**Preface/Background

Feel free to get back to me on this matter, "elcid," if you are so inclined and perhaps want to put an investigative reporter to work tracking it further. I'll see what I can do to help in providing contact info in that regard. (You can either post an e-mail addy on this board or give Susan I/S permission to pass one along to me off-board). I--and, no doubt, others--would be interested in looking at what information you have gathered and the conclusions you have reached from that information:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,310504,310510#msg-310510

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,310841,310845#msg-310845

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,311091,311091#msg-311091
_____


**Getting to the Truth Behind the Teleprompter

Now, to the issue of accuracy regarding Thomas S. Monson's war story (any of the following look familiar?) I did some quick reading on both sites that you previously mentioned and came across several responses from various posters questioning the veracity of Monson's sermonized claims about the World War II combat death of a certain Arthur Patton, whom Monson has described as a childhood friend of his.

--These questions are raised by a doubter of Thomas:

" . . . My brother had delved into a story told by TSM [Thomas S. Monson] about a boyhood friend of his who was killed in the Pacific in WWII. The boyhood friends name is Arthur Patten. Apparently (and I have print-outs of the talks right next to me, right now).

"TSM has told the story citing (curiously) very specific details about how and when and where Arthur died. The only problem is he has him dying in March 1944 near Saipan on the aircraft carrier USS White Plains (re: 'Mrs. Patton--The Story Continues,' by TSM). The same story was told by TSM in general conference on April 6, 1969. Only this time he dies in May 1942 aboard the USS Lexington. Same person both times, Arthur Patton.

"Now a search of Utah WW II war dead shows NO Arthur Patten (or any close mis-spelling). A Kenneth Patten from Payson is mentioned. But I assume Arthur was from Salt Lake, like Monson, he was his 'boyhood friend.'

"To me this looks quite suspicious. I doubt the story. The glaring change of details makes me doubt. The lack of a listing of Arthur Patten among war dead from Utah makes me doubt. Maybe I (we, my bro and I) got this all wrong. But I don't think so.

"I think these GAs tell alot of whoppers. Like Ballard's story of the missionary. I have no proof on that one. We know Paul Dunn told whoppers, for years, and was only caught when a BYU professor dug into the stories, and then he was rewarded by being fired. An out of state newspaper (Arizona Republic) had to print his findings because the in-state newspapers did not dare to print the stuff. Of course it all turned out to be correct and Dunn was made emeritous.

"So I don't believe their stories. Many may be true, but some are not, and they confuse the issues when we and others try to discern truth from error."
_____


--From the same site, the observations of another poster:

"Interesting. I can't find this Arthur Patten on familysearch, either.

"Kenneth [Patten] was 9 years older than Monson and died 15 Dec 1945.

"Here is another inconsistency (maybe). Monson would have been 15 in 1942 since he was born in 1927. This would have had to have been a friend several years his senior. I'm sure that could be true...just interesting.

"I'm kinda sad that they just make crap up. . . ."
_____


--Another skeptic responds:

"From March to April 24, 1944 the USS White Plains was docked in California.

"EDIT: The most recent article says he died 5 Jul 1944. The ship left the combat zone on 2 July and returned a week later (?) anyway, suffered no enemy attacks during that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_White_Plains_(CVE-66)

"I'm sorry, but if I can find this out in less than 10 minutes the Fact-Checkers should be able to fix this stuff pre-Conference.

"EDIT: It doesn't look like anyone died when the Lexington went down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)#1942

"No Arthur Patten on the 1930 Utah US Census. Checked on Ancestry.com"
_____


--Still another:

"Okay, a search on lds.org for 'arthur patten' turns up 0 results. When I do a search for articles by Monson with 'Patten' I turn up 0 results."
_____


--Then, this additional information:

"Hey I found the family!!!

"The 1930 U.S. Census does have the family of Therese and Lee Patton. They have several children including a nearly 5-year-old named Arthur. They lived in Chicago, IL at the time.

