Read my edited-in additions to flesh the facts out for you in more detail.
You say:
I don't believe that is what [Monson] did. I think that he got his facts mixed up, and honestly thought he was telling the truth. That is a completely different situation than lying.
liz, you said that Monson lied but did so unintentionally. Lies are not unintentional.
Moreover, you employ the words "believe" and "think" when expressing your opinion on this subject, which indicate your own yearnings to salvage a story that has been shot full of holes. Monson's ship has demonstrably been sunk on the Patton story, but you can insist on believing and thinking whatever you wish, despite the evidence and the logic the weighs heavily against your beliefs and thoughts. That's what believers do.
All I was doing was explaining a colloquial use of the term 'lie' that I have heard not infrequently in the last several years.
"not infrequently" is not compelling evidence of "growing use." The fact of the matter is that the standard, traditional and generally-employed defintion of the word "lie" is one that includes INTENT to deceive.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
I already clarified where I misspoke. I don't believe that Monson lied. He did not intentionally misrepresent the story.
As far as whether I am a believer...in some cases, yes, in some, no. If you want to understand where I am coming from as a NOM, please refer to my prior post regarding Dunn.
I do not apologize for my beliefs. I call things as I see them. Take it or leave it. I really don't care.
interested wrote:Read my edited-in additions to flesh the facts out for you in more detail.
You say:
I don't believe that is what [Monson] did. I think that he got his facts mixed up, and honestly thought he was telling the truth. That is a completely different situation than lying.
liz, you said that Monson lied but did so unintentionally. Lies are not unintentional.
Moreover, you employ the words "believe" and "think" when expressing your opinion on this subject, which indicate your own yearnings to salvage a story that has been shot full of holes. Monson's ship has demonstrably been sunk on the Patton story, but you can insist on believing and thinking whatever you wish, despite the evidence and the logic the weighs heavily against your beliefs and thoughts. That's what believers do.
liz: I did read your post on Dunn. In essence, you said that there are certain things you choose to believe in order to maintain your membership in the Mormon Church in good standing and to keep relations with your family at a place that is acceptable to you. Then you said that if others didn't like your method, they could lump it.
I'm not lumping it; you can think and believe what you want. The evidence, however, against Monson in terms of exposing him as a liar may not fit neatly with your belief choices; they do fit better with logic and history.
Faith, of course, is not the realm of logic or history. Faith is belief in things that are empirically unknown but accepted as being true.
interested wrote:liz: I did read your post on Dunn. In essence, you said that there are certain things you choose to believe in order to maintain your membership in the Mormon Church in good standing and to keep relations with your family at a place that is acceptable to you. Then you said that if others didn't like your method, they could lump it.
I'm not lumping it; you can think and believe what you want. The evidence, however, against Monson in terms of exppsing him as a liar may not fit neatly with your belief choices; they do fit better with logic and history.
Faith, of course, is not the realm of logic or history. Faith is belief in things that are empirically unknown but accepted as being true.
Interested, you would be a tough crowd for most storytellers. You would demand the shell fragments from Mr. Humpty Dumpty, late of Cornwall, England, and an affidavit with a stamped time code from the King's Men that they did all in their power to reconstruct him.
Monson is not a prophet; he is a storyteller posing as a prophet who has been caught in assertions in the course of his Patton storytelling that are demonstrably untrue.
If Monson were telling a story about Humpty Dumpty where he was trying to pass it off as true, then yes, I would ask for the evidence showing that it was true--just like if Monson were asserting that Santa Claus, Mother Goose and unicorns really exist.
In the Patton case (and that's what, of course, we are ultimately talking about here), Monson is presenting his story as being historically true and accurate. Yet, he has already skinned back from his original incarnation of events and timelines because he got fundamental facts strikingly wrong; and in his second retelling he has made further declarations which he presents as being true that based on available, cross-checkable evidence are not true. Yet, Monson provides no counter evidence to support that they are historical facts.
In the meantime, Monson's Patton storytelling is littered with other assertions that, at best, are questionable as to their veracity.
Monson is not only a storyteller, he is a bad storyteller, for this simple reason: He claims that his stories are factual in particulars that are are empirically disprovable.
In short, Thomas S. Monson is like Paul H. Dunn. They are both incurable yarn spinners cut from the same garment.