Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_asbestosman]

There is a selfish part of me that wishes everyone would have a close friend be falsely accused of abuse. Maybe then we'd be less likely to assume guilt while hopefully continuing to act to protect children in all cases where abuse has been alleged, even when it seems implausible on the surface and especially when it seems quite possible.

While it's true that child molesters exist while witches do not, false allegations still do much dammage in both cases--even false allegations which may be entirely sincere but mistaken.

[_Pahoran]

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.

But this is not about "feelings;" Martha described, in detail, a specific practice: the neighbours came out of the houses and "showed us their backs" until the Becks were out of sight. Mura hachibu, expulsion from the village.

Please stop all the lawyerly weaselling, Rollo. Is this, or is this not, a credible allegation? You may answer "yes" or "no."

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.

But it was her idea to tell the story the way she did, with the intent to show that BYU -- and by extension, the Church -- had rigorously and thoroughly censored Sonia Johnson's information out of existence. If you want to defend her by saying that she simply was sloppy in her research, I'll accept that; because it means you are conceding that her accusation against BYU was not true.

Having said that, I've heard that it actually took the person who checked her story less than five minutes to find the first SJ article.

And I also find it hard to believe that a Harvard-trained PhD would be unable to navigate a library's indexing system.

But with those observations out of the way, I'll still accept your explanation.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

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

To you, maybe. Maybe even to me. But that doesn't alter the fact that just because you don't like an allegation doesn't mean it's not true.

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.

The sheep are still dead, because the villagers didn't respond, Pahoran. That's my point. It doesn't matter how many times the boy cried "wolf", the one time they ignored him, the sheep ended up dead. That's why police always follow up, even if they think it's a prank. Because they don't want any "dead sheep" on their watch.

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.

Not irrelvant at all, Pahoran. Joseph lied, yet all his people except the ones who were in the "know" with him, believed him. You accept his lies, yet you hold Martha to an entirely different standard.

Sauce, goose; sauce, gander.

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.

Oh, so now you're changing your tune? You're the one who said "incredible stories".

Joseph's stories were "non-credible" too. Yet you believe them. Does that mean you don't have good sense?

*snip because others have dealt with this*

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.

I don't agree, Pahoran. Your problem is your agenda doesn't include believing something so horrendous as a priesthood holding prominent father could molest his young daughter, just as my own mother could not believe that her son could do something equally horrendous. Unfortunately just believing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You need to get out more. It happens all the time.

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

Joseph had no witness to Moroni's visits in his bedroom. Joseph had no witness to the First Vision. Joseph has no witnesses to Moroni showing him where to dig up the plates. Joseph had precious few witnesses for the most important events of the Restoration, yet you believe him in all things.

Joseph again.

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

And I agree with you.

I haven't admitted my own feelings one way or another about Martha's allegations, so thus far, you have nothing with which to agree.

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

I have examined her claims in detail.

No, you haven't... that is, unless you've interviewed her, talked with her therapist, and consulted with the police, you haven't examined anything in detail. You've just jumped to a conclusion, based on your emotional attachment to her father. Not good enough, Pahoran. Or at least, not good enough, if you want any credibility.

Have you?

Hell, no. Why should I? I don't have a dog in this fight. It makes no difference to me if he did, except to feel sorry for her. He can rot in hell with all the rest of the unrepentent, for all I care. (assuming the allegations are true, of course.)

You seem to be arguing that because someone somewhere molested a child, then every accusation of child abuse must be true.

Not at all. I just assume where there's smoke, there's at least a smoldering trash pile. I don't wave my arms and ignore the smoke, just because the trash pile is owned by someone I respect.

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.

You don't know that. You just wish that. And you have no way of knowing it, unless you're willing to sacrifice the sheep.

And it's really a slam dunk.

It's more of an air ball.

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.

Joseph again. When you require the same level of confirmation for the First Vision, Moroni's visits, and digging up the plates, I'll concede. Until then, put up a better argument. This one isn't going to cut it.

[_Pahoran]

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

To you, maybe. Maybe even to me. But that doesn't alter the fact that just because you don't like an allegation doesn't mean it's not true.