"I also found Terese Patton on the death index-SSDI and California. Her Social Security card was issued in Utah.

"Edit: I found the family on a family tree and it lists her 4 children as living. I cannot find death or WW II info on any of the sons. Curious. . . .

"I can't find another family that matches what we've been told in the stories. If there is another maybe it would match better .... It seems so random that he would give such details with real family names if it was not at least somewhat based on truth.

"Anyway, the family I found lost the father in 1941 in Illinois. If the boy joined the military in 1940 his mom wouldn't have been a widow, yet, and Monson wouldn't have known Arthur as a boyhood pal.

"The U.S. didn't enter the war until 1941. So, enlisting as a 15 year old in 1940 wouldn't make sense .... I'm supposing."
_____


--Followed by this observation:

"Sure reading mistakes can be made - we all do that. However 'dying in March 1944 near Saipan on the aircraft carrier USS White Plains' vs. 'dies in May 1942 aboard the USS Lexington' can NOT be a reading mistake.

"Like others I chalk this up as faith-promoting stories, the truthfulness not mattering to TBMs."

(all from "New Order Mormon," under "Whopper/Swapping")

*****


--Then, from the second website:

"Here is the link to the USS White Plains story:

http://lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/mrs-patton-the-story-continues?lang=eng&query=Arthur+Patton#1-

"The USS Lexington story is not available on the LDS.org website. The citation for it is as follows:

"'Mrs. Patton, Arthur Lives,' 'Conference Report,' Apr. 1969, 126–29

"I would be surprised to find discrepancies as Monson cites the 1969 story in his 2007 conference address.

"EDIT: I found a link to the conference report:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1698

"Monson's story is extremely inconsistent. In the 2007 story Arthur Patton dies in 1944 aboard the USS White Plains.

"In the 1969 story, Arthur Patton dies in 1942 while with the USS Lexington.

"Which, if either story, is correct?"
_____


--A response:

"I have, in my hands, a printout of the two talks. Also, in my hand, is a photocopy of the war dead from WWII with the web page referenced at the bottom of the printout (http://media.nara.gov/media/images/27/32/27-3134a.gif) with the index of dead from Utah, it goes like this:

"Parkinson, Donald Elliot. Aviation Raioman 3c.... Patten, Kenneth Bingham, Seaman, 1c, USN. Parents Mr. and Mrs. George Patten, 250 S. 3d East, Payson. Pavich, Stephen. Seaman 1c, USNR....

"No PattONs, no other PattEns, nothing.

"Arthur Patten is NOT there. PLUS TSM tells the story with intimate details but changes everything when he tells it again (ship, battle, date, etc.).

"This ONE story he told and it doesn't add up. He last told it in 2007, LONG AFTER the Paul Dunn stuff. He keeps telling stories in his talks. Other GAs tell stories in their talks. Another thread on this website . . . talked recently about Ensign stories and whether they are 'true.' Some of the responses seemed to indicate they were true but some indicated they got changed significantly in non-factual ways to make them look more spiritual or to make the GA look better.

"I think there is gold in them thar hills!"
_____


--Followed by this observation:

"According to 'Wikipedia,' the USS White Plains was in Oahu, HI at the end of February 1944 and sailed to San Francisco from there arriving on March 3, [r]emaining on the West coast until April 24 before sailing to Pearl Harbor. This ship was never sunk and was decommissioned in Boston after the war in July 1946.

"I'm not sure why they would change to story to include a ship that never even sank. At least the ship from 1969 (The Lexington) actually did sink after a battle in the Coral Sea.

