Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Jersey Girl]

I haven't read Beck's book, but have read excerpts and such online. So, I'm only going on that. Also, I have no particular axe to grind regarding Hugh W. Nibley either way, so maybe that allows more objectivity on my part.

I do believe that abused children can have repressed memory. My fairly recent discussions with Robert Pitsor on this board offered a reasonable explanation as to why and how traumatic memory can be repressed and recovered. Having said that...

On the surface, and based only on what I've read, I don't believe Beck's claim.

Let me ramble out a few things here...

1. Yes, she could have been abused in a small home full of siblings if no one was home at the time, which I think is her claim.

My question is, where was her mother and why was her father home at the time? Did he work at home?

2. I've read two different explanations for the scarring. One had to do with child birth and the other said that later, a physician told her it could have been from sexual abuse as a child.

When was this scarring discovered? Any physician worth their salt would admit that scarring could be consistent with abuse or childbirth. It could have been caused by a number of things. I don't know which account to believe and those are the only two explanations that I've found.

3. There was an account (I'll be as non-graphic as I can be) of her memory of blood between her thighs.

I'm not clear as to whether she remembered this while fully conscious, in a dream or what. I'm also not clear as to what age she was when she recovered the memory or when she thinks she had the memory. I can think of a number of reasons why she might have a memory of blood between her thighs even as a young child. I don't think I will list them unless asked to explain.

4. I read an excerpt where Beck claims to have received a comment from some unidentified person in a grocery store who told her that her Dad's work was ficitious and his footnotes were bogus. She claims to have felt empowered upon hearing that.

Why in hell would a PhD feel empowered by the claims of a person without having checked them out herself? Did she ever check this out or did she just deliver the allegation and left it at that? If she didn't validate the claim, I think this shoots her credibility in the foot.

5. What's up with her claim to homosexuality on the part of her and her former husband?

I'm not certain that I trust the rationality of a well educated person who doesn't know until well into adulthood what their sexual orientation is. She co-authored a book with her husband about compulsive behavior wherein homosexual behavior was included. Why wouldn't two PhD's know what the heck is up with their own sexuality when they wrote the book and years later, when they both decided they each were homosexual.

6. She claimed sexual abuse on the part of a teenage neighbor at age 9.

What is up with that? I'm not understanding alot of this. I could see where if she had been sexually abused from 5-8, that at age 9 she might take part in acting out somehow with a teenage boy.

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 find all of this confusing.

[_cinepro]

Eric, did you read the review published in Sunstone?

Unfortunately, Martha’s case against Mormonism is so exaggerated and shallow, the accuracy of her narrative style so suspect, and her use of hyperbole in such a devastating accusation so misplaced, that I believe she is doing the worst possible disservice to the painful issue of abuse. Since Martha’s own reliability does not stand up well under the weight of close scrutiny in the public eye, this book can only damage the credibility of abuse survivors.

You've got to choose your battles.

[_asbestosman]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure why it matters. Protections should be in place regardless of whether Martha was abused. If Nibley is guilty, he'd either burning in the afterlife or turning into worm food. I neither believe nor disbelieve Beck's allegations against Nibley. It's a non-issue since he's not around to punish.

I won't automatically believe allegations about child abuse no matter how unamerican that makes me. I won't disbelieve them either. All I will to do is to take those charges seriously so as to put an end to it if it is present and to punish those who engage in it. I will not fall into the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" mentality I seem to see in society.

Yes, that is a bit of a rant for me. It's just that I've seen lives ruined by false allegations just as I've seen lives ruined by true abuse. I don't want to ruin lives.

[_Eric]

Eric, did you read the review published in Sunstone?

Cinepro,

I sure have. I'll comment more on that later. As of now, like I said, I'm more interested in the apologetic responses to Beck's claims. I am also interested in documenting - clearly - what reasons are being put forth for why she is not to be trusted.

You've got to choose your battles.

Great advice. Thank you.

[_harmony]

I find all of this confusing.

I find it singularly unconvincing.

[_solomarineris]

I find all of this confusing.

I find it singularly unconvincing.

Not only unconvincing, but why the hell she waited years to make this revelation?
I ordered her book today, I will read it.

[_rocket]

I wish I could really say much about this subject. I represent one of the parties. If anybody is really interested in this sordid affair it is very helpful to look at both sides.

It isn't all that pertinent to me that she waited a long time to bring her charges.

[_TAK]

I wish I could really say much about this subject. I represent one of the parties. If anybody is really interested in this sordid affair it is very helpful to look at both sides.

Really !!? Do you represent Martha or Hugh ?? Because that only two who can say for certainty ..

Frankly I don’t know why she included the charges - she had a pretty good book as it was - the addition of the allegations against her father only damaged her credibility .. maybe that's why she took so long to come out with the charges.

[_Jersey Girl]

I find all of this confusing.

I find it singularly unconvincing.

Did the list of issues that I posted make sense? I'm looking for the dots to connect and I'm not seeing it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Not only unconvincing, but why the hell she waited years to make this revelation?
I ordered her book today, I will read it.

I'm unwilling to put $ in her pocket. Maybe I'll check it out at the library when I have time to read it.