More Patton Pending Problems for the Prophet....

[_jon]

From another planet...

For those who wish to cut "prophet" Thomas S. Monson a break on his screw up-riddled recitations, let's review how this story-spinner extraordinaire describes Arthur Patton's death within a scenario which Monson presents as being factual for both Patton and his ship.

In his October 2007 General Conference talk, entitled, "Mrs. Patton--the Story Continues," Monson paints a combat picture in which he says Patton's ship was involved--and in which he states unequivocably that Patton was killed. (Forget, if you will, the fact that Monson initially falsely claimed Patton was killed in action in 1942 onboard the U.S.S. Lexington in the Coral Sea, abruptly changing his tune some 38 years later to intone that Patton actually was KIA in 1944 onboard the U.S.S. White Plains off the coast of Saipan).

Concerning the Saipan scene where Monson says Patton perished in combat, Monson asserts:

"In March 1944 with the war now raging, Arthur was transferred . . . to the U.S.S. White Plains, an aircraft carrier. While at Saipan in the South Pacific, the ship was attacked. Arthur was one of those on board who was lost at sea. . . .

"The blue star was taken from its hallowed spot in the front window of the Patton home. It was replaced by one of gold, indicating that he whom the blue star represented had been killed in battle."

Now for a cold-water splash of reality.

First, according to the U.S.S. White Plains' own crew "change" list, Patton was declared "missing" on 4 July 1944, not in March 1944, with that "missing" designation ascribed to Patton's "own misconduct." In other words, Patton was not classified by his ship's crew log as having been killed during, or as a result of, battle action.


Second, below is a brief historical review of the U.S.S. White Plains' actual combat operations off Saipan in the summer of 1944, from a website devoted to the WW II actions of that ship:

"'Saipan--15 through 22 June 1944'

"At the end of May she stood out of Pearl Harbor in company with units of the task force assembled to invade the Marinas. WHITE PLAINS' portion of the Fleet sortied from Eniwetok Atoll and during the voyage from there to the Marinas, her aircraft provided anti-submarine and combat air patrol. On June 17, her anti-aircraft gunners earned their first definite kill. Later, VC-4 Avengers successfully torpedoed an enemy transport during a sweep of the island of Rota. . . .

"In July she supported the Tinian assault. . . ."

("Photographs of Task Force Unit 77.4.3,, Including Specifications and Histories," under "U.S.S. White Plains (CVE 66)," at: http://www.bosamar.com/cve/cve66.html, original emphasis)


Third, here is additional combat history of the U.S.S. White Plains in the Saipan theater:

"At the end of May, the White Plains steamed out of port in company with units of the Task Forces assembled to invade the Mariana Islands. The portion of the Fleet containing the White Plains sortied from Eniwetok Atoll, and during the voyage from there to the Marianas, her aircraft provided anti-submarine warfare patrols and part of the combat air patrol.

"During the assault on Saipan, her planes continued to cover the Fleet against submarine and air attack, strafed the beaches, and spotted shellfire for gunfire support ships. They helped repulse at least three major enemy air attacks. On 17 June, while helping to fight off those raids, her antiaircraft gunners earned their first definite kill. Later, VC-4 Avengers successfully torpedoed an enemy transport during a sweep of the island of Rota."

("U.S.S. White Plains (CVE-66)," under "Service History: World War II," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_White_ ... 8CVE-66%29)


Fourth, the U.S.S. White Plains left the combat zone off Saipan on 2 July 1944--meaning that (contrary to Monson's story) Patton was not killed in combat within that zone or time period because his ship was, in fact, steaming to and/or arriving at an atoll outside the combat zone before Patton was declared "missing" from the ship due to his "own misconduct":

"[The U.S.S.] WHITE PLAINS departed the combat zone on 2 July but, after a week at Eniwetok, returned to the Marianas with her air squadron upgraded to a total of 28 aircraft. During her second tour of duty in the Marianas, the escort carrier supported the Tinian assault late in July. Her planes carried out sortie after sortie in support of the troops ashore and over the ships assembled, but WHITE PLAINS herself suffered no enemy attacks. Her heavy flight schedule proved grueling to air squadron and ship's company alike."

("U.S.S. White Plains (CVE 66), formerly ELBOUR BAY, formerly ACV 66, formerly AVG 66, later CVU 66, decommissioned," under "History of U.S.S. WHITE PLAINS," at: http://navysite.de/cve/cve66.htm, original emphasis)


Fifth and finally, a WW II combined task unit casualty list that included the U.S.S. White Plains reveals (contrary to Monson's claim) no--repeat, no--"Arthur Patton" listed as killed or missing in action. Accompanying that list is the note that "KIA/MIAs are verified via the MEN LOST IN ACTION FROM THE CVE/DD/DE's OF TAFFY III monument at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, San Diego, CA."

("Crew Lists of Task Unit 77.4.3: U.S.S. White Plains {CVE 66) and Composite Squadron VC-4," at: http://www.bosamar.com/crewlist/cve66crewlist.html, original emphasis)
_____

Now, contrast and compare these factual, referenced accounts with both of the stories about Arthur Patton related to us by Monson...