"I found this Casuality list [ http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=183624 ] from the Coral Sea battle but there is no one named Patton on the list. There were two Arthurs; perhaps TSM was friends with an Arthur Lewandowski instead?"
_____


--Prompting this reply:

"You can find the casualty lists for both ships:

http://www.bosamar.com/crewlist/cve66crewlist.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/cv2-Coral.html#pageH1

"I couldn't find any Arthur Patton on either."
_____


--Another note:

"Thomas Monson is always the hero of his stories. In the Arthur Patton story, Monson, as a child, is asked by the non-Mormon mother is her son will live again. I don't believe many grieving older adults ask children for reassurances about life after death. But young Tommy Monson is always the hero of Thomas Monson stories.

"As for motive, the reason Monson makes up stories is to appear better than he is. I have heard if first-hand from those who have worked for him that he is a mean boss who is difficult on subordinates and nothing like the nice old man of his talks."
_____


--This interesting historical postscript follows from another poster:

"Here's another really strange thing about the [USS] Lexington: There is an old British Reel that shows the ship sinking. At the end it mentions that among the survivors are the '7 Patton Brothers' from Portland, Oregon, 'the Navy's most famous fighting family.' I wonder if TSM saw this footage and came up with an imaginary friend named Patten?"

(all from, "A Serious Question About Research into Modern LDS GA stories," at Post-Mormon.org)

*****


--Then, this from a third site:

"Would a concerted fact-checking effort reveal a pattern of fabricated faith-promoting anecdotes? . . . Does anybody care? Investigative Reporting?

"Who was Arthur Patton? Did he live and die like Thomas S. Monson has claimed? . . .

"1969 version of the story [ http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c37592be7beeb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1]

"2007 version of the same [ http://www.josephsmith.net/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9e942bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD ]


"At the end of the day, I'm not sure there's much of an audience for this sort of thing but perhaps others here also wonder if the only thing that distinguished Paul H. Dunn from his fellow GAs was that he happened to get caught? . . ."
_____


"From the comments:

--"I've mentioned this on another website, awhile back. TSM has told (several times) a story about his 'boyhood friend' Arthur Patten. He has told the story in the 1960s and in the 1990s and in-between. I got the printed talk off of the [Mormon] church website. It is interesting to note that he tells the story in fairly specific detail (the name of the ship, the date, the battle) .... and it is significantly different in each telling. The battle changes; the ship name changes; the year and month change. Then I did a little research into 'Arthur Patten.' There is no Arthur Patten among the Utah war dead in WW II. . . .

"I have all this printed out, the talks and then the page from the Utah war dead website.

"No Arthur Patten. There is a Patten in Utah County (Santaquinn?), but no Arthur. . . ."
_____


--"Somebody carefully checking on details who searches for 'Patten' rather than "Patton?" Hmmm. . . ."
_____


--"There's no Patton either. See for yourself.

"Link to Utah WW II Casualties [ http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/ww2/navy-casualties/utah.html ] . . ."
_____


--"I did [a] search on my own, and you're right. No Patton. But, so hard to imagine that Monson would make this whole thing up. I also searched for details of the USS White Plains and the battle dates for that don't quite match, either, with the death date of Patton. . . ."
_____


--"Why [is it] so hard to imagine that Monson would make this whole thing up[?]

" . . . Religious leaders spend a lifetime telling phony stories. And there are innumerous examples of people making up war stories in order to impress people or build up their egos. Take a look at the 'POW Network's' list of phonies sometime. They come from all walks of life. . . ."
_____


--"Mostly because the original story isn't that impressive. It's like bothering to counterfeit a five dollar bill. . . ."
_____


--"So? People lie about stupid [expleive deleted] all the time. The difference with people like Monson is, it's their job to sell fake stories. Monson, like all religious leaders, are in the business of selling woo . . ."
_____


--"Everybody, not just religious leaders, can potentially benefit from telling lies. But my experience is that most of what people relate is basically true. I've run into a couple of chronic liars but to start believing on that basis that much of what people tell me are lies would have devastating consequences. So, I prefer to occasionally be deceived and to feel a little gullible than to habitually doubt, especially in instances like this where nothing important is at stake for me. . . ."
_____



--"The names have been changed to protect the virtuous. Really, like the guy is going to tell someone's personal story using actual names? Any of them. Every story probably starts with a seed of truth--or at least a seed of hearsay, but reality doesn't make for good storytelling. There is a difference between biography and memoir, and most people prefer memoir for a reason.

