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

[_Sethbag]

Yawn. The LDS church isn't true because it was founded by men who were not prophets, who created scripture through the arms of flesh, not having it given to them by the Invisible Man of the Sky, etc. The entire edifice of the church is a creation of man, from top to bottom.

Thomas S. Monson is a stuffed suit whose primary qualification for command has been out-living some of his colleagues.

Ok, so he probably embellished certain details of his war stories from nearly 70 years ago. That much I can appreciate, and grok. I started reading Steve's account of it, I really did, and I attempted to see what the deal was with it. But I couldn't, for the life of me, dig deep enough into my soul and come up with enough of a crap about this story to finish reading the whole account.

And the several-page wall of text that Steve most recently put up to summarize his findings was just a blur as I scrolled past it.

Sorry Steve, if you've been around this board long enough, you'd realize we're predominently critics of the church, and essentially Public Enemy #1 to the Mopologists. We get that the church isn't true. We really do. But my God, this "Tommy Monson is Paul Dunn Part Deux!" rhetoric is more than a little over the top, and frankly just not all that interesting. At least not to most of us.

[_why me]

Monson claims to be speaking to the world on behalf of God but apparently God isn't a competent enough editor for him, so Monson has to fall back on human speechwriters who still can't seem to get their stories historically straight. Oh well, such is the bane of false religion.

One thing that I learned about church leaders is that they are human beings first, prophets and GAs second. Such is the way of the flesh. I wish that as we all get older we actually get younger. But such is not the way. Just the opposite. Maybe you should give human beings a break instead of putting the idea of perfection on them.

Since when was the LDS faith proven false? Do you have some inside knowledge on this?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey Doc,

I agree with the open discourse and limited moderation observation but I just find it is unusual to see so many posters either defending Monson or criticizing someone who is attacking him, here on this board, in one thread. It's not like we have a lot of people here going out of their way to do that.

Hey-O,

I think the mini-backlash against Mr. Benson is because the critics here (as opposed to RFM where he cools his heels) generally take a serious approach to the truth claims of the Mormonism and the actions of the Mormon church. The idea that a hit piece that is half-heartedly researched, poorly edited, not referenced to any meaningful degree, and a bit boorish ought to receive some sort of pass because it's critical of Mormon leadership doesn't really pass the sniff test here. Frankly, I think it's fantastic it received the reaction it did; it demonstrates a certain character that a board like RFM lacks.

Plus, Mr. Benson is a smug asshole... Which more than qualifies him posting here! I hope he stays, but he should grow a thicker skin, and get his ducks in a row if he's going to copy and past attacks on Mormons, Mormonism, or the Mormon corporation. He clearly shows he's capable of more, and it's a bit disappointing he won't answer questions ref his piece, or do the leg work necessary to make it truly outstanding (see DarthJ's posting for a comparative analysis).

- Doc

[Guest]

-

[_Steve Benson]

Doc, I may be wrong but.....

Doesn't Monson have a team of script writers and fact checkers producing his Conference talks for him?

I have no idea if he has a team of script writers and fact checkers. It's probably along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speechwriter

In which case the Patton story was fact checked and was subsequently shown to be factually and significantly wrong.

I think you're making an assumption based off your unsubstantiated assertion. No?

The dishonest part of this is that it wasn't corrected. Of course a published 'correction' would have been tantamount to bringing Monson's credibility in to question, but it would have been the honest thing to do. Newspapers publish retractions or corrections for any factual errors they print. Mormon Prophets, not so much.

Well, to be honest the Mormon church isn't exactly the Arizona Republic, now is it? To equate the Ensign with a newspaper is a non starter. One enterprise is supposed to be faith-promoting, while the other is supposed to report, accurately, current events (for the most part). Their mission statements are different.

Edited to add..... Last time I checked Benson wasn't claiming to be speaking to the world on behalf of God under His divine guidance and inspiration. But I could be wrong.....

No. He isn't. Thank goodness. However, he is insinuating through his posting that he has a desire to report the truth, and find out what is and isn't accurate. While he is holding the Mormon church to one standard, he himself enjoys a totally different standard of accuracy, editing, and not providing references/sources for his assertions. That frees him up to be as ad hoc as he wants when attempting to destroy the credibility of Mormon leadership claims (which are nonsense to begin with).

Anecdotal story telling is fun, and Mr. Benson spins a good yarn. I suppose I wish he'd be a little more on point when substantiating his claims vis a vis this latest story, and to flesh out his reporting a little better. It comes across as poorly researched, and overly focused on a nonsense issue. It would carry a little more gravitas if he actually could verify the status of the Mr. Patton. In other words, Mr. Benson has no idea what it is, and is griping about Mr. Monson's assertions even though he hasn't proven otherwise.

[_Steve Benson]

Hey Doc,

I agree with the open discourse and limited moderation observation but I just find it is unusual to see so many posters either defending Monson or criticizing someone who is attacking him, here on this board, in one thread. It's not like we have a lot of people here going out of their way to do that.

Hey-O,

I think the mini-backlash against Mr. Benson is because the critics here (as opposed to RFM where he cools his heels) generally take a serious approach to the truth claims of the Mormonism and the actions of the Mormon church. The idea that a hit piece that is half-heartedly researched, poorly edited, not referenced to any meaningful degree, and a bit boorish ought to receive some sort of pass because it's critical of Mormon leadership doesn't really pass the sniff test here. Frankly, I think it's fantastic it received the reaction it did; it demonstrates a certain character that a board like RFM lacks.

