Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_moksha]

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

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

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

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

Is there any possible universe in which it could?

... include a large number of clearly falsifiable claims which have been falsified.

... are absurd on their face.

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

Regards,
Pahoran

Good points, but we should be careful lest people turn them against us. Of course by then, they could be deemed as unfounded Satanic apostate reasoning.

[_Pahoran]

And we are still left to suppose that there might be something to the absurd picture that "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."

Why -- just so Martha wouldn't find them?

Now just how believable is that, really?

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?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

The panel discussion in which she participated, including four (actually three) participants in which the non-existent "mid-level church leader" blamed the victims of child abuse (no he didn't, because he wasn't there) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

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.

In any event, the other participants in the panel are unanimous that no such thing was ever said by any of them.

Which probably explains why Martha had to invent a fourth participant and put those words in his mouth.

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?

Wait a minute -- what am I saying? Of course it doesn't trouble you -- you unhesitatingly approve, don't you Rollo?

The male ladies' hairdresser who demands to call Martha's husband to get his "permission" to give her a haircut (because male ladies' hairdressers are just so very conservative, you know) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Actually, this comes across as very believable to me.

Of course it does. It's an obviously ham-fisted caricature; so naturally, you love it.

An example: shortly after women were once again allowed to give prayers in sacrament meeting, I remember one priesthood holder leaving the meeting whenever a woman got up to offer a prayer. Let's face it, there are some priesthood holders who are nuts and do have a problem with "unrighteous dominion" (a big enough problem for there to be scripture about it).

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.

The students nodding sagely when a male student in a class she taught told her that he would always know better than her because he held the Priesthood (why was the almost certainly ficticious jerk even in the class, if that was what he really thought) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Absolutely. I've interacted with nuts like this before. They exist.

But a whole class full of them? A class that had enrolled to be taught by her?

I know you can justify believing absolutely anything if it makes the Church look bad -- but isn't this a stretch, even for you?

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.

Well, that's forgivable in the case of a fictionalised story.

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.

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?

No. Of course not.

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.

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.

Could you?

The "wiretapping" of her phone by crossing the phone lines at a junction box in the nearby LDS meetinghouse -- the existence of the junction box in an LDS meetinghouse -- "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Absolutely, ever since I found out about the SCMC.

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?

Just how gullible are you, when it comes to anti-Mormon assertions?

100%, or higher?

The claim that Danites are actively murdering people in Utah "comes across as very accurate to" you?

No, but Martha's book (as I read it) did not seem to make this literal;

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.

nevertheless, there are always those on the fringe (the Lafferty brothers come to mind) who may take blood atonement a bit too literally.

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 claim that she wondered if Ruth Killpack might have been related to Heber J. Grant because of the shared surname "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Martha has denied that Killpack was the "Rachel Grant" referenced in the book.

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.

Now, I wonder if it is the only one?

I rather suspect not.

Is there anything that Martha could say, in the line of sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ, that would not "come across as very accurate to" you?

Perhaps in an effort to make her book more readable (and marketable), she overdid the Utah Mormon caricatures, but it was not intended to be a history book (like Quinn's books) but a readable narrative of her life as she experienced it.

Well, she ended up with a novel set in an alternative universe.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Jersey Girl]

Rollo,

Do you have the book available to give us direct quotes?

[_Morrissey]

]

The Nibleys had eight children in a three bedroom house. How does that work? Well, you have all the girls in one room, all the boys in another, and the parents in the third (usually largest) room. Martha and her sister slept on top and bottom bunks. Martha's dream/recovered memory/thingy has her father coming into her room in the middle of the night with an Egyptian mask on to molest her. Where was her sister at the time? Asleep on the other bunk.

And yet Moroni appears to Joseph Smith in the middle of the night in a bright light, carries on a conversation with Joseph, and never manages to wake up any of the others sharing Joseph's bedroom.

Maybe Nibley learned the secret from Moroni.[/quote]
[quote="Pahoran"Exactly. In order to pretend that these things are equivalent, you have to presume that Nibley was a supernatural being.

Your tu quoque fallacy relies upon comparing apples and onions.[/quote]

Well, of course, Moroni was a supernatural being. That explains it.

I just love it when the religious equivalents of a crop circle enthusiast quotes Latin and references logical fallacies to support their silly supernatural claims. As one might expect, the irony is completely lost to the likes of you.

But what you don't understand is that Nibley is a supernatural being. He appeared to me one night in a bright light and told me he was innocent of child abuse. (He also shared with me many mysteries of God that I hold sacred and will not share with anyone.) During all this, he never woke up my wife, who was sleeping in the bed next to me.

Don't believe me? Prove me wrong.

Oh by the way, the complete disdain and utter rejection with which you hold my claim is precisely how I view yours.

