DrW wrote:It appears that the believers here are saying that it is okay for President Monson makes stuff up as he goes along. After all, a faith promoting story that is embellished or changed to fit the audience should be okay right? (So long as it is faith promoting.)
uh...I don't know about others, but I didn't say that.
While keeping in mind the demonstrably false tall tales of Paul Dunn or even those of Jeffery Holland as described on another thread, where does one draw the line?
Here is a suggestion for believers:
Next time you feel like giving a Church leader a pass for telling a tall tale, consider what your attitude would be if we were talking about the President of the country rather than the President of the Church.
Now that you have the firestorm of criticism and calls for impeachment firmly in mind, ask yourself why we should demand any less from our religious leaders (who claim truth) than than we do from our political leaders.
Oh please. So now we'll just assume the story is false? We'll even go steps further than ol' Buffalo and a priori assume stories told by LDS are false until proven otherwise? My goodness, this is worse than I thought.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Oh please. So now we'll just assume the story is false? We'll even go steps further than ol' Buffalo and a priori assume stories told by LDS are false until proven otherwise? My goodness, this is worse than I thought.
Morley wrote:Sure, I'm assuming there inconsistencies in his stories.
Doesn't it make sense that the inconsistencies are due to other factors? I mean it appears according to Nevo's findings the buy was really 16 instead of 15. But it wasn't long after he turned 16, so maybe he told Monson about enlisting when he was 15?
As per his death, perhaps Monson was confused in '69 about when it was exactly, but when his mother's letter came he was able to correct that?
I don't think theres anything to go with your guys' assumption of fabrication. But if it suits ya, you can be as cynical over LDS all you want.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
The only reason anyone questioned this story to begin with was because no Arthur Patton could be found on the list of the dead from the National Archives. That is what led to further investigation. Well, actually, the fact that the details of the story changed so drastically from one telling to the next was another reason.
I, personally, am really glad this thread got started because I have been trying to work out this puzzle off and on since that NOM thread. This thread has brought a whole lot of new (to me) information to light. It has been exciting for me.
Anyway, I won't be changing my long post. It is so outdated at this point that I would rather just write a whole new post about it. My mind has never been set on this topic and I will go where the evidence takes me.
I am very interested to see what Steve Benson posts on this topic.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
DrW wrote:It appears that the believers here are saying that it is okay for President Monson makes stuff up as he goes along.
Why would anyone reading this thread assume that President Monson made this story up? So far all of the evidence suggests that it is substantially accurate.
DrW wrote:It appears that the believers here are saying that it is okay for President Monson makes stuff up as he goes along.
Why would anyone reading this thread assume that President Monson made this story up? So far all of the evidence suggests that it is substantially accurate.
As just me says, "...because no Arthur Patton could be found on the list of the dead from the National Archives."
Morley wrote:As just me says, "...because no Arthur Patton could be found on the list of the dead from the National Archives."
It had nothing to do with efforts to expose Monson as fabricating a story? or are you saying critics just knew the National Archives by heart and the name wasn't there?
It does make me wonder how often a critic will do this with LDS people's talks though. "wait a second...did he just say Michael Jackson died in 1894...I know that that dude died in the 2000s sometime....I'll get him."
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Morley wrote:As just me says, "...because no Arthur Patton could be found on the list of the dead from the National Archives."
It had nothing to do with efforts to expose Monson as fabricating a story? or are you saying critics just knew the National Archives by heart and the name wasn't there?
It does make me wonder how often a critic will do this with LDS people's talks though. "wait a second...did he just say Michael Jackson died in 1894...I know that that dude died in the 2000s sometime....I'll get him."
Would you rather that Elder Dunn had not been exposed? You can answer: it's not a hypothetical question.