Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Doctor Scratch]

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?

for what it's worth, some of Quinn's books have received multiple reviews, and If I recall correctly, so did Grant Palmer's book. Also: Brent Metcalfe's work has sometimes received the "full volume" treatment, leading some commentators to observe that Metcalfe is singlehandedly keeping the FARMSboys in business.

[_Pahoran]

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.

That's right; so how do you propose to use that to rescue Beck's credibility? Either (1) a whole bunch of people spent thousands of hours going through all the microfilm of all the US newspapers, razoring out the heretical articles and splicing the films back together, and then, after Martha's visit, a second bunch of people spent thousands of hours going through all the microfilm of all the US newspapers, splicing the heretical articles back in again; Or (2) the articles were there all along.

Which seems more parsimonious to you?

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.

Well done.

Also, the "let's call her" bit was probably a bit of a clue, too.

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.

And you think that makes it all good, do you?

"I had thought about going to a therapist named Grant; so, as I sat there in the waiting room of another therapist who was not named Grant, I wondered whether that therapist I didn't go to might have been related..."

Hmm. It's just not that good of a story, is it?

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.

What does that mean, "at least from Martha's perspective?" John and Martha left the house together, according to Martha. Are you saying that all the neighbours Martha saw were turning their backs, while all the neighbours John saw weren't?

Or are you saying that maybe Martha genuinely thought something like that had happened, even though it did not happen in real life?

Perhaps you'd like to tell us, on your honour as a Washington, D.C. attorney, that formal ritual shunning, as Martha described it, is normative LDS practice?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

What book has three reviews, period?

You can determine this for yourself from the Maxwell Institute website.

Off hand, Melodie Moench Charles's "Book of Mormon Christology" got three reviews.

The Grant Palmer book got more than three reviews.

Brent Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon got many more than three reviews, as did Craig Blomberg's and Stephen Robinson's How Wide the Divide?

I'm sure there are others.

You can certainly continue to attempt to read more significance into the number of reviews than that number actually has. This is a free country.

[_Pahoran]

Jackson goes on to say that the Nibley family's "candid reaction to [the accusation] should cause reasonable readers to have serious doubts about its veracity."

I, for one, find nothing compelling in the letter signed by some of Beck's brothers and sisters. Obviously, sexual abuse is not typically part of family home evening and does not require the consent of the rest of the family. I've struggled to find an account of a sexual abuse victim that was victimized while other family members watched. I'm sure abuse happens while other siblings stand-by (sadly), but it is by no means a measure for verifying a sexual abuse accusation. I can just imagine an investigator saying, "Well, little girl, since your sister says it never happened..." Actually, I can't imagine that at all. Furthermore, my personal experiences have shown me just how easy (and "righteous") it is for a family to turn on a critic of the LDS cult. I wouldn't expect any other response from the Nibley family, to be honest.

So you agree that no other response from the Nibley family would have been honest.

How refreshing.

It's not merely a case, as you would like to pretend, of a family in denial. The Nibleys had eight children in a three bedroom house. How does that work? Well, you have all the girls in one room, all the boys in another, and the parents in the third (usually largest) room. Martha and her sister slept on top and bottom bunks. Martha's dream/recovered memory/thingy has her father coming into her room in the middle of the night with an Egyptian mask on to molest her. Where was her sister at the time? Asleep on the other bunk.

If it happened, the sister could not have failed to have known.

And indeed, Martha accuses her mother of knowing and turning a blind eye. Evidently you support her claim that the entire family were in on a conspiracy to get poor little Martha.

Again, Jackson reaffirms whom he thinks the book is written for:

"Again, this book was written for those who like stories about people victimized by powerful men and powerful institutions."

The second reason to disbelieve that the FARMS reviewer gives is even more trivial and, ironically, hard to believe.

Jackson says that in Leaving the Saints:

"The misrepresentations about the church are too numerous even to mention."

He gives his readers a taste, though, with the following list of quotes from Beck:

"Lineage matters in Mormonism. A lot. . . . To this day the social structure of the Latter-day Saint community is more aristocracy than democracy. Descendants of the early pioneers enjoy a subtly but distinctly higher status than new converts"

This is at least arguably true, especially if you are familiar with Mormon Hierarchies.

No. It is not.

"The one occupation recommended for Mormon females: breeding well in captivity"

I don't know why Jackson would include this quote. It may not be phrased as flatteringly as he would like, but it is by no means an egregious misrepresentation.

Yes. It is.

"The more chicks per man-God, the better"

"The celestial kingdom has a central zone called the kingdom of the firstborn, reserved for Mormons who live the 'true and eternal principle of plural marriage' (polygamy)"

"A good Mormon girl doesn't ever" engage in "direct communication"

"Most Mormons see financial wealth as a sign of God's favor"

Who can argue that?

