DiscussMormonism.com

For reader's ease, I'll post this in installments. This is part 1.

As of late, I have been very fascinated with the apologetic responses to Martha Beck's claims of sexual abuse by Hugh Nibley. I've always felt that the reasons given to disbelieve her are mostly slimy and impuissant at best. I'd like to get a handle on what, exactly, are the reasons she should not be trusted.

Interestingly, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies has featured three reviews of Beck's Leaving the Saints.

Beck's book was reviewed three times in only two volumes of the FARMS periodical. This may not be news to some, but the editor of the FARMS periodical admitted that "very rarely" do they review a book twice.

The first review is by Kent Jackson, a BYU professor with a background in Near Eastern studies. His review of Beck makes up half of his contributions to FARMS.

Jackson begins is review by identifying Beck's target audience:

"those who like stories about people victimized by powerful men and powerful institutions"

and stating clearly that he does not believe Hugh Nibley ever committed such a crime. He claims that this is the position of "objective thinkers."

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

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

Again, who can argue that?

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"

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.

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

Above was about 98% of Jackson's "taste" for the misrepresentations that readers will dine on in Leaving the Saints.


... more to come

Eric,

You need to let this go. Theres not a single person who thought this poor deranged woman was telling the truth. It was all in her head, she stated that while she was sick these memories came "flooding back to her". Shes a looney.

If you know anything about sex magick you would know that this type of abuse, called SRA, is characteristic of other abuses that have been recalled as in the Glen Pace memo. Glen Pace even said there's no way the stories could all be made up because certain details described were identical in some parties that never met each other. These groups do rituals that often involve tramatizing children.

What I personally believe is that there was a "cult within a cult" that was doing these crimes, such as the ones from the movie "Do you know the muffin man?" What Beck described Nibley doing is not exclusive to Mormonism and has occured in other organizations. Unfornately, its a sad reality that child abusers like this infiltrate every part of our society.

Just because an accusation hasn't been proven doesn't mean it isn't true.

Gazelam wrote:Eric,

You need to let this go. Theres not a single person who thought this poor deranged woman was telling the truth. It was all in her head, she stated that while she was sick these memories came "flooding back to her". Shes a looney.

Whoa, Gaz. Do you doubt all repressed memory accounts?

I was a Freshman at BYU when Hugh Nibley taught a religion class there. He was an incredible speaker. His classes were "standing room only". I wasn't even officially signed up for his class, but would just come in and sit in the back to listen to his lectures. There were several of us who did that.

I honestly hope that the allegations against Brother Nibley are not true.

However, child abuse cases are complex, and very rarely is there a situation where absolutely nothing took place.

Whether or not Brother Nibley is guilty or innocent does not make Martha Beck any less of a victim. I find it detestable that Jackson would exploit Martha Beck's victim status simply to discredit her book.

I'll be interested in what else you have to say concerning this subject, Eric.

liz3564 wrote:I find it detestable that Jackson would exploit Martha Beck's victim status simply to discredit her book.

I find it astonishing that any fair minded person, reading his review, would conclude that he had done such a thing.

Have you read his review?

Kent has been a colleague and a friend of mine, a neighbor and an associate in Church callings, for nearly a quarter of a century. I edited and published his review.

I deny that he's "exploited Martha Beck's victim status."

liz3564 wrote:I'll be interested in what else you have to say concerning this subject, Eric.

Would you be interested in what Kent Jackson had to say?

His review can be read here:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=569

And, just in case anybody on this message board is interested in reading Boyd Petersen's and Greg Taggart's reviews, they can be accessed via the following links:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=587

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=570

Washington post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700981_pf.html

Tania Rands Lyon's "An Exhausted Memoir of Reading Leaving the Saints" was published in Sunstone, and can be downloaded via the following link:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index. ... raint=none

Kent Jackson didn't write Dr. Lyon's review, and FARMS didn't publish it.

Part two...

So far, the reasoning Kent Jackson supplies his readers with consists of two arguments:

1. Some of Beck's siblings issued a letter in response to the publication of Leaving the Saints, in which they declare no such sexual abuse could have happened in the Nibley home.

2. Beck's book contains "misrepresentations about the church [that] are too numerous even to mention." As readers can see, the "taste" of examples Jackson mentions does not contain a single gross misrepresentation about the church, let alone "too many to even mention."

Even if one was to accept these two arguments as truth, they are hardly reasons - by any standards - to disbelieve Martha Beck's heart-wrenching accusations regarding childhood sexual abuse.

Jackson, clearly focused on discrediting Beck, tells readers what they will realize with his help:

"Readers of this review will recognize [misrepresentations] for what they are and will realize that if Beck can misrepresent the church with such ease, she can probably misrepresent other things as well."

As if Jackson was unaware of where his review would be published, he goes on to say:

"Leaving the Saints hurts real people. It tells untruths about the Church of Jesus Christ and its teachings. It insults me and other believers who love our religion and find in it the answers to life's hardest questions. It deceives thousands of honest readers who find the author convincing and do not know better."

To be clear, and before moving on to the second of three reviews, Jackson's reasons for not believing Beck are summated in one sentence:

"Leaving the Saints is so full of misrepresentations about the church and BYU, and so full of things that seem imaginary, that I find it hard to believe the core elements of the story, including the story of the child sexual abuse."

While I still find it extremely curious that Beck's book was reviewed three times in two FARMS issues, and on more occasions than No Man Knows My History, I can see why FARMS was not satisfied with Jackson's rebuttal. Hopefully the second review, by Boyd Jay Petersen, provides a heartier argument.

More to come...