Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Morrissey]

We can't get directly at the abuse. It's a she said/he said situation, and he's dead.

But we can test her credibility, and, to put it mildly, her credibility doesn't hold up well. At point after point after point where her claims can be tested, she fails. Unambiguously. Which doesn't exactly strengthen the confidence of reasonable people regarding a claim from her that can't really be tested.

In a she said/he said case where she is manifestly untrustworthy and even prone to the invention of falsehoods (as the reviewers demonstrate she clearly is), he should not be convicted.

I am glad to see that you consider credibility an important factor in determining whether someone is telling the truth.

Not to derail this thread, but I'm curious, what is it about Joseph Smith that makes him such a credible figure?

Even if you find him credible, can you concede that others may have legitimate cause NOT to find him credible?

[_Daniel Peterson]

With due respect Dan, would we have any reason to believe that there is the slightest chance that any review published by BYU (or by persons representing BYU) would review the book favorably or give any credence to her charges?

Perhaps not. I don't think BYU or the Maxwell Institute have made any claim to impartiality. But that doesn't mean that we plead guilty to either dishonesty or bad reasoning, and, in and of itself, says nothing about the quality of the reviews.

And, of course, one of the four reviews for which I've provided links was published in Sunstone, which could very well have viewed the book favorably and credited her charges -- but emphatically did not.

I am glad to see that you consider credibility an important factor in determining whether someone is telling the truth.

It shouldn't have been a surprise.

Not to derail this thread, but I'm curious, what is it about Joseph Smith that makes him such a credible figure?

A number of things. For one thing, I think his sincerity is transparently obvious in his personal writings (including the ones that were plainly not intended for publication). For another, most of his crucial experiences (e.g., his encounters with Moroni and the plates, his priesthood ordination under the hands of angelic messengers, his reception of priesthood keys, his vision of the three degrees of glory, and so forth) were shared by corroborating witnesses.

Even if you find him credible, can you concede that others may have legitimate cause NOT to find him credible?

I cheerfully grant that there are reasons to doubt his claims. I don't, however, find them lethal, and I view the preponderance of the evidence as supportive of him.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

She claimed that she tried to look up references to Sonia Johnson (a once well-known ex-Mormon) in the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU, but she couldn't find any. They had all, said she, been "removed." All of them. Including newspaper articles.

One of the MA&DB posters personally went to the HBLL and looked up the articles. They were exactly where they were supposed to be. All of them. Including newspaper articles.

But even that MA&DB poster (who was Smac97) admitted that his search occurred 15 years after the search by Martha Beck, so he could not confirm that the circumstances of each search were identical for purposes of comparison.

Beck described her visit to a therapist, to whom she gave a pseudonym, like everyone else in her book except herself and her husband. The pseudonym she chose for her therapist was "Rachel Grant." As she sat in the waiting room, she tells us, she wondered whether "Rachel Grant" might be related to late LDS President Heber J. Grant; and she then segued into a rather funny family anecdote about President Grant.

However, it seems a little unlikely that she truly had these thoughts in the waiting room. Why? Because "Rachel Grant's" real name is Ruth Killpack. Are we supposed to believe that she sat in the waiting room wondering if Ruth Killpack might be related to Heber J. Grant? Do those surnames seem identical to you?

By the use of pseudonyms and various other devices, Beck does her best to make sure we can't check up on her story.

Actually, when I read the book I suspected right away that "Rachel Grant" was a pseudonym, because HJG had only daughters who lived to adulthood; therefore, he would not have descendants today with his surname. In addition, in a 2005 interview on KUER, Beck acknowledged the pseudonym but said it was because she had thought about going to a therapist named "Grant." She also disputed that the actual therapist in the book was Ruth Killpack.

She tells a heart-rending story of Mormon ritual shunning when she and her husband left the Church. She claims that all the neighbours came down into the street and literally turned their backs until the Becks had gone. She called it Mura Hachibu, a Japanese expression meaning "expulsion from the village." However, when interviewed about it, her husband contradicted her account. He doesn't remember any such thing happening.

Because it didn't.

Just because John Beck has one recollection, does not mean Martha can't recall it differently. And this certainly doesn't prove it didn't happen, at least from Martha's perspective.

.

.

.

....

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, Eric, it may help to recall that Elder Boyd K. Packer felt that FARMS was trying to make money off of the General Authorities, so perhaps the over-the-top reviews had something to do with this for-profit motive?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Elder Packer said that?

Strange.

What's your source? Do you have a date?

He briefly raised the issue (of a profit motive for FARMS, not quite your issue of our supposedly trying to profit off of General Authorities) with me several years ago and, when I responded, he turned to President Hinckley and said that he had absolutely no worries on that score regarding us. Nor has he ever mentioned the subject since. Quite the contrary. So far as I can tell, he has no concerns about us at the moment.

