Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Jersey Girl]

[b]7. Where and who are Hugh Nibley's other alleged victims?

Pedophiles don't act out on one child for three years and then abandon the behavior.

I don't see this as locked in stone, Jersey, judging by my own experience.

It's always possible that he stopped because of an epiphany in his life that changed him (assuming the allegations are true).

We disagree on this count, harm. I do believe it's locked in stone and I don't believe that a pedophile could have any sort of ephiphany or any sort of treatment that will block the impulse to offend. I say that based on my own experience, though not as a child victim, and personal research. I'm pretty hardcore about this position.

[_Yoda]

Then why are you even posting? That is the only question under discussion.

No, it isn't. There are several offshoots of discussion going on here. Yes, Martha Beck's sexual abuse claims are the main theme of the thread. However, general claims of child abuse are also being discussed. Harmony, who has a professional background in psychology and youth counseling, in addition to her personal experiences with child abuse, is certainly more than qualified to speak to these issues.

[_Jersey Girl]

Martha's sole basis for making the accusation was a set of "recovered memories." In other words, she had no inkling that her father had ever done such a thing until she convinced herself of it, with someone else's help. Do you think such "memories" are reliable? Do you realise that, after the hysteria of the 1980's and 1990's, practically nobody relies upon them any more?

I've read differing accounts with regards to the process involved in her recovered memories. 1. That she recovered the memories prior to therapy and 2. That she underwent hypnosis in order to do so. If there are other explanations, I'm not aware of them.

The hysteria of the 80/90's that you speak of not withstanding, Pahoran, some recovered memories are reliable when the abused disassociates during the abuse and later, through therapy, begins to remember them. In the case of Rober Pitsor (who posted on this board no long ago and no, I don't want to twist this thread off on a Pitsor derail) he developed alters on account of the abuse and his alters retained most of the memories.

Having said that, while I haven't read her book, I disbelieve Martha Beck's claims regarding the alleged abuse. I don't see that the dots connect and that's what I need to see in order to believe what she has alleged. In the excerpts that I've read she's all over the place. I should think that a person with her education would be able to prepare a cohesive account and I'm not seeing it.

Perhaps someone who has actually read her book will come forward and show me where I am wrong.

[_harmony]

Martha's sole basis for making the accusation was a set of "recovered memories." In other words, she had no inkling that her father had ever done such a thing until she convinced herself of it, with someone else's help. Do you think such "memories" are reliable? Do you realise that, after the hysteria of the 1980's and 1990's, practically nobody relies upon them any more?

Which is one reason for the "alleged". I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from the same reading deficient as Daniel does.

Yes, child abuse happens. So do bogus accusations.

Just because there are bogus accusations doesn't mean child abuse doesn't happen. Wolf redux. The sheep are dead, even if the villagers don't listen.

So, no, it's not. What you're saying is that no child abuse happens unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that people who tell incredible stories, and some of those stories can be shown to be false, have no right to expect others to believe the stories that can't be proven -- or even supported -- one way or another.

Don't make me bring up Joseph Smith, lying from the pulpit, Pahoran. And multiple other examples of our leaders lying.

Incredible stories happen every day. Just because they involve bad things and people we trust doesn't mean they don't happen.

You have no evidence that my head is "buried." I have examined Martha's allegations. I do not find them credible. She claimed that her father molested her in the same tiny bedroom where her sister was asleep on the other bunk.

1. She claimed he molested her while her mother had taken her sister to the doctor.

2. Joseph claimed Moroni visited him while his brother lay sleeping in the same room.

Why do you believe #2 with no evidence, but discount #1?

I'm not saying it happened in Martha's case.

Then why are you even posting? That is the only question under discussion.

I'm a member of this board, Pahoran. I post when and where I please.

I'm saying that, after looking at her allegations, how clearly implausible they are,...