Which in turn doesn't alter the fact that just because you do like an allegation doesn't mean it is true.

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.

The sheep are still dead, because the villagers didn't respond, Pahoran. That's my point. It doesn't matter how many times the boy cried "wolf", the one time they ignored him, the sheep ended up dead. That's why police always follow up, even if they think it's a prank. Because they don't want any "dead sheep" on their watch.

No sheep are going to be killed if Martha's accusations are not believed. You are panicking.

Irrelevant and off-topic.

Not irrelvant at all, Pahoran. Joseph lied,

In your hate-based opinion. That is a controversial claim that merely distracts from the matters at issue.

yet all his people except the ones who were in the "know" with him, believed him.

Actually you have it exactly backwards. It was those who were "in the know," as you put it, who supported his truth claims and continued to uphold them even after they fell out with him.

All of which has nothing to do with the non-credibility of Martha Beck's unsubstantiated accusations.

You accept his lies, yet you hold Martha to an entirely different standard.

No. I do not.

Sauce, goose; sauce, gander.

Would that that really applied around here!

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

Oh, so now you're changing your tune? You're the one who said "incredible stories".

No, I'm not.

The primary meaning of "incredible" is "not credible." It does not mean "wow" or "amazing."

Joseph's stories were "non-credible" too. Yet you believe them. Does that mean you don't have good sense?

The tu quoque fallacy is not a valid argument, Harmony.

So I'm going to snip it out every time you try to trot it out.

I don't agree, Pahoran. Your problem is your agenda doesn't include believing something so horrendous as a priesthood holding prominent father could molest his young daughter,

I have no such "problem." Your mind-reading skills are defective.

Just who died and elected you Fawn Brodie anyway?

just as my own mother could not believe that her son could do something equally horrendous.

I'm very sorry to hear about that, but once again you simply demonstrate that your perspective is skewed in this.

Boyd Peterson made a comment that seems pertinent here:

My perception is that Leaving the Saints has been received favorably by only three groups of people: (1) those who know nothing about either Mormonism or false memory syndrome, (2) those whose rage against the Church of Jesus Christ has blinded them to the irrational content of this book, and (3) those who have been abused and cannot separate Martha's false victimhood from their own very real, very legitimate victimhood.

You (through your sister) seem to be in group 3.

You also (based upon your posting history) seem to be in group 2.

You have devoted several posts, despite having no idea what reading or thought I have done on this issue, arrogantly presuming to tell me what is in my mind, and why I "really" reject these non-credible accusations.

How does a little "sauce for the goose" suit you now?

Unfortunately just believing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You need to get out more. It happens all the time.

Oddly enough, I know this. I very explicitly said so already. Did you not read that?

You keep hammering away at a point that is not in dispute. Why?

I understand everything you have said on this subject. Now, please pay attention:

Nobody -- least of all me -- has denied that child abuse can and does happen, and is depressingly common.

But the fact that something happens "in general" is not sufficient evidence to prove that it happened in a particular case.

Therefore, the normal rules of evidence still apply.

The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

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

Joseph had no witness to Moroni's visits in his bedroom. Joseph had no witness to the First Vision. Joseph has no witnesses to Moroni showing him where to dig up the plates. Joseph had precious few witnesses for the most important events of the Restoration, yet you believe him in all things.

He had witnesses to many other things, including the physical reality of the plates.

And this is still an irrelevant and off-topic tu quoque fallacy.

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

And I agree with you.

I haven't admitted my own feelings one way or another about Martha's allegations, so thus far, you have nothing with which to agree.

Then why are you breaking every rule of logic and evidence to support her accusations?

I have examined her claims in detail.

No, you haven't... that is, unless you've interviewed her, talked with her therapist, and consulted with the police, you haven't examined anything in detail.

Yes. I have.

Not at first hand, of course. But the number of people who are in a position to do so is vanishingly small, and her therapist would not disclose anything about a patient anyway.

You've just jumped to a conclusion, based on your emotional attachment to her father.