"I don't really fault them that. It's not like they're malicious, plotting old men. They've just drunk so deeply on the sacramental Kool-Aid that they really believe it. These guys actually believe they are called by, and in some fashion associating with, a 'god;' that the whole 'first vision' thing actually happened, etc. They live in a carefully-constructed alternate reality; their respect for fact and logic are suspect from the get-go. . . ."
_____


--"In the second [version], he [Monson] mentions that he heard from one of Arthur's family members. I wouldn't be surprised if she corrected him on some of the details. . . ."

(all from "Would a Concerted Fact-Checking Effort Reveal a Pattern of Fabricated Faith-Promoting Anecdotes?," at "Ex-Mormon Comments")

*****


--And then this, on the possible identity of Patton's mother--but, alas, still no "Arthur Patton" who neatly fits Monson's story profile:

"I may have found 'Mrs. Patton.'

"I could not find an 'Arthur Patton' who fit the right range on the LDS Church's family history website but I did find this in the Social Security Death Index:

"Terese Patton
DOB: 11/28/1894
Place of Issuance [of SS #]: UTAH
DOD: June 1980
Last Residence: Visalia, California

"In his 2007 talk, TSM identified 'Mrs. Patton' as one Terese Patton of Pomona, California (which is around 200 miles or so from Visalia). Using the above dates, she would have been 31 years old at the time of Arthur's birth in 1925 (which date is based on Arthur's joining the Navy in 1940 at age 15, per Monson).

"So this data in the SS index appears consistent with the Terese Patton as described by Monson."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,310504,311126#msg-311126


Interesting, but we are still left with the big question: Where's the elusive killed-in-action-Waldo "Patton"?
_____


**If Arthur Frank Patton/Patten Was Actually Killed in Action During World War II, Then Why Doesn't the U.S. Navy Have a Record of His Death in Its Official and Available Death Record Compilations?

The claim has been made, as follows:

"An image of a typed file card relating to a Utah Military Service member, for service year 1941, is now up at Ancestry. Filed under Utah Military Service Years, 1861-1970:

"'Arthur Frank Patton, Navy; mother: Teresa Patton, 533 So. 2nd W, SLC.'

"No DOB, no DOD, years of service, rank, or other details included on the card itself.

"Typed notation in lower right hand of card is: 'Enl-no. Bk#1, Pg 22. Below that is noted: c.l. Trib 12-12-41.'"

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,310504,310963#msg-310963


Further information provided on this "typed file card" (together with speculation about what it all means) includes the following:

"We need to find a '[Salt Lake] Tribune' dated 12-12-41, I think.

"Someone may have just looked at an old newspaper image and typed up a group of service member's names from an article in that. Or used a printed list of servicemen returning to the area which featured in it, or taken it from an obit.

"Other typed military service cards I viewed for Utah, for the same period, including Thomas S. Monson's card, are pre-printed; info to complete the cards is typed into the labeled spaces by whoever submitted the card.

"In this Arthur's case, the card appears to be a lined file card, like a blank contemporary index card; the info for this Arthur was typed on the card's existing lines.

"There is nothing pre-printed (professionally, or otherwise) on the card itself.

"I suppose if the submitters ran out of pre-printed cards, they might have just grabbed a plain index card and used that but I am surprised they didn't stick to what seems to be the standard format.

"Different groups of volunteer submitters over time do often use different methods but they typically try to include all the same basic info as before/as is typical or expected for that category of submission.

