Martha Nibley Beck back in the news

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

Is the book titled "Leaving the Saints" as in the link that Ray provided and what do you think I as an observer to Mormonism might find of interest in the book?

[_Daniel Peterson]

beastie,

Is the book titled "Leaving the Saints" as in the link that Ray provided and what do you think I as an observer to Mormonism might find of interest in the book?

That's the book.

You'll learn a great deal of interest in it. Unfortunately, much of what you'll learn will be untrue.

[_Ray A]

I haven't read Beck's book, but I have some sundry questions from the links Mok provided. Scott Gordon writes:

Martha claims (page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion's body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7.3 He did this at 4 o'clock in the morning, while others slept. She didn't remember this happened until the memories returned under self hypnosis many years later as an adult. She states that the memories were so weird that they must be true (page 146).

But according to Beck:

When I began having new memories of traumatic events in my childhood, I was not in therapy of any kind, nor was I employing any sort of "memory recovery technique" such as hypnosis.

The fact that other children were in the room asleep is not that significant. How soundly do children sleep? Answer: very soundly. Hugh's wife may have been a light sleeper, but did he study into the early morning hours? Would his absence from the marital bed have been of any real concern to his wife?

Scott also writes:

At one point (pages 77-78), Martha claims that male students at BYU must wear socks on the premise that the hair on the human ankles can be thought of as an extension of pubic hair. Other students and faculty that I've talked to, present at BYU during the same period as Martha, denied such an outlandish allegation. One member of the sociology department that I checked with (where Martha taught part time) assured me that he wears socks to keep his feet warm with his sandals, and that pubic hair has nothing to do with his choice.

Well, I had a companion who had a companion who prayed in bed if it was after 10.30pm, following the rule that missionaries were to be "in bed" by 10.30 pm. Nothing would surprise me. But I could be making this up (I'm not).

Scott also wrote:

Martha Beck's book is seriously flawed in the way it depicts the Church, its members and teachings. Fair-minded readers will find it at best unconvincing, at worst mean-spirited and at times absurd.

We encourage all who seek an understanding of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ to read and study works by reputable authors and scholars, together with the scriptures, in order to build their understanding of the truth.

What does that have to do, specifically, with Beck's claims? There was an LDS stake president and doctor who inseminated women with his own sperm, as some kind of "sexual turn on". The teachings and values of the Church have little to do with possible aberrant behaviour in individuals. I think apologetics should be left out of things like this. I'm not saying Nibley is guilty, but I'm questioning some of the defenses on his behalf.

[_Ray A]

I think Boyd Petersen's comments are also helpful in evaluating this:

As Martha's brother-in-law and Hugh Nibley's son-in-law and biographer, I feel compelled to respond. At the outset, however, I must make four things perfectly clear:

(1) This is not and should not be read as a review of the book as much as a response to it. I make no attempt to include all the requisite elements of a standard, academic or popular book review.

(2) Because of my proximity to this story--I have lived with its effects on my family for over a decade now--I cannot be objective; I have a stake in this debate. But I also believe I have insights others do not have which are both relevant and compelling.

(3) This response should not be seen as the "official" position of the Nibley family. While I cannot help but be influenced by my wife and her family, and I have tried to be sensitive to their feelings, this response represents my opinion, and I alone am responsible for its content.

(4) My goal is not to discredit or further alienate Martha. I sincerely wish her well. I have made every effort to avoid criticizing her personally, confining myself strictly to matters of evidence from which a reasonable conclusion can be drawn about the credibility of her presentation in the story.

Please note the bold, added by me. Let's look at some more evidences later in this thread, and more of what Boyd Petersen has to say.

[_Ray A]

According to Boyd Petersen:

The most serious problems with this book, however, are Martha's persistent hyperbolic assertions and outright distortions of fact. Martha's previous memoir, Expecting Adam, caused family members and many friends to raise eyebrows when they read events they had witnessed described in such exaggerated, often unrecognizable, ways. For example, when Martha described taking a year off from Harvard to read texts from Western philosophy and world religions after an existential crisis (Expecting Adam 169), family members and close friends knew that she had taken the year off because of an anorexic breakdown, which caused her parents to make her come home and enter therapy, and that the reading assignments were all from a BYU honors colloquium she had audited during the time she was in Provo. When Martha said she was an atheist by the time she left for Harvard, these same family and friends were confused that an atheist had attended Church regularly, married in the Temple, and written an essay on maintaining faith for the Ensign. During this period, Martha had also co-authored a book with her husband, published by Church-owned Deseret Book, on recovering from compulsive behaviors like anorexia, drug addiction, and homosexuality by implementing gospel principles. The authors also bore their testimony that they "accept as inspired the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (xi).