No, you have jumped to a conclusion based on your apparent emotional commitment to believing every allegation of child abuse, however absurd, and anything negative about any believing Latter-day Saint.

While I have examined her claims in detail. They do not stack up.

Don't take my word for it; examine them yourself.

Not good enough, Pahoran. Or at least, not good enough, if you want any credibility.

With you?

Does any defense, however strong, that is favourable to any Latter-day Saint or the Church have any credibility with you?

Is there any possible universe in which it could?

Have you?

Hell, no. Why should I? I don't have a dog in this fight. It makes no difference to me if he did, except to feel sorry for her. He can rot in hell with all the rest of the unrepentent, for all I care. (assuming the allegations are true, of course.)

Then why fight tooth and nail to insist that it is wrong and evil to question her accusations?

You seem to be arguing that because someone somewhere molested a child, then every accusation of child abuse must be true.

Not at all. I just assume where there's smoke, there's at least a smoldering trash pile.

Ah. The gossip's creed. Got it.

I don't wave my arms and ignore the smoke, just because the trash pile is owned by someone I respect.

While I don't simply inhale the smoke and assume that I've discovered truth and beauty.

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.

You don't know that. You just wish that. And you have no way of knowing it, unless you're willing to sacrifice the sheep.

Thank you. I knew that you were operating on a "witch hunt" principle; and now you've proven it.

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.

Joseph again. When you require the same level of confirmation for the First Vision, Moroni's visits, and digging up the plates, I'll concede.

Ho hum, tu quoque fallacy again.

Until then, put up a better argument. This one isn't going to cut it.

Again:

Martha's accusations against her father are based upon "recovered memories," which are a discredited bit of junk science.

Martha's allegations include a large number of clearly falsifiable claims which have been falsified.

Martha's accusations are absurd on their face.

Therefore, I don't see any reason why any reasonable person should believe them.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_solomarineris]

Phoran
Irrelevant and off-topic.

harmony wrote:
Not irrelvant at all, Pahoran. Joseph lied,

Enlighten us Harmony how is Joseph Smith is relevant to this subject?
I fail to understand your logic, just because Joseph Smith was a lying scum bag the rest of Mormons should be judged under the same criteria?
Please avoid Hasty Generalizations.

[_harmony]

Which in turn doesn't alter the fact that just because you do like an allegation doesn't mean it is true.

You don't know who I feel about the allegation. I, on the other hand, am well aware of how you feel about it.

No sheep are going to be killed if Martha's accusations are not believed.

Ever heard of a metaphor, Pahoran?

You are panicking.

No panicking going on here. Remember, I have no dog in this fight. You, however, are beginning to repeat yourself.

Not irrelvant at all, Pahoran. Joseph lied,

In your hate-based opinion. That is a controversial claim that merely distracts from the matters at issue.

Hate based? On the contrary, I've loved Joseph for decades; I am, however, profoundly disappointed in him. My only problem with him is his inability to keep his pants up and the prophetic mantle on. Other than that, we're cool.

We're talking about people who lie, Pahoran. Try to keep up with the discussion. People... who... lie... Joseph lied in print, several times. Do you need me to give you the exact reference? You claim Martha lied about the abuse by her father, and you're quite sharp in your condemnation of her... yet you have no condemnation for Joseph, for his lies?

yet all his people except the ones who were in the "know" with him, believed him.

Actually you have it exactly backwards. It was those who were "in the know," as you put it, who supported his truth claims and continued to uphold them even after they fell out with him.

Think "polygamy", Pahoran, not witnesses of the gold plates.

All of which has nothing to do with the non-credibility of Martha Beck's unsubstantiated accusations.

No, they speak to your inability to judge what is credible and what is not, what is unsubstantiated and what is real.

Joseph's stories were "non-credible" too. Yet you believe them. Does that mean you don't have good sense?

The tu quoque fallacy is not a valid argument, Harmony.[/quote]

When you start talking French, I know I've made my point.

Boyd Peterson made a comment that seems pertinent here:

I suspect Boyd Peterson has his own agenda, just as you do.