I am interested in why you believe that your claim is more valid on its face than mine.

[_Trevor]

Before I comment on other aspects of this thread, let me get something out of the way. I do not believe that Hugh Nibley abused Martha. I read the book, and I don't buy it. False memories are a real phenomenon. We all create them, and if coached some people can be made to create some real whoppers and totally believe in their veracity. It happens. I think it is what happened here.

Having said that, her account of the spirit of the times at BYU in the 90s, especially among those who were at odds with the administration and the board, rang true to me. If you were young, naïve, eager to question received wisdom and bucked against the strictures of BYU life, I can imagine reacting similarly on an emotional level.

I loved BYU for much of the time I was there. Near the end, I was more than ready to move on. But I will never regret having gone there. It was very kind to me. I loved my professors, and I thought it was a great place. I got a solid education at BYU that helped me get into an Ivy for grad school. The price of my education was unbelievably low and worth many times what I paid for it. In some ways, i really miss BYU. I applied for a position there in part because I missed it. I was fortunate not to land the job, because it would have been a very bad marriage at the time.

BUT, a lot of funny stuff was going on in the 90s and there was a lot of tension on campus. I personally witnessed plenty of eyebrow raising things that lend credibility to the general sense of Martha's reaction to the university climate at the time. I think Martha is a fine spinner of tales, and sometimes tales communicate the truth even when the factual details are quite inaccurate.

Here is a list of some of the funny stuff I saw at the Y (I am sure I could remember more):

1. I repeatedly heard Martin Luther King branded as a possible communist. This is something I rarely encountered before BYU.

2. I saw a book disappear from the shelves and the computer catalogue, only to reappear 6 month later in edited form with the original catalogue information. It was an autobiography of a GA that originally referred to his second anointing.

3. One of my professors concluded that the ancient Greeks worshiped Satan because one of his epithets was "the fallen one." (In reality, this epithet was a reference to the fact that this Zeus was worshiped in the form of a meteorite.)

4. The Rodin exhibit was edited to remove instances of male nudity, while leaving female nudity unedited. You know, because naked men are just wrong. (A sentiment I happen to agree with, but for different reasons I am sure.)

5. My future wife answered a question on the priesthood in a religion class, and the male professor used it to publicly shame the brethren in the room that a woman knew the answer and they did not.

6. A student in my class (one I taught) scolded me in front of the class for using the phrase "screwed up" instead of "messed up" because my well-worn metaphor referred to "you know what."

7. I too recall the pubic hair thing. It was folklore, but it bespoke a certain real prudishness all the same.

8. I saw professors wracked with paranoia because of the firings of Cecilia Farr, David Knowlton, Steven Epperson, and others.

9. I saw professors object to the Honor Code statements the students had to write because it reminded them of practices in Nazi Germany.

10. The halls were still echoing with tales of professors being spied upon through student informants for matters of teaching evolution or advocating communism. Ernie the attorney really left a mark there.

11. I watched the silly R-ratings policy get hammered into professors who were attempting to teach film courses, while their hysterical students were refusing to be tainted by watching excellent films with the wrong rating and reporting on them.

12. I had a student complain to me that she could not feel the spirit when reading an ancient epic poem I had assigned her to read (suggesting, I suppose, that we should not read it if she could not feel the spirit).

In short, there is a strange side to BYU. Yup. And, I still think it is a fine institution filled with good folks. But, if you isolate and emphasize the strange things that occur there, you can come away with a very wacky portrait of it--and one that would unfairly overlook the many wonderful things happening there every day.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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).

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.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo,

Do you have the book available to give us direct quotes?

Yes, I do.

.

.

.

....

[_TAK]

Benjamin McGuire
.... They couldn't just pull the articles from magazines or newspapers without removing entire publications and archived microfilm records.

I never suggested that they clipped out articles .. just the possibility of them removing from the public stacks the whole publications.. Which you confirm here as a practice:

Benjamin McGuire
... 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 you evidence that you had to go through some difficulty to access information deemed by the church as sensitive or in your case provocative..

Benjamin McGuire
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 .. [/b]

Apparently they do based upon your own experience..
Does YBU still restrict internet access to web sites such as this one?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Tak writes:

I never suggested that they clipped out articles .. just the possibility of them removing from the public stacks the whole publications..

Right, but in this particular case, that would mean restricting access to a rather unbelievable amount of material - nearly all of which wouldn't be considered a problem. It seems more than a bit unrealistic. On top of which, none of the material which I went to gain access to was hidden, or concealed - which is to say it was quite easily identified in the publicly accessible catalogs. It was just indicated that it was part of this special collection or that one. Finding the material never took very long. I simply went to the special collections room, signed the paper, asked for my reference, and it was brought to me. In some ways, it was much easier than dealing with the stacks.