"At the very least, try to include some of the same information as was recorded on what looks like the majority of the other cards in the same grouping or period; ie, age, DOB, where the soldier entered the service, service location, date of discharge, occupation at time of entering the service, etc as on Monson's card."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,310504,311098#msg-311098


Something, indeed, doesn't feel, sound or smell right. This purported Utah military service "typed file card" raises some very basic questions.

If it is authentic, then why does it lack such basic information? (Note: While the "ancestry.com" website does have the "typed file card" information to which reference has been made as well as some other data on this Patton individual, there is no date of KIA, or of death of any kind).

Second, since it is "now up on Ancestry," when, exactly, did it go up and who put it up?

Perhaps most importantly, an examination is in order of the following nationally-comprehensive online U.S. military record for "[c]asualties listed represent[ing] only those on active duty in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, resulting directly from enemy action or from operational activities against the enemy in war zones from December 7, 1941, to the end of the war. Casualties in the United States area or as a result of disease, homicide, or suicide in any location are not included. This is a State summary taken from casualty lists released by the Navy Department, corrected as to the most recent casualty status and recorded residence of next of kin."

Said information is available for direct online examination in:

"State Summary of War Casualties [Utah], U.S. Navy 1946, Compiled July 1946 by Casualty Section, Office of Public Information, Navy Department," under "Killed in Action, Died of Wounds, or Lost Lives as Result of Operational Movements in War Zones," alphabetized by name under "P," in "Dead" section, p. 5, at: http://archives.utah.gov/research/guides/wwii-navy-war-casualties-utah.pdf

Search result: No name listed for "Arthur Frank Patton" or "Arthur Frank Patten" (Neither is this particular "Patton/Patten" listed in the document's section of "Missing in Action or During Operational War Missions").

*****


**Conclusion on Such Confusion

Perhaps Thomas S. Monson can provide some clarification on these matters. But must we wait until the next General Conference to hear the "inspired version" update?

:)



Edited 74 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 03:59PM by steve benson.

I can say you have some good facts, some bad ones, but nowhere near the complete picture you would have from methodical, detailed research. You cannot cut corners when doing research, even if you think the story is a lie.

I am not saying any one person is sloppy with research, because this is a collection of what people are saying. It does not seem anyone is looking at this in detail. I have very high standards for this type of research. One should never work from a foregone conclusion when looking for a family or person. It is very easy to be wrong, and overlook facts if you are not methodical about it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 01:43AM by atheist&happy:-).

I just made some nice "connections" with a genealogist who will be doing some more work in Salt Lake. She offered some illuminating stuff about the subject that I'm sure you're aware of as well some particulars about the "Family History Library."

My interest, of course, is pretty much history, but in our conversation she mentioned a real problem she had with LDS genealogy was that "once it was done, that was it; it was chiseled in stone." She noted she could do her "best work," and yet invariably "errors" would creep in or additional information might invalidate an otherwise earlier and "reasonable" interpretation.

She had determined it was usually fruitless to attempt to get the folks at the "Root Cellar" (cabdriver slang) to correct such misinformation...

I'll just pass that on and add a big "Absolutely!" to what you're saying... Given the strong bias that the LDS culture brings against us "anti's," it's critical that everything be triple-checked and validated. There's no sense in providing them with ammunition, that's fersher... It should be a "given" that critical standards for research are followed, but often they aren't... Even among ex-Mormons, there's an occasional "BYU Fudge Factor" (see Nibley, Hugh) that slips in...

It's that there are two versions of the same story. At best, only one could be factual, even if there were an Arthur Patten or Patton or Pattan or whatever. So TSM spread bullshit at least once. That's not surprising because, as stated above, religious leaders are in the storytelling business. But, as should have been learned from the Paul Dunn fiasco, if you're going to fling bullshit, keep it outside the realm of things that can be fact checked. And be consistent. But it's as if when TSM went to Lying for the Lord school, he got the part about making your fables seem authentic by sprinkling in a few facts, but he missed the part about the facts being impossible to check. Maybe he was off helping a widow at the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 09:54AM by Stray Mutt.