I did read this before Petersen noted it, but I don't, at all, find it that strange. This could be Martha's religious heritage and her need to feel accepted by the faithful at work here. The reading of texts from Harvard and the anorexic breakdown could have been combined. Some possible author bias is evident here, with an emphasis on what she later deemed more important. What's so strange about an atheist defending Mormonism? Maybe she was genuinely trying to reconcile her upbringing and beliefs through this book, counselling people on matters that genuinely caused her real conflict of conscience, yet providing "gospel answers" which even she on the surface may have seriously doubted. Or maybe she just wanted a name and some royalties. Who knows. It may have been her way of ingratiating herself into the Mormon community, for acceptance, while deep down her reservations and doubts were growing at the speed of light. She may have wanted to believe that her "condition" was in fact false, but later realised it wasn't, even with the self-generated defences.

This isn't, in my opinion, the most serious problem.

[_Ray A]

This, in my opinion, is the most serious allegation:

Furthermore, family members were shocked by the unkind way Martha portrayed them and their reaction to her news about Adam having Down syndrome. In that book, Martha describes her father laughing in a "loud, long, forced guffaw" and her brother commenting on how if retarded people were allowed to marry "the half-brains in question should at least be voluntarily sterilized" (243). Family members found this to be an unrecognizable and uncharitable description of their very real acceptance of her and her baby, and their sincere respect for her choice not to abort. Likewise, Martha's ex-husband John states in a note to me that his father and family were offended by the way she characterized them in the book. "My Dad and Mom were so sensitive to Adam--my Dad went out and got books on Down syndrome as soon as he heard the diagnosis--and [Martha] made them look like fools." Furthermore, Martha's characterization of "Goatstroke," the overly demanding and mean-spirited Harvard professor, cost John a wonderful friendship. The real "Goatstroke," John writes, "got Martha into her Sociology program, and was always helpful and kind to her." Upon reading the book, this professor "was devastated by her characterization" and "my relationship with him--which was very strong--was ruined forever as well [as hers]."

This is where I think Martha totally destroyed her credibility.

[_Ray A]

If this report is correct, then this is another factor weighing against Martha Beck:

Two of the central points of the book are also disputed by Martha's now ex-husband, John Beck. Martha describes in quite explicit detail scars that she maintains confirm her having been abused. However, John Beck states that at the time of her Harvard premarital exam, "Martha never claimed the doctor saw scars. He just asked what kind of contraception she'd been using up to that point. When she said she wasn't having sex, he gave her a disbelieving look." This could be simply because he couldn't believe that she was not sexually active since she was college age and engaged to be married. And in a later exam, a Provo doctor not only did not notice scars, but he warned Martha to start "loosening up" so that sexual intercourse would not be uncomfortable. If the Harvard doctor saw anything to indicate previous sexual experience, John suggests it may have been caused by a neighbor boy who molested her when she was a young girl. This incident in itself could very well be the source of the memories that Martha has come to embellish with strange details and to associate with her father. While several of her sisters knew about the molestation from the time it happened, John never learned about it until the early 1990s, when Martha began having memories of abuse. "After she told me about the neighbor incident, she never doubted that memory," states John. "But she often expressed doubt about her memories of her father abusing her." He stresses Martha's reluctance to believe herself, "She literally said to me on many occasions: 'I'm such a bad person to have made up those terrible memories about my father.'" John characterizes the fact that she does not mention this incident of sexual molestation by the neighbor in the book as "a huge 'oversight.'" [Emphasis added]

Rebuttals to this needed. But if John really did say this, one can only conclude that Martha Beck is an opportunist, at best.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

Is the book titled "Leaving the Saints" as in the link that Ray provided and what do you think I as an observer to Mormonism might find of interest in the book?

That's the book.

You'll learn a great deal of interest in it. Unfortunately, much of what you'll learn will be untrue.

Thanks for the confirmation on the title and your evaluation, Daniel.

[_moksha]

What does that have to do, specifically, with Beck's claims? There was an LDS stake president and doctor who inseminated women with his own sperm, as some kind of "sexual turn on". The teachings and values of the Church have little to do with possible aberrant behaviour in individuals. I think apologetics should be left out of things like this. I'm not saying Nibley is guilty, but I'm questioning some of the defenses on his behalf.

So you think these reviews should have dealt more with what Martha Nibley Beck had to say?

[_Ray A]

So you think these reviews should have dealt more with what Martha Nibley Beck had to say?

Yes, Mok, I do, and that's what I'm focusing on. Not only Beck, but her ex, and others closely associated with her. I think some of the reviews do, very much so. But I think any form of apologetics should be left out of this. I don't think it should be an axiom that Nibley "could never do something like this", because "Mormons don't do this kind of thing". This case has to be weighed on individual assessment, not "expectations". Like some of the commentators, I remain completely open-minded, but I'm not impressed with the mentality that "Mormons can never do this sort of thing". That is no defense of Nibley. It's apologetics interfering with the search for truth.