You have devoted several posts, despite having no idea what reading or thought I have done on this issue, arrogantly presuming to tell me what is in my mind, and why I "really" reject these non-credible accusations.

How does a little "sauce for the goose" suit you now?

You, on the other hand, are willing to tell me that I have no right to post on this thread because, according to you, I have nothing to add to the discussion, simply because I don't agree with your assessment of Martha's credibility. Sauce? I don't think so.

But the fact that something happens "in general" is not sufficient evidence to prove that it happened in a particular case.

Therefore, the normal rules of evidence still apply.

The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

And I have shown how the "evidence" can be overlooked, or ignored, or discounted. And yet the alleged abuse could still have taken place, even if no one else saw it.

Joseph had no witness to Moroni's visits in his bedroom. Joseph had no witness to the First Vision. Joseph has no witnesses to Moroni showing him where to dig up the plates. Joseph had precious few witnesses for the most important events of the Restoration, yet you believe him in all things.

He had witnesses to many other things, including the physical reality of the plates.

You said his credibility was ironclad, because he had witnesses for some things. And that Martha's credibility was full of holes, because she had no witnesses/evidence. I pointed out that he had no witnesses for some of the most important events of the Restoration and you pooh pooh it?

Don't talk about credibility, until you show you understand how Joseph's is not only not ironclad, but is fundamentally unsound. And don't besmirch Martha's, when you're showing a history of unfairly applying criteria.

And this is still an irrelevant and off-topic tu quoque fallacy.

As long as you are talking credibility based on witnesses, evidence, and a person's history of lying, Joseph is applicable to the discussion, is relevant, and is on topic.

Consistency, Pahoran. Just a little consistency.

Then why are you breaking every rule of logic and evidence to support her accusations?

I'm not. It's not my fault you can't follow a simple discussion.

No, you haven't... that is, unless you've interviewed her, talked with her therapist, and consulted with the police, you haven't examined anything in detail.

Yes. I have.

Not at first hand, of course. But the number of people who are in a position to do so is vanishingly small, and her therapist would not disclose anything about a patient anyway.

If it's not first hand, it's not relevant. We aren't doing a book review here, Pahoran. You have no support for your conclusions, and you have the chutzpah to denigrate mine?

You've just jumped to a conclusion, based on your emotional attachment to her father.

No, you have jumped to a conclusion based on your apparent emotional commitment to believing every allegation of child abuse, however absurd, and anything negative about any believing Latter-day Saint.

Unfair and untrue. But typical of someone whose cannot carry on a civil conversation without attack.

While I have examined her claims in detail.

Horse pucky. You've relied on the claims of others... others who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

They do not stack up.

Please show us the notes from your conversation with Martha. We'll judge how well she stacks up.

Don't take my word for it; examine them yourself.

No dog... etc. etc.

Not good enough, Pahoran. Or at least, not good enough, if you want any credibility.

With you?

Does any defense, however strong, that is favourable to any Latter-day Saint or the Church have any credibility with you?

Is there any possible universe in which it could?

I am quite openminded about many LDS defenses, Pahoran. You must have me confused with someone else. I'm the one with the TR, who was in the temple yesterday, who has a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ (even if I don't live it very well.) I do not, however, crucify anyone... even Martha Beck... without cause. And you have not shown cause. You've just defended an icon.

Hell, no. Why should I? I don't have a dog in this fight. It makes no difference to me if he did, except to feel sorry for her. He can rot in hell with all the rest of the unrepentent, for all I care. (assuming the allegations are true, of course.)

Then why fight tooth and nail to insist that it is wrong and evil to question her accusations?

The only way that evil can abound is if good men/women stand around and do nothing.

And I never said anyone was evil to question her accusations. I just said it's not right to judge someone simply because they've lied before. Sheep die that way... and children who get abused have no justice that way.

I knew that you were operating on a "witch hunt" principle; and now you've proven it.

I'm just trying to protect the sheep.

Until then, put up a better argument. This one isn't going to cut it.

Again:

Martha's accusations against her father are based upon "recovered memories," which are a discredited bit of junk science.

And dreams of angels with swords are scientifically sound?