So you evidence that you had to go through some difficulty to access information deemed by the church as sensitive or in your case provocative..

Or singularly unique (impossible to replace) or particularly valuable and so on. However, as I note, there wasn't a substantial increase in difficulty in getting my hands on the material. It was an easy process in my opinion.

As far as BYU's current restrictions, I really have no idea. I don't live in Utah, and haven't for over a decade.

[_Eric]

Part 3.

"I understand this apologetic need to respond to Martha's allegations and feel it keenly... please understand that I harbor great resentment about both the book and the timing of its release."
-Boyd Jay Peterson

"We sometimes review the same book twice. Rarely, even more than that."
-Daniel C. Peterson
(Chief Editor of FARMS)
ref.


Notwithstanding Daniel Peterson's contentions, and in light of comments he made earlier this year, I will simply note that Martha Beck's Leaving the Saints was reviewed three times in only two issues of the FARMS periodical.

To put it into perspective:

The landmark biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, was only reviewed once by FARMS (and a large portion of that "review" simply listed other more reputable negative reviews). One of Michael Quinn's books was reviewed as many times as Beck's.

Let's move on. The second of the three "reviews" aimed at discrediting Martha Beck was issued by Boyd Jay Peterson, a school teacher with no other literary reviews to his credit.

To Peterson's credit, he does something completely unusual for FARMS and disclaims that his "review" is not actually a review at all:

This is not and should not be read as a review of the book as much as a response to it. I make no attempt to include all the requisite elements of a standard academic or popular book review.

Peterson's disclosure is to be commended, because as readers will quickly learn, what is put forth in Volume 17 issue 2 is the literary equivalent of a Johnny Cochran defense for Nibley.
Before continuing, it is worth noting the thesis of the first "review" of Leaving the Saints, by Kent Jackson:

1. Some of Beck's siblings issued a letter in response to the publication of Leaving the Saints, in which they declare no such sexual abuse could have happened in the Nibley home.

2. Beck's book contains "misrepresentations about the church [that] are too numerous even to mention."

For these two reasons, Jackson desperately wants you to believe that Hugh Nibley could not - under any circumstances - be guilty.

The first half of Jackson's thesis falls flat on its face (which is likely the reason for the additional "book reviews" by FARMS). Martha's retelling of sexual abuse at the hands of her beloved father is entirely consistent with statements issued by the Nibley family. She was alone when the abuse happened the first time. During the second incident, she was similarly alone while her sister slept soundly.

The second half of Jackson's thesis is similarly impotent. I have reviewed the "misrepresentations" in question. While some of the unrelated details may be arguable (i.e "Most Mormons see financial wealth as a sign of God's favor"), they are, by no means, assertions indicative of someone dishonest.

Even if they were -- let's say that in her book Martha falsely claimed that the first 22 chapters of the Book of Mormon contained the acrostic: "NibleyIsPedophile." It would still have nothing to do with what happened to Martha has a young child. Luckily, Martha wrote nothing so outlandishly false. At best (for those trying to discredit her), her retellings - which are, after all, hers - are open to debate and qualification.

A determined apologist can (and will, obviously) argue whether the recommended occupation for Mormon women is "breeding well in captivity," but again, this says nothing about Hugh Nibley's alleged sexual crimes.

Boyd Jay Peterson continues where Kent Jackson left off -- disputing unrelated details to paint a picture of Martha as a shameless liar:

Throughout this book, as with her other books, it is obvious that she distorts the record as much as or more than she reports it, jumps to conclusions more than provides evidence leading to conclusions, and blurs fact and fantasy.

It is obvious? Peterson presents his evidence:

Martha states that her 'family's code' prevents her siblings from believing her, that she is 'the traitor to our family's code of conduct, the enemy of everything we once stood for together'...I find this to be a grossly unfair accusation.

Peterson, who married into the Nibley family long after the abuse was said to have happened, simply objects to Martha's characterization of her own family. Compelling...

The fact that none of Martha's siblings support her claims of incest is the result, not of some family code, but of her siblings finding her claims simply unbelievable.

This is a rewording of the first half of Jackson's failed thesis. What her siblings said, have said, or will say bears no relevance to the sexual abuse Martha says she endured, unequivocally.

Martha's accusations are not rooted in the testimony of her family, whether or not they agree with her and no matter how many times FARMS tries to force the issue.

Innuendo and an apparently superdeveloped ability to read facial expressions and minute changes in skin color are among Martha's main sources of insight.

Peterson resorts to the fallacy of extension (straw man), depicting Martha as an innuendo driven speculator who is basing her claims on "facial expressions and minute changes of skin color."

more to come...