Enlistment: Los Angeles; photocopy of the actual "Report of Changes" log in my possession).

I would like to discuss this piece of evidence. What is your source for the "photocopy of the actual 'Report of Changes' log in my possession?" From whence did it come? I assume you got a copy of the original from the archives. You can't just cite your photocopy you need to cite the source of this photocopy. Does "actual" mean that you looked at the original and made a copy of it or do you mean to say that you have a derivative copy?

Your "source" for Pauley's death information is as follows:

("The California Department of Health Services Office of Health Information and Research Vital Statistics Section," emphasis in original)

What? You make reference to a database. You need to cite the database you found the information on. I am wondering what "emphasis in the original" means? You haven't even told us what the original thing is...

[_Nevo]

I would like to discuss this piece of evidence. What is your source for the "photocopy of the actual 'Report of Changes' log in my possession?" From whence did it come? I assume you got a copy of the original from the archives.

I suspect Steve just followed the link provided here and then pressed the printer icon in the upper right corner of the screen.

[_Res Ipsa]

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 a couple things I think are worth considering. First, both you and Nevo were critical of the LDS church for not finding the relevant information because you are able to find it in 10 minutes on ancestry.com. If that's the case, how unlikely is it really that Steve's significant other was able to find the same information over a longer period of time? Second, Steve's post that appears in the OP clearly states he's not finished writing things up and was made in response to posters that were frustrated by the delay in producing a finished product. Third, the person who first brought this issue to people's attention was Ringo at NOM. I linked to it in my chronology upthread. He was the first person who said that "Patten" or other spelling variants of Patten, could not be found in the Utah military records. No one, including you, credited him for that discovery or for being the person who called the discrepancies to public attention. Fifth, Steve actually did credit your work in one of his early RfM postings, where he quotes several posts from the 2010 NOM thread, including yours, and clearly states he's referring to other people's work. Unfortunately, a bizarre policy at RfM precludes posting links to other Mormon/former Mormon websites. Finally, I think you really have to read through the relevant threads at RfM to get a picture of what was happening over the relevant couple of days. Several folks at RfM were doing research, including Elcid who appears to be Ringon from NOM. A flurry of information, both bad and good, was being posted here and at RfM. It was a collaborative effort, with no one being very precise about giving credit for the first reporter of information. It also appears that different people looked at and reported the information in a relatively small universe of documents independent of each other.

There are lots of valid criticism that one can make of Steve. But I think the charge of stealing and taking credit for other's work is a serious charge and should be substantiated with solid, reliable evidence. Had Steve written all the information up in a final paper and failed to give credit to the many people, including you and Nevo, who contributed to drilling down to the truth, then I'd be critical to. But taking his post for what it purports to be, and reading it in context with his other (many) posts at RfM, I don't think the charge of stealing ideas is warranted.

Besides, how many times does a guy have the chance to defend Monson and Benson in the same thread?

YMMV (and probably does).


I

[_Res Ipsa]

I would like to discuss this piece of evidence. What is your source for the "photocopy of the actual 'Report of Changes' log in my possession?" From whence did it come? I assume you got a copy of the original from the archives.

I suspect Steve just followed the link provided here and then pressed the printer icon in the upper right corner of the screen.

Nevo, I'm to cheap to subscribe. Is the title on the linked document the same as the title Steve gives?

[_Nevo]

Nevo, I'm to cheap to subscribe. Is the title on the linked document the same as the title Steve gives?

Yes, it is.

This is the image from the link

[_Steve Benson]

...
Here's a good example of a wholesale word change: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50882 ... s.html.csp

And why did God leave so many of the other mistakes embedded in the Book of Mormon for so long before they were taken out? Let me guess. It took God a long time to find them. This LDS God could use a good editor to help him out--maybe the human beings who invented him in the first place could chip in.

So you are counting the added chapter headings as part of "your" 4K changes? And now changes to those changes are part of your 4K changes? That's ridiculous.

Obviously the answer to your objection is: "God" provides and man runs with it. Perfection was never part of the game. Noticing the flaws and imperfections was up front as a warning when the book first came out....

"Perfection was never part of the game." You're right, the Mormon Church is gaming its members and is doing so quite imperfectly.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Second, Steve's post that appears in the OP clearly states he's not finished writing things up and was made in response to posters that were frustrated by the delay in producing a finished product.

Well, you know... Three years (more or less) ought to be enough time to get your ducks in a row, no?

- Doc

[Guest]

Good luck to those pursuing Patton's military service records. That is, certainly, an important element of the story. I've been involved most recently in focusing on information relating to Monson's claim of being boyhood friends with Patton; the timelines and places for their respective educational tracks from primary school to jr. high and into high school; whether the two of them were in the same class; and the years involved. There are various possibilities to explain those relational elements. but some speculation is involved and acquiring the all the relevant information is not necessarily all that easy.

[_Steve Benson]

Second, Steve's post that appears in the OP clearly states he's not finished writing things up and was made in response to posters that were frustrated by the delay in producing a finished product.

Well, you know... Three years (more or less) ought to be enough time to get your ducks in a row, no?

- Doc

How long, Doc, is it going to take you to explain all those thousands of edits in the Book of Mormon and its obvious plagiarisms from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews"? It appears that you haven't even started. Fraud speed.