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

[Guest]

EXT. STREET. DAY.
Richie and Royal stand on the sidewalk. Royal’s suitcases are beside him. Margot and Henry stand at the top of the steps, in the front doorway.

ROYAL
You know, Richie, this illness, this
closeness to death. It’s been very profound for me. I feel like a different person. I really do.

RICHIE
Dad. You were never dying.

ROYAL (smiles)
But I’m going to live.

Richie shakes his head. He turns away and goes up the steps, past Margot and Henry, into the house.

[_Spanner]

That Monson got the earlier story muddled is understandable. I think the point Steve is making is that in 2007 Monson had apparently researched the story in order to obtain the actual details of the ship Patton was serving on. In the course of this research he or his writer must have become aware that at the very least the ship was not even in a combat zone at the time of Patton's death, and probably was aware of the actual situation. Monson then chose to use the story, knowing it was untrue.

It doesn't look like Patton was "killed", if he was initially reported missing, he may have not returned from leave, or had a mishap and went overboard. But there should have been some evidence that he died for the military to report him dead, so they must have known something of what happened. In spite of that, it is not uncommon to only give parents comforting information in such situations where the decreased didn't actually do something criminal. I was once ordered to assist sanitise details for public information when one of the soldiers in my unit drank himself to death in a very messy fashion.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, if Mr. Patton didn't die that day where was he? If Mr. Steve "Sherlock" Benson can sleuth out these nefarious lies then shouldn't he easily be able to sleuth out the truth on Mr. Patton's whereabouts?

- Doc

QFT

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, I have my hobbies too, but damn, Steve Benson has way, way too much time on his hands.

Indeed. What a waste of time.

News flash: Human memory is unreliable! People embellish the truth for effect!

[_Kishkumen]

As I understand current research into memory, each time we access a memory, we rewrite it. The more one recalls an event from the past -- even events that seem dramatic or vivid -- the less accurate the memory becomes. How many times has Monson told this story? How many more has he thought about it? I can't conclude from what Benson wrote that Monson is/was being deceptive.

How accurate are Steve Benson's old memories?

One wonders.

[_Res Ipsa]

How accurate are Steve Benson's old memories?

One wonders.

Having seen no evidence that his brain is wired differently, I'd say about as accurate as yours or mine.

[_Bazooka]

As I understand current research into memory, each time we access a memory, we rewrite it. The more one recalls an event from the past -- even events that seem dramatic or vivid -- the less accurate the memory becomes. How many times has Monson told this story? How many more has he thought about it? I can't conclude from what Benson wrote that Monson is/was being deceptive.

I don’t think Monson was just retelling a story.
This was a carefully prepared scripted conference talk that was months in the putting together.

[_cwald]

This is a non-story.

.... and it makes the Mormon critics look bad.

[_omni]

This is a non-story.

.... and it makes the Mormon critics look bad.

Agreed. I enjoy the occasional rumor-mongering as much as the next fellow, but come one Steve, it's been 25 years since the incident and he's still posting daily on RfM. You'd think by now he could create a post without the usual dozen edits.

[_Res Ipsa]

As I understand current research into memory, each time we access a memory, we rewrite it. The more one recalls an event from the past -- even events that seem dramatic or vivid -- the less accurate the memory becomes. How many times has Monson told this story? How many more has he thought about it? I can't conclude from what Benson wrote that Monson is/was being deceptive.

I don’t think Monson was just retelling a story.
This was a carefully prepared scripted conference talk that was months in the putting together.

I don't think it matters that it was a prepared talk. The source of the story is Monson, is it not?