Monson declared in his October 2007 General Conference talk, entitled "Mrs. Patton--the Story Continues," that Arthur Patton's mother provided him, via a letter, the actual death date of her son. In that 2007 talk, Monson reported thusly:

"During the first week of May 1969, to my astonishment and joy, I received a letter postmarked Pomona, California, and dated April 29, 1969. It was from Mrs. Terese Patton. I share with you a part of that letter:

“'Dear Tommy,

“'I hope you don’t mind my calling you Tommy, as I always think of you that way. I don’t know how to thank you for the comforting talk you gave.

“'Arthur was 15 years old when he enlisted in the navy. He was killed one month before his 19th birthday on July 5, 1944.

“It was wonderful of you to think of us. I don’t know how to thank you for your comforting words, both when Arthur died and again in your talk. I have had many questions over the years, and you have answered them. I am now at peace concerning Arthur. . . . God bless and keep you always.

“'Love,

“'Terese Patton”'"
_____


Something seems unusual, even fishy, about the aforenoted citation of Mrs. Patton's letter to Monson.

It was not quoted by Monson in the above detail--which detail included Patton's death date of 5 July 1944 as provided by Patton's mother--for some 38 years after Monson received the letter.

When Monson finally got around in 2007 to quoting the above letter in its expanded form, it appears in Monson's 2007 sermon only after Monson's false claim (first made back in 1969 that Patton had died on 8 May 1942 aboard the U.S.S. Lexington in the Coral Sea) had been expunged from the text of his altered 2007 talk.

Tellingly, the first version of Mrs. Patton's letter from which Monson quotes is placed in shorter, edited form in a postscript to the printed version of Monson's April 1969 General Conference sermon, entitled, "The Message--Arthur Lives."

There, Monson mentions having received a letter from Mrs. Patton after giving his 1969 sermon. The portion provided in Monson's postscript does not mention Mrs. Patton's specific reference to her son's death date as being 5 July 1944 (Why? To have provided that date would have meant contradicting the false death date that Monson had claimed for Patton in his original 1969 sermon; that false date being 8 May 1942).

The excerpted portion of Mrs. Patton's letter that Monson instead chose to quote in the postscript to his falsely-dated and-placed April 1969 "Lexington/Coral Sea" sermon reads:

"Note: Following the original broadcast of this message, President Monson received a touching letter from Mrs. Terese Patton, Arthur’s mother, who was living in Pomona, California. Among other things, she wrote, 'I don’t know how to thank you for your wonderful and comforting words. God bless you always.'"

That's it. No death date mentioned.

How convenient.

How deceptive.

How Monson.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2011 02:32PM by steve benson.

But the mother seems to confirm that she had questions about life after death that TSM answered for her. She is not disputing that. The records seem to indicate Arthur was either AWOL or to be generous MIA. So the question comes down to was TSM misinformed about what ship Arthur was serving on, did he think Arthur was on the Lexington and did some fact checking on when the ship went down, or did he pick the Lexington because it made a better story than a mother worried about her son who went AWOL?

I appreciate all the hard work into tracking this information down. I am amazed at how many things actually were confirmed based on the original conversations about this story. It does make you wonder how many of his other stories have similar exaggerations, but it also seems like they probably have a foundation in the truth.

It is not likely that Patton was AWOL because if he was, that would have likely been duly noted on the ship's log known as the "Report of Changes of U.S.S. White Plains (CVE 66) for the month ending 19th day of July 1944." In the report on Patton's status, he was declared as "Missing due to own misconduct" on 4 July 1944. (I have been advised by a source with family military background who has personally seen AWOL reports that the AWOL designation is routinely made when the transgressing service member is absent without leave)

On the report itself, the designation for Patton as "Missing" (handwritten over the crossed-out, typed abbreviation "Trans." for "Transferred") appears under category 7: "Received, transferred, deserted, discharged, change of rating, death, or any other change of status."

In other words, Patton could have been designated as a deserter, but was not so classified.

Similarly, the designation for Patton as "Missing as result of own misconduct" appears in category 9, under the sub-heading: "Vessel or station from which received, to what vessel or station transferred, when discharged and character of discharge; where deserted, and amount due or overpaid. When died, cause of death and where and when buried. If rated and authority for same. If disrated, give cause; if on detached duty, give place of duty. If paassenger, give purpose of travel and final disposition."

In short, there were options for the ship's report writers to identify Patton as having been AWOL, as having deserted or as having been inappropriately away from the ship for whatever reason in terms of "change of status."
_____


Further, it is also unlikely that Patton would have been designated as "MIA," since he was not missing in action during a time of operational combat activity or in relation to combat actions. Patton was apparently on the U.S.S. White Plains as of 2 July 1944, when it set sail out of the combat zone for an atoll in a temporary reprieve from operational battle duty.

Moreover, as I have also noted, Patton was not listed in the combined crew casualty list of the U.S.S. White Plains and its other task force units as being "MIA," even though there was an available designation for that status, if applicable.

It seems most likely that Patton (perhaps together with his similarly-missing shipmate Pauley who disappeared on the same day) engaged in some kind of ill-fated, non-combat related activity that result in their vanishing--and in their deaths.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2011 05:01PM by steve benson.

Are there any active or inactive Navy personnel on the board that can describe what type of situations would constitute this "Missing due to own misconduct" classification?

"Military Line of Duty (LOD) Investigations: What Are They, How Can They Affect You? . . .

"Guide Note: This article is written from the point of view of the Army, but applies equally to all of the services. . .

"LOD investigation is generally conducted whenever a soldier acquires a disease, incurs a significant injury or is injured under unusual circumstances. There is a presumption that all diseases, injuries or deaths occur 'in the line of duty - not due to own misconduct.' A LOD investigation helps determine a soldier's entitlement to pay and allowances, accrual of service and leave time and, in some cases, disability retirement. A soldier receives these benefits only if the final determination is 'in line of duty - not due to own misconduct.'. . .

"Once all of the evidence is gathered, the IO reviews it carefully and is required to make one of three determinations concerning your status- (1) 'in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct'; (2) 'not in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct'; or, (3) 'not in the line of duty- due to own misconduct.'

"If the injury or disease is caused by the soldier's intentional misconduct or willful negligence, the IO may determine the soldier's injury or disease to be 'not in the line of duty - due to own misconduct.' 'Willful negligence' is the conscious and intentional omission of the proper degree of care under the circumstances.

"Factors leading to adverse determinations include: whether the soldier was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; whether he was the aggressor or voluntarily participated in a fight; or whether he acted in a manner considered extremely erratic or reckless without regard for his personal safety or the safety of others.

"An investigating officer may determine that running with the bulls is extremely reckless and therefore, find the soldier to be, 'not in line of duty — due to own misconduct.'

"The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty."

("Military Line of Duty (LOD) Investigations: What Are They, How Can They Affect You?," at: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milarticles/bllod.htm)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2011 04:12PM by steve benson.

Most great lies have foundation in truth or else they wouldn't be accepted.

Faith promoting fibs are no exception.

It's the old "I caught a fish....THIS BIG!" with a because god made it happen added to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2011 03:36PM by Lost Mystic.

Yep! I think the covering things up bothers me the most.

So doesn't Tommy boy get five more versions of his phony sailor story ?