Martha Nibley Beck back in the news

[_beastie]

It is risky to depend on the reviews of Beck's book, because there are some distortions (in Leaving the Saints, I haven't read the Adam book). For example, Gordon claims that Beck said Nibley dressed up in the costume to molest her. She did not make that claim. I went the rounds with Gordon on that point either on Z or FAIR, when I get home from work I'll see if I can find it. He justified his assertion because it was "reasonable" to assume that's what she meant, even though she didn't say it. (due to the close proximity of the description of the costume and the molestation, If I recall correctly).

What LDS reviewers omit is that Beck actually spoke favorably about the LDS community, aside from her father and some isolated incidents. I'll try to find my copy after work (half day, so it won't be that long).

In addition, Beck describes her family as dysfunctional in many aspects, and, If I recall correctly, her siblings have not denied this part. The part they deny is her molestation, which they would have no knowledge of, anyway.

Personally, I have no idea if Beck was molested or not, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Family members commonly do not know that a child is being molested, although the mothers often sense something is wrong, just not sure what. I am very close to some members of an LDS family of two boys and one girl (the youngest). They were a very active family, held FHE, family prayer, the whole nine yards. The family did not find out about the molestation until the children were adults in their early thirties. It was a great shock to them, they did not suspect it. (although their father had been ex'd at one point due to an affair with an adult woman, and had been forced to confess the molestation by the daughter, but was not ex'd due to that)

Jersey Girl, the book could be interesting to you due to the fact that it does describe, at some length, LDS culture.

[_antishock8]

Unfortunately, much of what you'll learn will be untrue.

Would you be kind of enough to enumerate the untrue points?

[_Trevor]

For example, Gordon claims that Beck said Nibley dressed up in the costume to molest her. She did not make that claim.

Very interesting. I listened to the book (audible), and I distinctly remember her relating the image of her father doing something with her dressed in Egyptian garb. Do you remember that? What is your take on it?

I don't believe that Dr. Nibley molested his daughter, but I thought she used the image of him dressed as an Egyptian priest or something in her book.

[_guy sajer]

I too believe that Nibley Beck is a fraud, whether outright or pious fraud, I'm not sure.

Recovered memories are notoriously unreliable; I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw Kirstie Alley.

I don't have time to read all of this over at MAD, but I would be curious to see what arguments they use to discredit Beck (ahh, you mean credibility IS important for assessing the likely veracity of one's claims--you'd never guess that listening to apologists waxing on about Joseph Smith) that they refuse to apply to their beloved founding Profit.

The march of the critically self unreflective goes on.

[_Runtu]

I too believe that Nibley Beck is a fraud, whether outright or pious fraud, I'm not sure.

Recovered memories are notoriously unreliable; I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw Kirstie Alley.

I don't have time to read all of this over at MAD, but I would be curious to see what arguments they use to discredit Beck (ahh, you mean credibility IS important for assessing the likely veracity of one's claims--you'd never guess that listening to apologists waxing on about Joseph Smith) that they refuse to apply to their beloved founding Profit.

The march of the critically self unreflective goes on.

That's my issue with it, too. They claim to know with absolute certainty that Beck is lying, but they come unglued when someone makes a less-certain assertion about Joseph Smith.

[_Mercury]

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.

Sounds like the Book of Mormon.

[_Dr. Shades]

I don't have time to read all of this over at MAD, but I would be curious to see what arguments they use to discredit Beck (ahh, you mean credibility IS important for assessing the likely veracity of one's claims--you'd never guess that listening to apologists waxing on about Joseph Smith) that they refuse to apply to their beloved founding Profit.

To satisfy your curiousity, Juliann had this to say:

In any court case, a jury is not required to believe anything said if a witness is caught in a lie. Start counting her documented lies and then explain how you can so casually dismiss a need for evidence, any evidence beyond a story that is filled with so many holes it is laughable.

Yeah, there's some severe irony in how she's utterly oblivious to the fact that critics have been saying the exact same thing about Joseph Smith for years now.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Unfortunately, much of what you'll learn will be untrue.

Would you be kind of enough to enumerate the untrue points?

Coming from you, given the kindly way you've treated me here, the request is hard to resist.

Nonetheless, I'll simply call your attention to various reviews of Martha Beck's book by, among others, Greg Taggart, Boyd Petersen, Kent Jackson, Tom Kimball, and Tania Lyons. Here are some links:


http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=587"]http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=587

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=570"]http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=570

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=569"]http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=569


Tania Lyons's review is on line at the Sunstone website, I believe, and should be fairly easily found.

[_Runtu]

Unfortunately, much of what you'll learn will be untrue.

Would you be kind of enough to enumerate the untrue points?

Coming from you, given the kindly way you've treated me here, the request is hard to resist.

Nonetheless, I'll simply call your attention to various reviews of Martha Beck's book by, among others, Greg Taggart, Boyd Petersen, Kent Jackson, Tom Kimball, and Tania Lyons. Here are some links:


http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=587"]http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=587

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=570"]http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=570

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=569"]http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=569


Tania Lyons's review is on line at the Sunstone website, I believe, and should be fairly easily found.

There are three reviews of Ms. Beck's book on the FARMS site? Why?

[_GoodK]

There are three reviews of Ms. Beck's book on the FARMS site? Why?

I was wondering the same thing. Odd, that FARMS review.