I have a very plausible explaination: Thomas Monson, just like any other Mormon Prophet, received a revelation from the Lord! Reported and/or researched details about Arthur Patten don't matter, but what the Lord whispers into the demented mind of the Prophet is true. Is this not what has been happening all through history with the Mormons? Forget reason and logic - just put on those blinders and believe.

To me it appears TSM fudged the truth somewhere, but you cannot really pin anything down, because no one has done detailed research. I am not being critical of Steve Benson, elcid or anyone else. I do not believe in supporting exmos in all their gripes, but I am not supporting TSM either. I am supporting facts, of which there are collectively little known, and if that makes me an ASS then fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 02:00AM by atheist&happy:-).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 02:13AM by steve benson.

why would she be an ass for pointing out what is obvious to her?
but A&H there is no exmo priesthood... it is exmo ROYALTY!! :)
lets get that straight right now!! :)
Steve does do a great job of bringing together all of those comments and posts.... and it would be nice for someone to do the research.... but not necessary i think.... at least on the surface it looks like faith promoting.... but what esle should anyone expect... ebellishing and lying for the lord is S.O.P. aint it?
just sayin

Or that you're willing to do the research yourself. Do you have any idea the kind of time in multiple physical archives it would take to do this kind of research? I do. Even then a generalization based on available facts is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate because with history you never know what new dicovery might have changed your own conclusions had the find been available to your own research.

What I'm saying is that Benson did a damn fine job for as quickly as it was done and for without travelling to Washington to look at military microfiche all day for four months.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 02:04AM by The Man in Black.

I read many of the same things. It would not take months or multiple archives to find enough information to be reasonably certain. I am not going to do the research myself, because I have given enough to this cult for free, and am very busy right now. As a summary this is great, but as a researcher I am saying there are many more ways to look into this, and some gaping holes in this story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 02:17AM by atheist&happy:-).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 02:20AM by steve benson.

I'll just agree with everyone. Isn't that what we want here? Consensus? Obedience?

TSM = ALWAYS bad, ALWAYS a liar. End of discussion.
Facts? Useless, and who needs them when you can just believe.
I'm female, so of course I must be wrong! The exmo priesthood know better, so who am I, as a lowly female, to question or disagree? Also, I'm extra bad, because you all think I am speaking evil of the exmo anointed (I don't think you are, but apparently I have run afoul of some unwritten rule).
Soon the women will arrive to bear their testimonies too of the perfection found here, to condemn me for not following the authorities, and tell me in true morg fashion that if I don't like it I can just leave.

NOTE to SL Cabbie above:

You said: "She noted she could do her "best work," and yet invariably "errors" would creep in or additional information might invalidate an otherwise earlier and "reasonable" interpretation."

If your friend considers '"reasonable" interpretation' as research, she is not doing research or working with facts. It's not creative writing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 04:52AM by atheist&happy:-).

Please don't get me wrong, "a&h." I very much appreciate your posts and have, as you know, defended you from time to time on this board against certain unwarranted attacks. You are smart and insightful and I, for one, enjoy your contributions here.

That said, if there are any 'round these parts wearing red fig leaf aprons and wielding authority unrighteously, time for a wardrobe and attitude change.

:)



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 06:28AM by steve benson.

Any mention of personal problems is often an invitation to attack. For this reason I stopped coming here for support, and posted other things instead, which was pointless as well.

I have mentioned before how frustrating it is trying to concentrate, and write only to have posts or requests for help ignored or attacked. In addition to this difficulty I am a meticulous researcher. Why would I want to invest MORE of what little time I have in people who do not appreciate or read my posts, AND who treat me like my old ward members?

The exmo priesthood, and relief society are the ones who never left the mentality behind.