That's what people say about Joseph too, Pahoran. Yet you accept everything he ever said or did without question. Why do you not apply the same lack of skeptism there?

their connection with the whole "recovered memory" fiasco, and the many other clearly false statements she makes, there is simply no good reason to believe her.

Don't make me list all the allegations against Joseph. What good reason do you have for believing him, but not Martha?

No, I dismiss them because they are (1) incredible on their face, (2) unsupported wherever they could be supported, (3) based upon junk science, and (4) told in connection with other tales that are clearly false.

Joseph again.

He wasn't an apostle, and he was excommunicated. There was actual evidence in that case. There isn't in this.

Close enough. And until the evidence came in, there was simply an allegation. It's like that in every case... until the evidence comes in, there is simply an allegation.

So it's okay to sully his memory with baseless accusations?

You don't know they're baseless. You just assume they are, because it suits your agenda.

[_Jersey Girl]

Pahoran: She claimed that her father molested her in the same tiny bedroom where her sister was asleep on the other bunk.


harmony: She claimed he molested her while her mother had taken her sister to the doctor.

Are both of the above claimed? (I read a different claim, by the way)

If so, how do these account for three years of ritual abuse?


Has anyone on this thread read the book? Can someone clear this up?

[_twinkie]

Yes, I post here sporadically. I read often. No, I'm not a troll, or any other type of plastic doll.
I just want to mention that I have children that sleep VERY hard. I have moved them, even changed their clothes in their sleep and they haven't woken up. It is not hard to believe that abuse could happen while another child was sleeping. Also, the presence of a mother in the home does not prevent abuse from happening. When abuse happens within a family, there is all kinds of cover-up and denial involved, even by the victims themselves.

[_TAK]

When considering whether Sonia Johnson information could have been found by Martha at the time; it is a fair question to ask does YBU have a history and practice of censoring? The answer is yes and it continues today with filters on it’s internet that restricts sites deemed harmful to the Church.. I believe it was only recently Youtube was allowed.

As to Pahoran's absurd notion that the reconstruction would require 1000's of hours on microfilm is beyond ridiculous as it suggests that a librarian would have destroyed the documents/ publications in the first place when the likely scenario is that it would have simply been removed from the public access at the time. - Certainly at the time of publications when the topic was molten for the brethern and remained stored when Martha did her search years later.

[_EAllusion]

Two points just from skimming this:

1) People do sexually assault a single child with no other offenses. That most certainly does happen. I've been professionally involved in the supports of individuals involving such cases more than once.

2) "Recovered" memories are indeed prima facie suspect and at least in almost all cases should be treated as false memories implanted by the recovery process unless there is substantial corroborating evidence.

[_Morrissey]

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.

Ok, thanks for the answers. We'll agree to disagree on the credibility of Joseph Smith.

I cannot, no matter how hard I try, get to worked up about any book or monograph review by the Maxwell Institute or any person associated with BYU or the Mormon Church on any issue touching Mormonism, as I can mostly likely predict with a high degree of accuracy whether the review is positive or negative depending on how favorable the book or monograph is to the Mormon Church.

As I've said, I have little doubt that when forced to choose, Mormon Inc. will choose loyalty to the tribe over loyalty to the 'truth' with a high degree of consistency.

Sunstone, on the other hand, I am more willing to make an assumption of reasonable impartiality.

As to the credibility of Martha Nibley Beck, this is one thing on which you and I agree.

[_Morrissey]

Which seems more parsimonious to you?

This should be about the time that Will shows up to comment on how someone's irony chip must be malfunctioning.

You want parsimony? Ok, how's this? Mormonism is a man-made religion.

With that one simple, parsimonious statement, one can account for all the problems with Mormon history and doctrine. One no longer has to try to explain away ancient lost civilizations; bogus 'translations' of ancient texts; horses, elephants, steel, in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica' angels with flaming swords commanding adultery; etc.

You will excuse me if I respectfully doubt your principled commitment to parsimony.