Martha Nibley Beck back in the news

[_Trevor]

I may be wrong about this, but I believe there is a policy to only include general Church leaders and officers (and their spouses), rather than non-ecclesiastical prominent Mormons. In other words, I don't believe that Hugh's omission was an intentional slight.

No, I think you are right. I still think they should have mentioned him. But thanks for putting it into the proper perspective.

[_TAK]

I may be wrong about this, but I believe there is a policy to only include general Church leaders and officers (and their spouses), rather than non-ecclesiastical prominent Mormons. In other words, I don't believe that Hugh's omission was an intentional slight.

No, I think you are right. I still think they should have mentioned him. But thanks for putting it into the proper perspective.

Maybe but the year before Roy M. Darley, former Tabernacle organist got a mention.

[_Droopy]

I've also represented persons Martha threatened to sue over libel, so I was required to read and understand the book in detail, as well as lots more detail about her personal life (which she thrust into examination by threats of suit).

Bob, this would be a tall order, would it not, given the high bar necessary to prove libel in such a case? If I believe that Beck is being tendentious or untruthful, and/or that her memories and perceptions could be unreliable, and these are my actual, sincere beliefs about her, how could she sue for libel (as I understand it, to prove libel, one must show that there was an intent to maliciously damage the other person, and that the attempt was undertaken knowing that the claims made were not true, or dubious. In other words, how could one's opinions of Beck claims be libelous?)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I may be wrong about this, but I believe there is a policy to only include general Church leaders and officers (and their spouses), rather than non-ecclesiastical prominent Mormons. In other words, I don't believe that Hugh's omission was an intentional slight.

No, I think you are right. I still think they should have mentioned him. But thanks for putting it into the proper perspective.

Maybe but the year before Roy M. Darley, former Tabernacle organist got a mention.

The explanation I've heard is that they used to do it, but the number of names became too great so it was limited to general Church leaders and officers (and spouses). That said, I, too, think Nibley deserved a mention.

[_ludwigm]

In totalitary systems, people learn to read between the lines, and learn to read the unwritten lines.

This was the case in nazi Germany, in Soviet Union under Stalin, in socialism I have lived in.

This is the case in The Church. If they don't mention an important name, there is a cause. Without valid information, people produce hearsay. And hearsays always have some base.

[_Trevor]

In totalitary systems, people learn to read between the lines, and learn to read the unwritten lines.

This was the case in nazi Germany, in Soviet Union under Stalin, in socialism I have lived in.

This is the case in The Church. If they don't mention an important name, there is a cause. Without valid information, people produce hearsay. And hearsays always have some base.

I tend to think you are right, ludwig, and you would know much better than I, but every time I suggest such things I am dismissed as being a conspiracy monger and paranoid. I prefer to think of myself as perceptive, but then we all flatter ourselves.