Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Tak writes:

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.

I don't think you really understand the processes at the BYU library Tak. They couldn't just pull the articles from magazines or newspapers without removing entire publications and archived microfilm records.

When I was at BYU (during the period between 1987 and 1998), I never had any problems getting to material that was highly restricted. You did have to sign some paperwork. I sometimes was restricted from copying material or removing it from special reading rooms (particularly when I was looking at original manuscripts of texts more than a couple hundred years old). But I never had trouble getting to anti-mormon literature and other things which were censored (by being removed from the stacks) at BYU. This included, surprisingly enough, things like William Gibson's Mona Lisa Overdrive which I was allowed to check out and read after signing away my first born. It also included if memory serves me, a set of Playboy magazines (well BYU stopped its subscription in 1975, but the copies it had continued to be available when I was there - just kept under lock and key).

So it would seem unjustifiable to suggest that it was made inaccessible for a rather short period of time in the way you suggest. Not only would this be impractical, the University itself doesn't have a history of doing this kind of thing - and it would be surprising to think that this particular incident would have cause such a stir to cause them to take such draconian measures. There simply isn't the evidence to support this kind of assertion. And I would hope that Martha was proficient in using a library - I never had issues finding what I wanted there.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And her sister was at the doctor's every time it happened over a three year period?

According to Martha, that was the first time. Other times happened in the middle of the night (around 4:00 a.m., according to the book). Martha said the abuse occurred from ages 5 to 7; I don't know how much younger her sister (the roommate) is, but likely the sister was too young at that time to remember (even if she was awake).

As to whether Martha is speaking the truth, I don't know. I hope that Hugh did not do this, and am skeptical. But I do believe that Martha (rightly or wrongly) believes it happened.

As for "shunning," I've had friends who have left the Church and experienced the same type of feelings (i.e., Church members turning the other way and pretending not to see them at the store, etc.). I agree there is no formal practice of "shunning" practiced by the Church (as exists in other religions), but the practical effect can still be there for some.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

She is the sole source of the accusation -- an accusation which is astonishing and unbelievable on its face. An accusation based upon so-called "recovered memories." An accusation that has all the hallmarks of the "ritual abuse" hysteria of the 1980's.

So yes, the believability of the accusation is inextricably connected to the credibility of the accuser.

Of course, none of us will ever know what really happened. in my opinion, if this case were to go to trial, based on the accusations in the book alone, Hugh would be acquitted for lack of evidence. That doesn't mean he's innocent, just that he's not been proven guilty. But I don't think Martha intended to "prove" (in a legal sense) anything. She has just put out her story as she believes it happened, knowing that many would not believe her and even attack her. In the end, each reader must make up his or her own mind (or, like me, simply decide I don't know and will never know what really happened, and leave it at that). If Hugh did it, he'll answer to God for it; if Martha is knowingly lying, she'll answer to God for it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Correction: she said the first time it happened when the sister was with the mother at the doctor's office. Other times it happened in the middle of the night (4:00 a.m.), and the sister was very young (Martha was 5 to 7 when the abuse occurred).

She claimed that her father wore an Egyptian sacerdotal mask while abusing her.

My recollection is that Marta did not claim her father wore a mask (although I may be incorrect), but she dreamed about this.

She claimed that this experience so traumatised her that anything Egyptian made her sick; yet she illustrated her father's remarkable Egyptian Endowment. I have a copy; the illustrations are beautiful. Martha is very talented. But how could she have stood it, if what she claims was true?

Martha refers to it as her "lifelong strange reaction to all things Egyptian." Nevertheless, she did buy an Egyptian children's book for her daughter (which led to her remembering the monster she called "Amut the Destroyer").

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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?

According to Martha, the first time occurred when the younger sister was with the mother at the doctor's office. Martha writes that later abuse occurred in the middle of the night, around 4:00 a.m.

.

.

.

.....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

It's hard, from the book alone, to reconstruct what Martha actually did in her search of Sonia Johnson material at BYU's library. She writes that she looked up references she'd gotten from books that quoted specific newspaper articles. She doesn't name the newspapers or even name the books that she got the references from. She also doesn't tell us how the articles were "missing" -- whether they were they cut out or redacted or something else. We simply know she spent less than 2 hours looking for them back in the early 90's and found nothing.

[_cj1388]

I also have read Martha Beck's book. Though I do not judge the validity of her claims (I go back and forth in my own mind). I do believe that she believes that it happened. I do not think she has made any of this up to ruin her fathers name. If anything, it glorifies her father in the minds of those who would defend him regardless of the situation. It took courage on her part to come forth with these allegations, knowing those who defend all things Mormonism would go on the attack. I got the sense reading the book that she still loved her father and laid the blame for his crazy actions on his mother. Also, in some aspects, those that felt the religion had to be defended at all costs.

