Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

[_jon]

people who think the product of your imaginations is somehow related to truth.

Wow, you say some profound things, what a pity it's never deliberate.

[_Blixa]

I'll just throw this out for you, subgenius.

My father (at the time a very well known person in Salt Lake City) once had to call TSM for business reason. This was before TSM was president. During the phone call, TSM made a lot of very specific references to things in my father's childhood that left him thinking that TSM had his church records open in front of him during the call. TSM also proceeded to tell a lot of folksy stories about my father's childhood and knowing him then. This dumbfounded my dad, who had never met TSM and felt the whole thing sounded like, in his words, "a bunch of made-up bull that he embellished with things he was reading from my record."

I think Mormon GA's are sincere tellers of folksy stories that stretch the truth to various lengths in their efforts to make people "feel the spirit."

I think its dishonest.

I'm sure you do. In your eyes they're all dishonest.

You're all a bunch of sick, twisted people who think the product of your imaginations is somehow related to truth.



ETA: I see you were quick on the edit button. So don't you think it was "dishonest" anymore, now that we know there really was an Arthur Patton?

lol!

I wasn't particularly quick with the edit button. The length of time it takes for posts to appear on this board makes editing extremely difficult and slow. After I hit post, I decided to leave my remarks more open ended for sub genius and changed my post accordingly.

I haven't followed the Patton story at all. My only point is that Faith-Promoting Rumor's play fast and loose with details. I think everyone knows this.

I do think the practice is dishonest. I don't think the speakers are anything but sincere. I suspect that is hard for you to understand.

[_just me]

jon, the Public Family Tree is entered by a random human. It has no records attached to it and therefore could be made up crap...or not. I will need to do further research to find out.

The military record I cited is an actual card scanned online. The information on the card appears (based on the symbols at the bottom) to have come from an enlistment book and possibly a Tribune article. There is no key for the codes on the card, unfortunately, so I am still trying to discern what they mean. If anyone has easy access to 1941 Tribune archives please let me know.

I think that it is safe to say that there was an Arthur Patton of Salt Lake enlisted in the Navy in 1941 with a mother named Teresa. That is all I am willing to say at this point.

There are still several strange things about this story. Plus, finding the facts doesn't make Monson's stories suddenly not conflict. He was wrong in both stories.

In my original long post I hide no records or information that I have found. I will continue to put forth whatever I find. I am for discovering the truth. We know that Monson was mistaken in his stories. That is a fact.

Given what blixa has told us about her father's experience it seems that TSM is able to insert himself into real stories and events from people's lives.

[_just me]

In other words, the essential facts of the story, as told by President Monson, are correct. And all of the gleeful apostate crowing that he had been "caught in a lie" was based on nothing at all, except the twisted exmormon obsession to make people offenders for a word.

What do you consider the essential facts of the story?

[_jon]

Just Me, what was demonstrably incorrect in his second telling of the story?

[_subgenius]

I'll just throw this out....

you should have stopped here.

[_subgenius]

....
Given what blixa has told us about her father's experience it seems that TSM is able to insert himself into real stories and events from people's lives.

Not "given" but rather "assuming"....

it is possible that blixa is giving a bias account of her father's story, as well as, given the admitted circumstance, that blixa's father embellished the events to convey his own opinion, thus the version we are reading has deviated rather far from the actual events...mmmm....anyone see a pattern?...however, it is convenient that blixa's anecdote has no evidence in support of that "hearsay" to offer for examination.

regardless, there is no reason to believe every detail of blixa's story considering the bias motivation behind its telling, both by bilxa and blixa's father (both of whom i am sure truly believe the story they tell and would not dare exaggerate a single detail, and will likely tell a carbon copy tale in 4 decades)

[_subgenius]

....He also has access to the best genealogists one could ever hope for. I'm sure he could also get a fact checker just by asking.

which is more supportive of a notion that any inconsistencies were unintentional and likely caused by the frailties of the human mind. A proper conspirator would surely have taken advantage of such an arsenal for lie construction and perpetuation. It is unlikely that someone, knowing full well that an easily accessed record exists, would purposely contradict or confuse themselves if they were going to lie.
Especially someone with publishing experience......

and obviously you missed my previous comment about how this diabolical presidency will infiltrate and modify the genealogical record in order to keep in motion their nefarious plans for mind control and world domination.

[_jon]

Sub, If Arthur Patton didn't die in WWII would that have any impact on your opinion of Thomas S Monson.

[Guest]

jon, I am currently reviewing all of the databases that I previously searched. The thing about online databases is that they are always being updated with new information. There have been some additions since my last review of them in the Spring.

The fact remains that Arthur Patton does not appear on the list of the dead, missing or wounded on the National Archives webiste. If he did, in fact, die in the war and a telegram was sent to his mother I do not know why he would be absent from that list.

In order to tell you what TSM got wrong in his second telling of the story I need to figure out what the actual story is. That is going to take me a little bit of time. He was wrong about Arthur's age and when he enlisted.

subgenius, TSM had access to his first talk and even used portions of it word-for-word. The first talk was given when he was about 42 years old. Not exactly a "frail" age. Being able to review his old talk, and copy from it, would eliminate there being a "frailty of mind" issue with the second telling.

TSM waited until after the mother had died for his second retelling of this story. There is no way to confirm if he prayed with her or not.

Interestingly enough I have just discovered a post by Steve Benson on another board saying that his wife is researching this story and will be putting something out in the future. It was posted today.