[_subgenius]

From another planet.....

agreed....or is this return of the dead thread?

[_DrW]

Accusations of dead horse beating is a gambit familiar to Mormon apologists. It is used often over at MDD when a proponent of the Church is getting schooled by a critic and wants to stop the discussion. Accusations of dead horse beating are the discussion board equivalent of popping smoke canisters to cover ones retreat.

[_subgenius]

Accusations of dead horse beating is a gambit familiar to Mormon apologists. It is used often over at MDD when a proponent of the Church is getting schooled by a critic and wants to stop the discussion. Accusations of dead horse beating are the discussion board equivalent of popping smoke canisters to cover ones retreat.

it is also used when a poster is actually beating the dead horse...
as in not posting, revealing, or bringing anything "new" to the table that would merit any further discussion, especially in light of the discussion that has preceded.....as artfully illustrated in the OP.

[_moksha]

Once again, people embellish stories and expressions, like beating a dead horse over one million times. There is no hired fact checker for Conference talks. If there was one, she would draw fire from apologists.

It was the point of President Monson's story which was important rather than a precise recitation of facts.

[_jon]

Once again, people embellish stories and expressions, like beating a dead horse over one million times. There is no hired fact checker for Conference talks. If there was one, she would draw fire from apologists.

It was the point of President Monson's story which was important rather than a precise recitation of facts.

So, as long as the point is right, then factual accuracy doesn't matter.
Kind of makes it odd that Dunn got so much flack then...

[_sock puppet]

Once again, people embellish stories and expressions, like beating a dead horse over one million times. There is no hired fact checker for Conference talks. If there was one, she would draw fire from apologists.

It was the point of President Monson's story which was important rather than a precise recitation of facts.

Isn't it a reckless disregard for truth for GAs speaking at GC, "broadcast to millions, around the world via satellite", to not use a fact checker?

Even in the absence of intention to deceive, it is misrepresentation. Even in the secular arena, one who fudges facts to make a point is rebuked and publicly excoriated for it.

Here, peddlers of "truth" have such a non-chalant regard for getting their facts straight before spinning a yarn to make a point?

I don't think the fact that they do not have a fact checker (if true) helps defend the GAs here. Talking before millions of people and telling stories with facts that the GA does not know or remember correctly is not a defense.

Such a disregard for factual truth, by upper leaders of an organization that routinely white-washes the facts of its founding, facts that undercut its truth claims, illustrates how endemic and problematic the LDS problem with truth is.

[_moksha]

Such a disregard for factual truth, by upper leaders of an organization that routinely white-washes the facts of its founding, facts that undercut its truth claims, illustrates how endemic and problematic the LDS problem with truth is.

I'm not sure there was a disregard for factual truth in this case. I have gotten details of a story wrong unintentionally due to time, forgetting, confabulation and perhaps a faulty perception of the event to begin with. I suspect this happens to almost all of us, even if we strive to be accurate historians in our reporting. Indicting one for a common human failing is an indictment of us all.

Besides this, a thoroughly accurate presentation of all details would have been nice, but was not critical to advance the idea President Monson was presenting.

.

[_sock puppet]

Such a disregard for factual truth, by upper leaders of an organization that routinely white-washes the facts of its founding, facts that undercut its truth claims, illustrates how endemic and problematic the LDS problem with truth is.

I'm not sure there was a disregard for factual truth in this case. I have gotten details of a story wrong unintentionally due to time, forgetting, confabulation and perhaps a faulty perception of the event to begin with. I suspect this happens to almost all of us, even if we strive to be accurate historians in our reporting. Indicting one for a common human failing is an indictment of us all.

Besides this, a thoroughly accurate presentation of all details would have been nice, but was not critical to advance the idea President Monson was presenting.

.

If he needed to tell a story to make a point--i.e., the Mormon faithful would not have got the point if TSM had just stated the point--then he had a responsibility not to pass off a story as true that was not, regardless of what his point was. TSM's conduct does not measure up to the standard of what apostle DHO drew out as the LDS standard of truth in his 9/12/1993 talk at the BYU law school.

So this goes into the bin of hypocrisy, one more example of Mormon leaders asking members to do as they say, not as they do.

If those of you trying to defend TSM would step back and take a look at this, you'd realize how bad it makes you look. You lose credibility trying to defend TSM on this one.

[Guest]

I think with regard to the point moksha makes about 'we all get our facts wrong from time to time because we are ony human' as an excuse for TSM fails.

If TSM was telling a bedtime story to his Grandkids from memory then fair enough.

But he wasn't.

He was speaking as a Prophet, on behalf of Christ, articulating to the world a gospel principle through the means of a historical tale from his past. One that had been articulated a number of times before and that had clearly been checked through before his presentation. The facts that he gets wrong are easily verifiable - after all, we've been able to ascertain what he said that was correct or not.

So, did he or his fact checkers make an honest mistake and are just guilty of being slap dash, or were the embilishments deliberate because it makes the story (and Monson by association) more holy?