Pahoran wrote:Rollo Tomasi wrote:This is just my perspective, for what little it's worth, but I would not be surprised if BYU removed or censored material it did not like. We don't have enough details from Martha's book to do a scientific test of the veracity of her claims in this regard, so we'll never know. I'm just saying such behavior at BYU would not surprise me.
So you are telling us that it wouldn't suprise you if "Someone in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print"
before Martha's search, and then subsequently, someone else -- or maybe the same someone -- "spent an enormous amount of time and effort to"
seamlessly restore "every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print;" is that it?
There's
nothing in that that would surprise you?
I was simply stating that I would not be surprised if BYU censors information it doesn't like, that's all. How BYU would go about accomplishing a particular act of censorship depends on the circumstance. As for the incident in the book, Martha was simply stating her belief that BYU "spent an enormous amount of time and effort," but that's just her conclusion. She also states that BYU had excised "every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print," but I suspect this is hyperbole because Martha only checked some references she got from books (she never claimed to have
every reference that existed).
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I honestly know nothing about this, as I wasn't there, so I only have the book to go on. Although I do recall BKP once referring to abuse as "the first semester of first grade" (or something like that), which I found incredibly insensitive. Blaming the victims of child abuse, in my opinion, would not be much of a stretch from what BKP said.
CFR that he ever said it.
BKP's "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council" on May 18, 1993.
In any event, the other participants in the panel are unanimous that no such thing was ever said by any of them.
CFR?
Which probably explains why Martha had to invent a fourth participant and put those words in his mouth.
CFR?
Does it trouble you in the least that Martha's "hyperbole," "perceptions," distortions and fabrications all tend in the same direction -- to make Utah, Mormons and her family look ridiculous, sinister and evil, and her like a poor downtrodden victim?
I've already said that I wish she had not, in my opinion, gone overboard with the Utah Mormon caricatures. But, again, this was her book about
her feelings and perspective as
only she experienced them. It did not even pretend to be neutral.
Wait a minute -- what am I saying? Of course it doesn't trouble you -- you unhesitatingly approve, don't you Rollo?
You have not read my posts closely. I do not approve or disapprove. I'm simply giving my thoughts on her book, no more.
Of course it does. It's an obviously ham-fisted caricature; so naturally, you love it.
No. I'm simply saying it would not surprise me, given my own experiences.
Yes, but we're not talking about "one priesthood holder;" we're talking about a ladies' hairdresser. You know -- the guy in the red silk shirt open to the waist and the tight pants.
It's been my experience that a priesthood holder's unrighteous dominion in the church sphere can carry over into his personal and business life. An example: I knew a guy who was a member of a state presidency (he later was a mission president and member of a temple presidency). He had the habit each day, after he returned from work, to sit down with his wife and have her list everything she had done that day, how long it took, and the results. He did this to ensure that his wife's day was productive, at least in his view. in my opinion, this is a perfect example of unrighteous dominion spilling over into one's personal life. It's more common than you might think.
But a whole class full of them? A class that had enrolled to be taught by her?
Believe me, these kinds of nuts exist in the Church. Old habits (especially chauvinistic ones) die hard, unfortunately.
I know you can justify believing absolutely anything if it makes the Church look bad -- but isn't this a stretch, even for you?
I never thought this made the Church look bad, just certain persons in the Church. But there are plenty of things that make the Church look bad (and good, as well).
Do you remember the movie God's Army? One of the criticisms that was made about it was that all those things just wouldn't have happened to one missionary. Yes, all those sorts of things really do happen in the mission field, but not all to the same guy.
I never saw this movie. Off the point:
The RM remains my favorite Mormon-themed movie.
But we notice the very same thing in Martha's nov -- er, "memoir." Absolutely every weird, odd, strange, unusual or otherwise risible thing anyone's ever heard or imagined about Utah happens to her, personally.
I agree she focuses on the crazy stuff, but the theme is on the cover: "How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith." I would not expect her to focus on the mundane for such a book.
Did some BYU student make a joking remark about ankle hair? No doubt. Did anyone ever tell Martha that that was the actual reason for the BYU dress code?
Perhaps someone did as a joke (and she didn't realize it). All I know is that I heard the same thing while at BYU, but I never took it as official. This nit is not a big deal to me.
Has some service provider, somewhere in Utah at some time suggested to a married woman that her husband should be consulted? Possibly. Did it really happen to Martha? Not likely.
Why not?
Did some smart-aleck student somewhere once imagine that he knew more than a female teacher. Maybe. Maybe if he'd never had female teachers before; how rare are they in the Utah public school system?
But did it really happen to Martha? I doubt it. And did most of the class agree? Not even you, of all people, could possibly be that gullible.
From my own experience, BYU students can be led very, very easily, especially when it comes to Church-related issues. Moreover, some newer Melchizedek priesthood holders (after a lifetime of being told they had more "power" in their little finger than the Pope or any other regular man -- I actually heard this as a deacon!), as I suspect this student was, take themselves too seriously.
Oh. So you think a clipping service has the ability to (1) get the phone company to install its junction boxes inside LDS meetinghouses, and (2) tap a phone by crossing a line in a junction box?
I think the SCMC, despite how Dallin Oaks described it when first exposed, is much more than a "clipping service." The Church also has a significant security department, filled with former FBI and CIA guys, so this would be right up their alley. Other public dissidents (like Steve Benson) have made similar charges.
Oh, it's literal all right; it's just not directly asserted. It's more just hinted, so that Martha can disclaim responsiblity if anyone is deceived thereby.
I did not read it the same way.
Correction: the Lafferty brothers are not "on the fringe." They are as far out of the Church as you and Martha; just in a slightly different direction. Martha, after all, only assassinates the characters of her close LDS relatives.
The Laffertys may have been officially excommunicated at the time they committed the murders, but in their twisted minds they were still very connected and intended to save the Church from the apostate leaders. Those are the kinds of folks on the fringe that dissidents fear.
Of course she would. But the therapist was not named Grant, so her memory of what she was thinking as she sat in the waiting room is clearly made up.
Perhaps, but again I don't consider this a big issue at all. It was still a great story she gave about Heber J. Grant, in my opinion.
Well, she ended up with a novel set in an alternative universe.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that it was a good book which I enjoyed very much.