Only someone who knows any actual Mormons.

"Mormons are discouraged from reading any materials about the Church that are not produced through official channels"

Again, who can argue that?

Again, only someone who knows any actual Mormons.

This quote gives me chills to read (especially considering the FARMS Review editor's personal attempt to cause havoc in my own life):

"I suspected that even though the Mormon powers that be might not actually threaten my life, they would probably try to ruin it. Yes, these suspicions were outlandish. Yes, they were paranoid. And yes, they were completely accurate"

So are you saying that your allegations are just as bogus as Beck's?

Or are you supporting her very strong insinuation that "Danites" are busily murdering people in Utah?

Jackson continues:

Through the voices of unnamed BYU professors, Beck tells us that the "Strengthening the Membership Committee" is "a squad of investigators who work for the Church. Very hush-hush. A lot of ex-CIA guys" (p. 189).

While I won't presume to know the background or even the members of the SCMC, the rest of her assessment - based on my experiences - is accurate.

No. It is not.

It's a clipping service.

He goes on to say:

Beck writes concerning BYU faculty members' fears of their scholarship being repressed: "I suddenly remembered where I'd seen people act this way: in the People's Republic of China, where I'd gone to do research in 1984" (pp. 80—81). BYU professors live in fear of being "called in" by church leaders.

"The General Authorities were destroying the careers of BYU's best young professors, firing them for 'shoddy scholarship' when, in our view, their work was the only publishable material coming out of the university"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

And you think that event supports her paranoia, do you?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

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

What book has three reviews, period?

You can determine this for yourself from the Maxwell Institute website.

Off hand, Melodie Moench Charles's "Book of Mormon Christology" got three reviews.

The Grant Palmer book got more than three reviews.

Brent Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon got many more than three reviews, as did Craig Blomberg's and Stephen Robinson's How Wide the Divide?

I'm sure there are others.

You can certainly continue to attempt to read more significance into the number of reviews than that number actually has. This is a free country.

Professor Peterson,

how many reviews did The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism get?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_silentkid]

Martha and her sister slept on top and bottom bunks. Martha's dream/recovered memory/thingy has her father coming into her room in the middle of the night with an Egyptian mask on to molest her. Where was her sister at the time? Asleep on the other bunk.

If it happened, the sister could not have failed to have known.

It's kind of like the Angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith in the room he shared with his brothers, right?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Professor Peterson,

how many reviews did The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism get?

Regards,
Pahoran

Lessee. I count seven (7).

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

(Somebody must have been abused here. Otherwise, the FARMSboys wouldn't have bothered to critique the book at all, because they're eeeeevil.)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That's right; so how do you propose to use that to rescue Beck's credibility? Either (1) a whole bunch of people spent thousands of hours going through all the microfilm of all the US newspapers, razoring out the heretical articles and splicing the films back together, and then, after Martha's visit, a second bunch of people spent thousands of hours going through all the microfilm of all the US newspapers, splicing the heretical articles back in again; Or (2) the articles were there all along.

Thousands of hours? How did you get that? My recollection is that Martha looked for a few articles within a couple of hours.

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?

We do not know this is the case -- Martha said during the radio interview that Killpack is not the therapist she was referring to in the book. We don't know who the "Grant" was.

What does that mean, "at least from Martha's perspective?" John and Martha left the house together, according to Martha. Are you saying that all the neighbours Martha saw were turning their backs, while all the neighbours John saw weren't?

I'm simply saying that two persons can have very different recollections of the same event. There is no way to know which one, John or Martha, is right.

Or are you saying that maybe Martha genuinely thought something like that had happened, even though it did not happen in real life?

The same could be said of John -- that's my point.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does John have major credibility problems?

Not to my knowledge.

Does Martha?

Oh, absolutely. As (partially) chronicled in the various reviews.

When their "eyewitness" testimony conflicts, it's not really all that difficult to figure out whom to trust.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It's not merely a case, as you would like to pretend, of a family in denial. The Nibleys had eight children in a three bedroom house. How does that work? Well, you have all the girls in one room, all the boys in another, and the parents in the third (usually largest) room. Martha and her sister slept on top and bottom bunks. Martha's dream/recovered memory/thingy has her father coming into her room in the middle of the night with an Egyptian mask on to molest her. Where was her sister at the time? Asleep on the other bunk.

This is not how Martha described it in her book. According to Martha, her mother had taken her little sister (and roommate) to the doctor, and her other brothers and sisters were at school, when she says Hugh came in, tied her hands, and said she was an Abrahamic sacrifice he had to make.

If it happened, the sister could not have failed to have known.

The sister certainly could have if this occurred while she was at the doctor's.