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

[_Steve Benson]

Mormons can have the rigidity of belief. I am more interested in the rigidity of facts.

Sure, Steve.

Just as long as you know you're Kishkumen, that's all that counts.

[_just me]

I put it on hold after going through collecting a wealth of data. As I have told others, it's not the gathering of it that is daunting; it is the organization and presentation that is the challenge. I am presently writing up the final structured outline and will be filling it in with relevant details in specific categories, including sources. Because some folks are eager to see the result, at points along the way I have put up some of the research results, but the final product is currently under construction.

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.

[Guest]

I put it on hold after going through collecting a wealth of data. As I have told others, it's not the gathering of it that is daunting; it is the organization and presentation that is the challenge. I am presently writing up the final structured outline and will be filling it in with relevant details in specific categories, including sources. Because some folks are eager to see the result, at points along the way I have put up some of the research results, but the final product is currently under construction.

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.

Of course, I am going to use you as a source as I have already said. Moreover, you are not the only source, despite your claim otherwise. Keep in mind, please, that sources of information can be found by more than just one person and that, therefore, your citation of a given reference or source location doesn't mean that I got it from you. That said, however, where I do think you provide very good insight, a unique perspective and solid information, rest assured, I will be citing you as the source for that insight, perspective and information. I think you have done great work and have a particular example of that in mind which, yes, I will quote, since your take on it is cogent, instructive and thoughtful.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Guest]

That must be a picture of Joseph Smith doing magic hand signs and tokens that have since been expunged from the secret, Masonic-sourced Mormon temple ceremony. Nice outfit, though. Better than the Pillsbury Dough Boy cap and green apron, in my opinion.

[Guest]

What about those 3,900-plus edits in the Book of Mormon, Doc? God's work in action (carried out by his prophets, seers and reconfigurators when God missed them all the first time around)? And, please, for the rest of us, source those edits, if you wouldn't mind, as to chapter and verse.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What about those 3,900-plus edits in the Book of Mormon, Doc? God's work in action?

This is good stuff. Really, it is.

Brother Benson,

You're a modern day Sisyphus! Maybe you should re-post your totally-not-plagiarized exposé again in this thread.

V/R
Doc

Post Script Question- In your opinion, are religious leaders forbidden from using anecdotes for their sermons?

[_Steve Benson]

What about those 3,900-plus edits in the Book of Mormon, Doc? God's work in action?

This is good stuff. Really, it is.

Brother Benson,

You're a modern day Sisyphus! Maybe you should re-post your totally-not-plagiarized exposé again in this thread.

V/R
Doc

Post Script Question- In your opinion, are religious leaders forbidden from using anecdotes for their sermons?

Again, what do you think about those almost 4,000 edits done to God's revealed Book of Mormon after he had already punched the send-the-gold-plates button?

[_Steve Benson]

Doc: Here are some plagiarisms for you to explain, if you wouldn't mind:

Author Richard S. Van Wagoner maintains that Ethan Smith's “View of the Hebrews” novel “was probably a principal source . . . from which Smith and Cowdery . . . formulated the Book of Mormon narrative.”

Published seven years prior to the Book of Mormon, Van Wagoner observes that “[t]he similarities between the two works seem to be too substantial to be mere coincidence. The major thesis of each is to explain the origin of the American Indian: Chapters in each relate to the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel, then predict a regathering in the Promised Land. Vast portions of the Book of Isaiah are quoted extensively in each work . . . .

"Both discuss polygamy, seers and prophets, and the use of breastplates and Urim and Thummim. In each account, sacred records, handed down from generation to generation, are buried in a hill,then discovered years later. The characters on the gold plates of the Book of Mormon were reportedly 'Reformed Egyptian,' whereas 'View of the Hebrews' discusses evidence of 'Egyptian Hieroglyphics.' Perhaps the most important parallel is that both Ethan Smith's and Joseph Smith's works detail in similar fashion two classes of people in ancient America, one barbarous and the other civilized. . . .

"Both authors identify American Indians as the 'stick of Joseph or Ephraim' (the northern Ten Tribes of Israel) that are expected to be reunited with the 'stick of Judah' (the Jews of the Southern kingdom of Judah). Furthermore, each work defines the mission of the American (Gentile) nation in the last days as calling to gather these native American remnants of the House of Israel, convert them to Christianity and bring them to the 'place of the Lord of Hosts, the Mt. Zion.'

"After years of intensive investigation into the Book of Mormon, particularly the possibility that much of the framework to 'View of the Hebrews' can be seen in the Book of Mormon, [LDS General Authority] B.H. Roberts in a 24 October 1927 letter asked, 'Did Ethan Smith's 'View of the Hebrews, published . . . years before Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, supply the structural outline and some of the subject matter of the alleged Nephrite record? ' After noting 18 remarkable parallels between the two works, he commented that many others were just as 'striking.' One of the principal conclusions of Roberts' work, 'Studies of the Book of Mormon,' was that 'it is more than likely that the Smith family possessed a copy of this book by Ethan Smith, that either by reading it or hearing it and its contents frequently discussed, Joseph Smith became acquainted with its contents. . . . I say this with great confidence.'”

Van Wagoner then notes that there is a tangible connection between “View of the Hebrews” and Oliver Cowdery, observing that it “was published in Poultney, Vermont, where Oliver Cowdery, principle scribe during the production of the Book of Mormon, also resided from 1803 to 1825.” Van Wagoner explains Cowdery's personal connection to Ethan Smith: “At the time Ethan Smith was writing his volume, he was minister of Poultney's Congregational church where he served from 21 November 1821 until December 1826. Cowdery's stepmother and three of his sisters ere members of the congregation, according to Poultney church records. Presumably Oliver Cowdery, a school teacher and highly literate for his day, would have been familiar with his family minister's book. The first edition, which was advertised in the 'Northern Spectator,' the local newspaper, quickly sold out.” Van Wagoner concludes that the notion that “Cowdery was unfamiliar with Ethan Smith's 'View of the Hebrews' seems improbable.”

(Richard S. Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess” [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1994]}

[_Madison54]

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.