interested wrote: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.
Veracity aside, Dunn told more interesting stories than Monson.
interested wrote: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.
One cannot be a prophet and a storyteller?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
If the storyteller is telling demonstrable lies while claiming to be prophetically telling the truth, that would tend to undermine any claim to prophetic ability, reliablity or credibility.
It seems the general consenus of rational opinion is that Monson got things wrong. Wildly wrong in 1969 and less wrong in 2007.
The bits he gets wrong there seems to be no reasonable explanation for, other than he made stuff up without foundation.
Some people don't have a problem with his embellishments on the basis that his intentions were good and the spirit of the tale was what was important, rather than factual accuracy.
This is exactly the rationale Paul H Dunn used to justify his embellishments. See other thread on Paul H Dunn for further details.
Now what...?
Well I fully expect the storm clouds surrounding the tale of Arthur Patton to shed some rain in perhaps the not too distant future. Monson may need to make use of the COB umbrella if he is to stay dry.
I would be very surprised if future General Conference talks by Monson contained errors like those we have seen here. In the end we may well have done him a large favour - probably at the cost of a talk writer or researchers gainful employment.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote:I would be very surprised if future General Conference talks by Monson contained errors like those we have seen here. In the end we may well have done him a large favour - probably at the cost of a talk writer or researchers gainful employment.
I agree and I think we may have already seen the caliber of talks Monson will be giving at conference from now on. Ones about miraculous $5.00 bills surviving wash day still in a jean's pocket. The facts on that one are pretty difficult to verify.
interested wrote:If the storyteller is telling demonstrable lies while claiming to be prophetically telling the truth, that would tend to undermine any claim to prophetic ability, reliablity or credibility.
Ever heard of the story of Coyote?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
interested wrote:If the storyteller is telling demonstrable lies while claiming to be prophetically telling the truth, that would tend to undermine any claim to prophetic ability, reliablity or credibility.
Ever heard of the story of Coyote?
There are many stories of "Coyote" in Native American mythology (all of them entertaining... very much like Aesop's fables of Fox). Which one are you referring to?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
interested wrote: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.
One cannot be a prophet and a storyteller?
It is proposed that we sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, storyteller, and embellisher........
There are many stories of "Coyote" in Native American mythology (all of them entertaining... very much like Aesop's fables of Fox). Which one are you referring to?
The one where he put on roller skates and strapped a rocket on his back, but still couldn't catch the roadrunner.