Monson told a story about a person whom he described as a close friend and classmate. He even told us that he would go to the friend's mother's home and listen to her read his friend's letters. But, for some reason, the circumstances and timing of the friend's death did not stick in Monson's mind. In one account it happened in 1942 and in another account it happened in 1944. In the first account, the friend sank to the bottom of the sea with his ship. In the second account, the friend was simply "lost at sea" while serving on the ship.

What this tells us is that Monson doesn't give a fig about the accuracy of anything that he puts in his talks. What kind of close, personal friend could so easily forget the time and circumstances of his friend's death? We may never know for certain whether there is a kernel or two of truth in this story. But it does tell us a lot about Monson's character--and it's not flattering to him.

According to Wikipedia, Monson enlisted in the naval reserve in 1945, was sent to San Diego, but never shipped overseas. His term of service ended 6 months after the end of the war.

Nearly all enlisted personnel during WWII had the line "enlistment for the duration of the war or other emergency, plus six months" as the term of their required service. I don't know about draftees.

It's weird, if that is part of his bio. Staying in the service when you're required to by law, makes you just like everybody else, not special.

Why would they even mention it? Why not just state his enlistment date, or dates of service?

That's what makes him special and smart. If you enlist before the war is over, there's a lot more risk of being shot or hurt. ;o)

I don't know how to get back to you in a way that doesn't expose me. I assume you live in Mesa/Gilbert or close to there still. Maybe I could give you a call.

I used to live in Gilbert, in the stake you were in, at one time...we were also at the zoo at the same time...

Elcid

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 01:10PM by steve benson.

Tom Monson's stories, apparently, are similar to BOM stories.

They might not be factual, but they teach cool stuff, and some are even fun to read.

We should not get so hung up on the usefulness of the facts, or we'll miss the message, right? :)

If the allegations are true, it seems that Tom is a perfect fit to fill the role of Profit in the LD$ church.

There are databases of TSM talks...I would say that every specific fact should be checked out. I submit that this is part of a larger pattern, habitual behavior. Watch out for access to such historical materials being curtailed.

Once again I believe this falls under the GA maxim, "Many things that are not true, are useful."

Indeed in the BoM there is an admonishment, "Lie a little, cheat a little,... surely there is not harm in this..."

It is easy to get facts mixed up about these event. You think the facts would be clear and easy to remember, but it isn't always so. When my uncle was killed in Vietnam, there were a couple of different versions of how it happened. It took some time to sort out and for a while in the family there was doubt about whether or not the official Army record was true.

It wasn't until some years later that a veteran who was with my uncle when he was killed told my father how it had happened and his story matched the one the Army told. Just last year I corresponded briefly with one of my uncle's good friend's in Vietnam who told me a somewhat different version. As we talked further, I realized he wasn't actually with my uncle when he was killed, although he was in the same firefight. He saw my uncle's body afterward and provided some detail about that confirmed the Army story. The rest he told me was what he had made assumptions about. Still, I'm not entirely sure what happened.

Thomas Monson could have easily been relying on Mrs. Patton who didn't have the correct story.

Add to this, records are not always complete. I have questions about Arthur Patton. First, he apparently transferred from a destroyer to the White Plains. Was the transfer recorded so that he was on the ship's roster? It is not unusual for the military to lose track of men during transfers in wartime. I have been told of this a number of times by veterans I see who are trying to substantiate their whereabouts for the VA during the claim process.

Also, carriers are dangerous places even when they are not being bombed, shelled, or torpedoed. I have talked to several vets who witnessed serious and fatal accidents while serving on carriers when the ship was performing normal operations. It is possible Patton was killed in an accident rather than in combat. I don't know if that would make the combat casualty list or not, but it would be something to find out.

Related to this, according the vets I have talked with that sometimes the families of men killed in an accident were told he died serving his country or died during such-and-such operation and let the family assume it was combat rather than an accident (or "friendly fire") so the family would feel their loved one's death served a purpose.

All speculation on my part but possible things to consider.