One thing that has to bother active LDS members is the fact that she claims to be reconciled and loved by God by leaving the faith. How could someone find the love of God by leaving the one true religion? The one and only path to the true love of God? Though it doesn't happen for everyone - I am gald that it appears she was able to find peace in her life (not that I know her personally). Her book seems to indicate that she has been able to find some.

[_Pahoran]

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.

Actually, Jersey Girl, while in general I agree with you -- child molesters are chronic recidivists who continue to reoffend throughout their lives unless they get serious and sustained treatment -- Martha has at least given us a narrative that could account for the discrepancy. She alleges that the abuse happened because he had some kind of psychotic episode arising from post-traumatic stress relating to his WWII experiences, and the "pressure" of being "forced" to publish on the Book of Abraham when he "knew" it was bogus.

Unfortunately, both of these claims fail. There is no evidence that HWN was suffering from post-traumatic stress at that (or any other) time; and as far as publishing on the Book of Abraham was concerned, he was the first person to identify the Joseph Smith Papyri as a Book of Breathings. He also argued -- strongly and persuasively -- that the JSPP were not the source for the Book of Abraham. His writings for this period also show no signs of stress or pressure; he said he was "skirmishing and sparring," but Chicago egyptologist Klaus Baer said that his writings on the subject were "a delight," and that they should be required reading for egyptology students.

In other words, he was holding his own.

So the "stress" argument fails.

Besides -- a psychotic episode that lasted three years?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

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.

What "reading deficient" is that?

And did you mean to say "deficiency?"

Yes, child abuse happens. So do bogus accusations.

Just because there are bogus accusations doesn't mean child abuse doesn't happen.

Aaargh!

I never said that "child abuse doesn't happen." I rather explicitly said that it does. Are you even reading what I write?

Child abuse happens. So do bogus accusations. And Martha's accusations have every appearance of being bogus.

Wolf redux. The sheep are dead, even if the villagers don't listen.

Harmony, you are repeating that story as if it means that we should always respond to "wolf" stories even from someone with a track record as a prankster.

It does not.

It means that people who habitually tell lies have no right to expect to be believed when they finally get around to telling the truth.

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.

Irrelevant and off-topic.

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

And non-credible stories are told every day. People with good sense do not believe them.

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.

She claimed that he molested her on multiple occasions over a three-year period, usually at night.

While she was asleep.

And so was her sister.

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

Apples and oranges; unless you want to claim that HWN was a supernatural being with supernatural powers.

Do you?

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.

Of course you do.

But you are tilting at windmills here, Harmony. Nobody is denying that child abuse happens. We are denying that the accusation of child abuse is somehow equivalent to proof.

Because it is not.

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?

Apples and oranges. These are two entirely different types of stories.

And Joseph had witnesses to many of the key events. Martha does not.

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.

No-one can "make" you do such a thing, just as no-one can stop you from doing it, even though it has no relevance to the subject at hand.

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.

I take that as an admission that Martha's allegations cannot stand on their own merits.

And I agree with you.

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.

And the burden of proof remains with the accuser.

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.

I have examined her claims in detail. Have you? You seem to be arguing that because someone somewhere molested a child, then every accusation of child abuse must be true.

Well, it happens that yesterday, somewhere, someone robbed a bank. So, if I accuse you of robbing a bank, is that accusation necessarily true?

You tell us that you have seen the reality of child abuse, and the harm it causes. I understand; truly I do. Because I have seen it too.

I have also seen the reality of false accusations, and the harm they cause. I have seen both sides of the equation.

And what I come down to is this: if there is reason to validly suspect that a child even might be in danger, then we at all times act to protect the child. But if we are looking at allegations made long after the event, against someone who is in no position to harm anyone now, then we can afford to take the time to weigh up the allegations and decide on their merits.

And as far as Martha's allegations go, they are without merit.

And it's really a slam dunk.

Now, since you have tried to make your case by appealing to "parallels," I shall do the same. When the Salem witchcraft trials were going on, a number of prominent New Englanders, including several senior clergymen, wrote articles and letters to the effect that there were serious problems with the allegations and the way the court was handling the evidence. They received a storm of criticism, and many of them were subsequently forced to recant their views. Evidently to question any aspect of evidence against an accused witch was to sympathise with witchcraft, and put oneself in league with Satan.

This is the ethos of the witch-hunt: an accusation is as good as proof.

Take care that you do not fall into the same trap.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_moksha]

She claimed that he molested her on multiple occasions over a three-year period, usually at night.

While she was asleep.


Regards,
Pahoran

Did she say that she remained asleep? If so, that would certainly indicate that these were false recovered memories.

.