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

[_Uncle Ed]

@Steve Benson:

What about those 3,900-plus edits in the Book of Mormon, Doc?

The number is misleading, since at a fair guess well over ninety percent of the changes to the Book of Mormon from edition to following edition are in the realm of fixing obvious typos and grammatical difficulties. The actual changes to words are not that many. And contextual changes are almost nonexistent. "Benjamin" to "Mosiah" is probably my favorite, and the change, while it makes easier sense to a casual reader, was probably a mistake of Joseph Smith's in 1837 edition. If you read "Benjamin" in original 1830 context it makes perfect sense: Ammon left Zarahemla when the "emeritus" king Benjamin was yet alive, but in the interim of months he died. So Ammon's calling Benjamin the seer instead of Mosiah was perfectly accurate: Benjamin had retired to the study of his history records, etc. and was known still as "the seer king", or something of the sort.

Not all of the changes to the Book of Mormon are inspired. But none of them change the doctrine in any significant ways. And doctrine is what the book is all about/for....

[_Steve Benson]

@Steve Benson:

What about those 3,900-plus edits in the Book of Mormon, Doc?

The number is misleading, since at a fair guess well over ninety percent of the changes to the Book of Mormon from edition to following edition are in the realm of fixing obvious typos and grammatical difficulties. The actual changes to words are not that many. And contextual changes are almost nonexistent. "Benjamin" to "Mosiah" is probably my favorite, and the change, while it makes easier sense to a casual reader, was probably a mistake of Joseph Smith's in 1837 edition. If you read "Benjamin" in original 1830 context it makes perfect sense: Ammon left Zarahemla when the "emeritus" king Benjamin was yet alive, but in the interim of months he died. So Ammon's calling Benjamin the seer instead of Mosiah was perfectly accurate: Benjamin had retired to the study of his history records, etc. and was known still as "the seer king", or something of the sort.

Not all of the changes to the Book of Mormon are inspired. But none of them change the doctrine in any significant ways. And doctrine is what the book is all about/for....

How did God miss those word changes? (And what's with the idea of words being changed in the first place, since the Mormon Church has acknowledged that Joseph Smith put a rock in a hat, where the "Reformed Egyptian" character appeared along with the specific word, in English, into which it was to be translated?)

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.

[_Res Ipsa]

Okay, so here's what I've dug up on the history of of the Arthur Patton investigation.

11/10/10 Ringo at NOM posts about discrepancies on Monson's story about Arthur Patterson. http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?t=18158

10/3/11

8:40 AM President Paternoster publishes a blog post that describes the inconsistency of the two Monson accounts of the Arthur Patton story. http://stakepresident.blogspot.com/2011 ... speak.html

9:52 AM Angel Cowgirl starts an RfM thread on President Paternoster's blog post. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,3 ... msg-310318

3:08 PM Elcid posts on RfM about Monson and the inconsistent stories about Patton. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,3 ... msg-310510

11:12 PM Jon starts a thread at Mormon Discussions about Monson and Patton. http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =3&t=20563

11:43 PM Steve Benson starts a thread a RfM referencing Elcid and offering research help on the Arthur Patton story. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,310864

10/4/11

8:10 AM just me posts her initial research results on the issue at Mormon Disussions, after having learned of the issue on the NOM thread.

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.

10/6/11

12:13 PM thunder stealer at RfM links to just me's research at mormondiscussions.com

6:00 PM Steve Benson again "teases" upcoming revelations on Arthur Patton at RfM, specifically referencing the Mormon Discussions thread. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,3 ... msg-313798

10/9/11 Steve Benson recaps the evidence known to date in the Mormon Discussions thread.

10/20/11 Steve Benson posts at RfM to give Monson a "heads up," and reviews the significant evidence. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,3 ... msg-323256

1/9/14 Steve Benson posts at RfM the results of his research on Patton. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1131728

My take: The issue was first brought up at NOM in 2010, but didn't generate much in the way of investigation on the blog. Just me, however, was curious and did a fair amount of research on her own. President Paternoster caused the issue to resurface in October, 2011. Substantial interest generated conversations at both RfM and Mormon Discussions. just me posted her research at Mormon Discussions, and Nevo added the new information that Patton had been recorded missing due to his own misconduct. During the same 48 hours or so, Steve Benson and his SO researched the same information. Although an RfM poster specifically referred Steve to just me's post, Steve had already posted in the Mormon Discussions thread and, assuming he reads before he posts, was aware of it.

Although there is substantial speculation about what happened to Patton, no one has requested and reviewed his service record, which is publically available.

Applying the same standard of judgment as I have to Monson, I have to conclude on this information that Steve Benson did not appropriate anyone else's research. A review of the relevant threads shows many people assisted in finding and compiling information, with just me and Steve's SO doing a substantial amount of independent research.

[_Nevo]

. . . I have to conclude on this information that Steve Benson did not appropriate anyone else's research.

He appropriated mine, actually.

[_Kishkumen]

I have to say that I liked this Arthur Patton project a hell of a lot better when it was in the hands of grown ups.

[_Steve Benson]

So, how is, i.e., by what means is Arthur Patton's military service record available? Inquiring minds want to know.

[_Kishkumen]

So, how is, i.e., by what means is Arthur Patton's military service record available? Inquiring minds want to know.

I thought your only challenge was in how best to arrange the facts, not in how to obtain them.

[_Nevo]

So, how is, i.e., by what means is Arthur Patton's military service record available? Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/archival-programs/military-personnel-archival/ompf-archival-requests.html

[_Steve Benson]

. . . I have to conclude on this information that Steve Benson did not appropriate anyone else's research.

He appropriated mine, actually.

I have had a person assisting me since 2011 who is not a a Mormon or an ex-Mormon and who does not post or participate on the discussion boards mentioned but who, nonetheless, has provided me access tp all kinds of information, documentation and original sources through their own personal interest in genealogical research and well-honed ability to get to original source material in various locales and through various means. This person has told me that they do not wish to be named or otherwise identified in detail, so I have respected that request. I find it interesting that some here are trying to claim credit as my sources. I will quote people (and do) if they have something unique and contributive to say but documents that are not their own production are available through a range of avenues. That said, if you want to be quoted, let me know why and I'll see what I can do for you.

[Guest]

So, how is, i.e., by what means is Arthur Patton's military service record available? Inquiring minds want to know.

I thought your only challenge was in how best to arrange the facts, not in how to obtain them.[/quote

My challenge is arranging the myriad of facts per the Patton case in a flow-order that is organized, systematic and cohesive. When I get information that is valuable, I ask for the original sourcing (i.e., where that material can be accessed and examined). That is not to say that if someone knows how to get to certain information, that I wouldn't like to know how and where to access it. Patton's service history is important, obviously. If someone knows the means by which to acquire it, great. Let's talk channels of access.