Martha's allegations include a large number of clearly falsifiable claims which have been falsified.

And golden plates which no longer exist are not falsified?

Martha's accusations are absurd on their face.

That's what everyone thought about William Law's accusations to Joseph, about his underground plural marriages. And then look... William turns out to have been right all along.

Therefore, I don't see any reason why any reasonable person should believe them.

Most reasonable people don't believe Joseph either. Probably why the church is kinda small in comparison to the general population.

People who lie, cheat on their spouse, and steal from others shouldn't be in positions of trust, should they?

[_harmony]

Phoran
Irrelevant and off-topic.

harmony wrote:
Not irrelvant at all, Pahoran. Joseph lied,

Enlighten us Harmony how is Joseph Smith is relevant to this subject?
I fail to understand your logic, just because Joseph Smith was a lying scum bag the rest of Mormons should be judged under the same criteria?
Please avoid Hasty Generalizations.

Pahoran is judging Martha based on her history of lying. I'm simply pointing out that he doesn't apply the same judgment to Joseph, who had a much longer, much more imaginative history of lying. If Martha cannot be trusted because she has lied in the past, then Joseph should be treated with the same lack of trust. If Martha has no evidence and no witnesses, Joseph had no evidence and no witnesses for most of the most important events of the Restoration.

Every time Pahoran brings up Martha's lack of credibility, I point out Joseph's. Every time he brings up Martha's lack of evidence or witnesses, I point out Joseph's similiar lack.

Sauce, goose; sauce, gander.

[_Pahoran]

Which in turn doesn't alter the fact that just because you do like an allegation doesn't mean it is true.

You don't know who I feel about the allegation. I, on the other hand, am well aware of how you feel about it.

You are fighting tooth and nail to support it. I can connect the dots, Harmony.

No sheep are going to be killed if Martha's accusations are not believed.

Ever heard of a metaphor, Pahoran?

Yes.

Snip meaningless tu quoque nonsense.

You claim Martha lied about the abuse by her father, and you're quite sharp in your condemnation of her...

You are wilfully misreading my argument. I am not condemning Martha (who I suspect may suffer from some kind of untreated mental pathology, and therefore needs help) but examining the quality of her accusations against her dead (and therefore unable to defend himself) father.

The one she kidnapped at the age of ninety when he was just five days out of hospital, and interrogated for five hours while she held him in a hotel room against his will. That is an actual instance of abuse, and it is undisputed.

Snip meaningless tu quoque nonsense.

When you start talking French, I know I've made my point.

Actually it's Latin, and you have no point to make.

Boyd Peterson made a comment that seems pertinent here:

I suspect Boyd Peterson has his own agenda, just as you do.

As do you. So why don't you address what he says?

You, on the other hand, are willing to tell me that I have no right to post on this thread

That's false. You have every right to post on this thread, and I never said otherwise. I asked why you were posting if you aren't going to address Martha's allegations one way or the other.

because, according to you, I have nothing to add to the discussion, simply because I don't agree with your assessment of Martha's credibility. Sauce? I don't think so.

That's a lunatic fantasy.

But the fact that something happens "in general" is not sufficient evidence to prove that it happened in a particular case.

Therefore, the normal rules of evidence still apply.

The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

And I have shown how the "evidence" can be overlooked, or ignored, or discounted. And yet the alleged abuse could still have taken place, even if no one else saw it.

We're going around and around.

Martha's accusations are rejected because they are not credible on their face. This says absolutely nothing about the general case of children who are molested.

Nothing.

Snip more meaningless tu quoque nonsense.

Unfair and untrue. But typical of someone whose cannot carry on a civil conversation without attack.

You mean -- like this?

I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from the same reading deficient as Daniel does.

And this?

Your problem is your agenda doesn't include believing something so horrendous as a priesthood holding prominent father could molest his young daughter,

And this?

You've just jumped to a conclusion, based on your emotional attachment to her father.

And especially this?

You don't know that. You just wish that. And you have no way of knowing it, unless you're willing to sacrifice the sheep.

How's that for unfair and untrue?