My suspicion is that the allegedly over-the-top reviews were connected with sunspot activity and the near approach of Jupiter.

Ah Scratch. You just never change. I hope you've been well. Have you been away?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Elder Packer said that?

Strange.

Reportedly, yes, he did:

anothernonymous
Wed, Jul. 25 @ 1:43pm

Funny you mention FARMS personnel shaking their heads at Pres. Packer. I remember during my stint at FARMS being present when a couple of top personnel at FARMS were commenting that he had apparently made some remarks to the effect that he believed that FARMS was trying to “make money off of the general authorities”. I was surprised that they would be talking about an apostle that way, but then again maybe they were surprised that an apostle had apparently made those types of comments about them (FARMS).

(emphasis added)

What's your source?

http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/07/ ... packer.htm

Scroll down to the comments section. Dan Ellsworth did formerly work for you guys, no?

Do you have a date?

Why should that matter?

He briefly raised the issue (of a profit motive for FARMS, not quite your issue of our supposedly trying to profit off of General Authorities) with me several years ago and, when I responded, he turned to President Hinckley and said that he had absolutely no worries on that score regarding us.

Huh. That's interesting. I'd always been under the impression---thanks to your comments, mostly---that the GAs had virtually nothing to do with FARMS and apologetics. But, here, it sounds like you were at a meeting not only with BKP, but with GBH, reporting on apologetics and its finances and motives.

Perhaps we shouldn't clutter up Eric's thread, though? If you scroll down and find the threads I started on the front page of this forum, you'll see where these issues were raised.

Ah Scratch. You just never change. I hope you've been well.

Oh, I've been pretty well, thanks. I hope you've been well, too, Professor P.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Funny you mention FARMS personnel shaking their heads at Pres. Packer. I remember during my stint at FARMS being present when a couple of top personnel at FARMS were commenting that he had apparently made some remarks to the effect that he believed that FARMS was trying to “make money off of the general authorities”. I was surprised that they would be talking about an apostle that way, but then again maybe they were surprised that an apostle had apparently made those types of comments about them (FARMS). (emphasis added)

So your source is somebody reporting a comment allegedly somehow made by two anonymous FARMS "personnel" reporting a comment allegedly made by Elder Packer.

Who could possibly quibble with so rock solid a piece of evidence?

Dan Ellsworth did formerly work for you guys, no?

I don't recognize his name, but it's certainly possible that he did at some point or another. Shippers and receptionists and source-checkers and etc. have come and gone many times over the years.

Do you have a date?

Why should that matter?

Because I would find your source's recollection of a comment about a comment somewhat less plausible, as it's phrased in your citation, if it refers to a period after, say, around the mid-1990s, when Elder Packer made the remark, in my hearing, to which I referred above.

Huh. That's interesting. I'd always been under the impression---thanks to your comments, mostly---that the GAs had virtually nothing to do with FARMS and apologetics.

Which is true.

But, here, it sounds like you were at a meeting not only with BKP, but with GBH, reporting on apologetics and its finances and motives.

No, I was at a meeting with not only Elder Packer and President Hinckley but the entire First Presidency, about half of the Twelve, and etc. -- the BYU board of trustees -- about FARMS becoming affiliated with BYU. We were discussing the initial affiliation protocol, which needed board approval. I represented FARMS; then-BYU-president Rex Lee represented the University. The meeting was emphatically not about "apologetics and its finances and motives." If such a meeting has ever occurred on that level, I was not privy to it and have never heard of it.

Perhaps we shouldn't clutter up Eric's thread, though? If you scroll down and find the threads I started on the front page of this forum, you'll see where these issues were raised.

I don't see that much more remains to be said.

[_Eric]

Before I move on to the second of the three reviews, I'd like to give the FARMS periodical editor a chance to do something besides annoyingly post the same links over and over again.

I'd like to hear why he felt it was necessary to "publish" three reviews of the same book in two issues. Judging by the amount of "reviews" FARMS printed, Leaving the Saints is the most important book about Mormonism, ever.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'd like to hear why he felt it was necessary to "publish" three reviews of the same book in two issues. Judging by the amount of "reviews" FARMS printed, Leaving the Saints is the most important book about Mormonism, ever.

Three reviewers volunteered. Their "approaches" were different, so I "accepted" all "three."

This is not "the" first time that "we've" published multiple reviews. And "it" won't be the last.

[_Eric]

This is not "the" first time that "we've" published multiple reviews. And "it" won't be the last.

So what other book has three reviews in two "volumes" besides Beck's?

What book has three reviews, period?

I think the answer speaks for the type of "scholarship" FARMS is interested in: discrediting abuse victims. How Christian.