Plus, Mr. Benson is a smug asshole... Which more than qualifies him posting here! I hope he stays, but he should grow a thicker skin, and get his ducks in a row if he's going to copy and past attacks on Mormons, Mormonism, or the Mormon corporation. He clearly shows he's capable of more, and it's a bit disappointing he won't answer questions ref his piece, or do the leg work necessary to make it truly outstanding (see DarthJ's posting for a comparative analysis).

- Doc

Yo, what;s up, Doc?

You'd demonstrate a bit more gravitas of your own if you can answer the following question:

How many edited-in changes to the Book of Mormon since it was first published in 1830?

Answer: Nearly 4,000.

Next question:

Don't you think your Mormon deity would demonstrate a bit more godly gravitas if he had done some major editing of the thing before he clicked on the golden-plate send button?

And thanks for the FOI links. Perhaps you should consider using them yourself. All you've done so far is defend, Pavloian-style, LDSer prophet pretenders who lie for a living in the name of fostering faith. I mean, really, if you're going to build a counter case to my sourced, historically-established arguments, can't you do more than park your position on potty-mouthed retorts?

Try to at least sew it up by bearing us your testimony.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yo, what;s up, Doc?

You'd demonstrate a bit more gravitas of your own if you can answer the following question:

How many edited-in changes to the Book of Mormon since it was first published in 1830?

Answer: Nearly 4,000.

Next question:

Don't you think your Mormon deity would demonstrate a bit more godly gravitas if he had done some major editing of the thing before he clicked on the golden-plate send button?

And thanks for the FOI links. Perhaps you should consider using them yourself. All you've done so far is defend, Pavloian-style, LDSer prophet pretenders who lie for a living in the name of fostering faith. I mean, really, if you're going to build a counter case to my sourced, historically-established arguments, can't you do more than park your position on potty-mouthed retorts?

Try to at least sew it up by bearing us your testimony.

I'm just going to go ahead and capture this before one of many edits that are sure to follow. :)

Mr. Benson,

I think you're a wonderful story teller, and you certainly can piece together a good narrative. My hope, through our exchange, is that you'll tweak the way you approach your reporting because you're *this* close to making some compelling arguments.

A little more research, a little more reliable referencing, and a few more pre-edits before publishing your pieces and you're there.

I'm in your corner; I just want to see a better product given your history and ex-Mormon notoriety. That's all.

Now. That said. Would you mind answering the questions a few other posters have asked you?

- Doc

[Guest]

It would carry a little more gravitas if he actually could verify the status of the Mr. Patton.

I agree with this.

The status of Arthur Frank Patton was, according to the crew records of his own ship. the U.S.S. White Plains, "Missing due to own misconduct." as of 4 July 1944. No official U.S. military WW II casualty report shows Arthur F. Patton as::

--having been KIA due to operational movements in a combat zone;

-- having died of wounds received during operational movements in a combat zone;

--or even of having been listed as lost or missing due to operational movements in a combat zone.

Monson falsely claims that Patton was:

--killed in battle;

--went down with his ship in combat action; and was

--lost at sea due to death in combat.

In making these claims, Monson is at odds with the available historical WWII casualty record provided by the U.S. government itself.

Earth to Monson (and those desperately wishing to defend Monson):

Patton was categorized as "Missing due to own misconduct"--a designation applied to him by his own ship, the U.S.S. White Plains, while that ship was in a non-combat zone during the time period in which Patton turned up missing.

This "missing" categorization was Patton's determined status (combined with the closest approximation made by his family of his death being 5 July 1944-- a date which happens to be the eventual state-certified death date of a shipmate of Patton's who was also declared by the U.S.S. White Plains as having gone "Missing due to own misconduct" on 4 July, as well.

Monson says that Patton's mother told him that her Arthur was "killed" on 5 July 1944 but there is no corroborating evidence which has emerged to date indicating that, if this were so, Patton was killed in combat.

To the contrary, the available record shows that Patton's death was not combat-caused.; rather, he ended up missing because of non-combat-related personal actions of his own.

If Monson defenders have evidence indicating otherwise, it would behoove them to produce it.

[_Kishkumen]

Try to at least sew it up by bearing us your testimony.

You see, Doc, there is only one thing that we can conclude about you if you fail to agree with certain people's arguments against Mormonism.

Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[_Steve Benson]

Yo, what;s up, Doc?

You'd demonstrate a bit more gravitas of your own if you can answer the following question:

How many edited-in changes to the Book of Mormon since it was first published in 1830?

Answer: Nearly 4,000.

Next question:

Don't you think your Mormon deity would demonstrate a bit more godly gravitas if he had done some major editing of the thing before he clicked on the golden-plate send button?

And thanks for the FOI links. Perhaps you should consider using them yourself. All you've done so far is defend, Pavloian-style, LDSer prophet pretenders who lie for a living in the name of fostering faith. I mean, really, if you're going to build a counter case to my sourced, historically-established arguments, can't you do more than park your position on potty-mouthed retorts?

Try to at least sew it up by bearing us your testimony.

I'm just going to go ahead and capture this before one of many edits that are sure to follow. :)

Mr. Benson,

I think you're a wonderful story teller, and you certainly can piece together a good narrative. My hope, through our exchange, is that you'll tweak the way you approach your reporting because you're *this* close to making some compelling arguments.

A little more research, a little more reliable referencing, and a few more pre-edits before publishing your pieces and you're there.

I'm in your corner; I just want to see a better product given your history and ex-Mormon notoriety. That's all.

Now. That said. Would you mind answering the questions a few other posters have asked you?

- Doc

Please provide evidence empirically refuting the points I have made, for your convenience (and that of others) on this page.
So far, you have offered up none.