I have done my level best to be sensitive to your emotional involvement with any issues relating to child abuse. I am not arguing with you about child abuse. I am arguing that one particular accusation is not credible.

Please show us the notes from your conversation with Martha. We'll judge how well she stacks up.

I have no "conversation with Martha." I'm talking about the claims she published in her book. You know, the one wherein she told the world that her father molested her?

I am quite openminded about many LDS defenses, Pahoran. You must have me confused with someone else. I'm the one with the TR, who was in the temple yesterday,

And who proceeded to trample upon it in this sty today.

Snip self-certification. (I really recommend you avoid waving your TR in my face, Harmony.)

Then why fight tooth and nail to insist that it is wrong and evil to question her accusations?

The only way that evil can abound is if good men/women stand around and do nothing.

And I never said anyone was evil to question her accusations. I just said it's not right to judge someone simply because they've lied before. Sheep die that way... and children who get abused have no justice that way.

It's not a question of her having "lied before." It is a question of her accusation against her father being part and parcel of a single tissue of falsehoods.

In other words, it's the false statements in her book that tarnish the credibility of her book. I have based no arguments upon her "history."

This is not about Martha, Harmony. It's about the validity of an accusation. It doesn't matter to me if the book was ghost-written by someone else under her name.

I knew that you were operating on a "witch hunt" principle; and now you've proven it.

I'm just trying to protect the sheep.

And you don't care how many innocent shepherds you sacrifice to that end.

Again:

Martha's accusations against her father are based upon "recovered memories," which are a discredited bit of junk science.

And dreams of angels with swords are scientifically sound?

Dreams or visions of angels make no pretense to be "scientific." By contrast, "recovered memory" therapies did. As soon as they lost their "scientific" standing, they lost all authority. You are consciously, deliberately and intentionally comparing apples and onions.

Since you have to bring up a fallacious counter-argument, I see I've made my point.

Snip more fallacious tu quoque argumentation.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran is judging Martha based on her history of lying.

That's false.

Pahoran is rejecting Martha's accusations because they are unsupported; they are inherently absurd; and they form part of a single organic story that is itself riddled with falsehoods.

I'm simply pointing out that he doesn't apply the same judgment to Joseph,

Whose claims did not consist of highly damaging accusations against individuals.

Apples and beetroot.

Every time Pahoran brings up Martha's lack of credibility, I point out Joseph's. Every time he brings up Martha's lack of evidence or witnesses, I point out Joseph's similiar lack.

Sauce, goose; sauce, gander.

No; it's the tu quoque fallacy, pure and simple. The phrase is Latin (not "French" ) and means "you, too."

It is a fallacy because if your argument is bogus, you do not support it by pointing out that your opponent has made a similarly bogus argument on another subject. Even if you were right, that would still fail entirely to support Beck's accusations.

You are running this distraction tactic in order to derail the discussion.

And the likely reason for wanting to derail the discussion is because you know that if it focuses upon Martha's accusations, you will not like the result.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

You are fighting tooth and nail to support it. I can connect the dots, Harmony.

I suggest you get a different connect the dots book.

You claim Martha lied about the abuse by her father, and you're quite sharp in your condemnation of her...

You are wilfully misreading my argument. I am not condemning Martha (who I suspect may suffer from some kind of untreated mental pathology, and therefore needs help) but examining the quality of her accusations against her dead (and therefore unable to defend himself) father.

You called her a liar, something which you cannot judge, since you have had no conversation with her and you have no stewardship over her (so are unable to receive inspiration about her). You said she made it all up, based on what other people said about her.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "condemn" than I do.

The one she kidnapped at the age of ninety when he was just five days out of hospital, and interrogated for five hours while she held him in a hotel room against his will. That is an actual instance of abuse, and it is undisputed.

Yet... no trial? no conviction? no sentence? Kidnapping is a serious charge, federal in this country, and anyone who allows a known kidnapper to remain free isn't doing his duty. So why haven't you reported this crime? Why has there been no arrest, no trial, no conviction?

I suspect Boyd Peterson has his own agenda, just as you do.

As do you. So why don't you address what he says?

Because I have no dog in his fight, no matter how you try to drag me into it. I'm just pointing out that the sheep died, and children get molested every day, and no one knows. Just because no one in her family knew doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I asked why you were posting if you aren't going to address Martha's allegations one way or the other.

Why does everyone have to take a side? Do you live in that kind of black and white world?

We're going around and around.

Perhaps because you have an agenda that differs from mine?

Martha's accusations are rejected because they are not credible on their face. This says absolutely nothing about the general case of children who are molested.

Nothing.

Bolding your comments doesn't make them correct, Pahoran. You have yet to show that her allegations are not credible, at least, not in a credible manner. Restating them, bolding them, italicizing them doesn't give them weight.

You reject her allegations because they don't fit in with your idea of a precious LDS icon. You have no foundation on which to base your conclusions, except comments from people who either weren't in the family at the time (the brother in law) or who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (everyone else who has attacked her). No one wants to hear what she says, and I understand that. My mother didn't want to hear it either, and refused to believe it even after my sister endured years of being messed up because of it.

It is all a moot point anyway. He's dead and she's gone a different direction. That doesn't mean what she said was wrong, though, no matter how you try to whitewash it.

Unfair and untrue. But typical of someone whose cannot carry on a civil conversation without attack.

You mean -- like this?

I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from the same reading deficient as Daniel does.

And this?

Your problem is your agenda doesn't include believing something so horrendous as a priesthood holding prominent father could molest his young daughter,

And this?

You've just jumped to a conclusion, based on your emotional attachment to her father.

And especially this?

You don't know that. You just wish that. And you have no way of knowing it, unless you're willing to sacrifice the sheep.

How's that for unfair and untrue?

I have done my level best to be sensitive to your emotional involvement with any issues relating to child abuse. I am not arguing with you about child abuse. I am arguing that one particular accusation is not credible.

Hell's bells, Pahoran. You think I was uncivil? ROTFL! My goodness, man! I'm the mild mannered milkmaid here!

I have no "conversation with Martha." I'm talking about the claims she published in her book. You know, the one wherein she told the world that her father molested her?

Ah. Then you have no evidence, you haven't studied the situation, you have no knowledge. Good to know.

You're only in the clear, if he indeed did not molest her. If he did, and it's still 6 one way half dozen the other in the eyes of the law since there was no trial, then you are toast.

I, on the other hand, have not taken a side.

I am quite openminded about many LDS defenses, Pahoran. You must have me confused with someone else. I'm the one with the TR, who was in the temple yesterday,

And who proceeded to trample upon it in this sty today.

I did NOT! What are you talking about?

Snip self-certification. (I really recommend you avoid waving your TR in my face, Harmony.)

Why? Are you going to throw a temper tantrum if I take it out of my purse again?

It's not a question of her having "lied before." It is a question of her accusation against her father being part and parcel of a single tissue of falsehoods.

You don't know that. No one does, her family's protestations notwithstanding. There was no trial, so no justice has been done.

In other words, it's the false statements in her book that tarnish the credibility of her book. I have based no arguments upon her "history."

People are not convicted based on words in a book, Pahoran. If she was molested, she deserves justice, she deserves support, she deserves one helluva lot more love from her family than she's gotten. Instead, your posts here are part and parcel of the attacks she's endured... and why? Because she alleges a behavior that is both repulsive and outlandish about a prominent LDS icon. That, however, does not mean she isn't right.

This is not about Martha, Harmony. It's about the validity of an accusation. It doesn't matter to me if the book was ghost-written by someone else under her name.

It's about Martha and the abuse she allegedly suffered. The validity of the allegation will never be adjudicated, because we don't convict the dead in this country.

I'm just trying to protect the sheep.

And you don't care how many innocent shepherds you sacrifice to that end.

You don't know, Pahoran. If he's innocent or guilty. No one does. So it might behoove you to try to avoid shooting the sheep in this case.

Since you have to bring up a fallacious counter-argument, I see I've made my point.

The point you've made is you would prefer to sacrifice a sheep in order to shield a shepherd who may or may not be innocent. The sheep is dead either way.