Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Eric wrote:The landmark biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, was only reviewed once by FARMS

That biography was originally published in 1945. The FARMS Review first appeared in 1989.

That we ever published anything about it at all is more significant than the fact that we did so only once.

Eric wrote:Boyd Jay Peterson [sic], a school teacher with no other literary reviews to his credit.

As a matter of fact, Boyd Petersen holds a doctorate in comparative literature, teaches at Utah Valley University and Brigham Young University, and won the 2002 Best Biography Award from the Mormon History Association (meeting in Kirtland, Ohio) for his Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life.

Eric wrote:The first half of Jackson's thesis falls flat on its face (which is likely the reason for the additional "book reviews" by FARMS).

It doesn't, and it wasn't.

Eric wrote:more to come...

In the meantime, any here who are interested in reading for themselves the Jackson and Petersen reviews can find them at:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=569

and

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=587

Greg Taggart's review is also well worth a reading, for any interested in this topic:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=570

As is Tania Rands Lyon's "An Exhausted Memoir of Reading Leaving the Saints," which appeared in Sunstone and can be downloaded via the following link:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index. ... raint=none
_Eric

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Eric »

The fact that the FARMS review editor continues to annoyingly post the same links over and over again instead of at least feigning a serious response is also worth noting --again.

As a show of distaste and rejection, I will repost what I just posted and offer Mr. Peterson a second chance (or a chance to not comment at all, which would be far more substantive).

I'd also ask the moderators to move Mr. Peterson's SPAM posts to the proper forum for SPAM, should he continue to post SPAM on this thread.

Eric wrote: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:

Boyd Jay Peterson wrote: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...
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Eric wrote:The fact that the FARMS review editor continues to annoyingly post the same links over and over again instead of at least feigning a serious response is also worth noting.

The FARMS Review editor believes that the best way for those reading this thread to judge whether the characterizations of the relevant articles that have been offered here are adequate and accurate is to examine the articles directly, for themselves.

Links to those reviews can be found almost immediately above, in this thread.

When I deem it advisable, I will repost the links again for the convenience of any who may want to read the reviews for themselves.

Eric wrote:The landmark biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, was only reviewed once by FARMS

That biography was originally published in 1945. The FARMS Review first appeared in 1989.

That we ever published anything about it at all is more significant than the fact that we did so only once.

Eric wrote:Boyd Jay Peterson [sic], a school teacher with no other literary reviews to his credit.

As a matter of fact, Boyd Petersen holds a doctorate in comparative literature, teaches at Utah Valley University and Brigham Young University, and won the 2002 Best Biography Award from the Mormon History Association (meeting in Kirtland, Ohio) for his Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life.

Eric wrote:The first half of Jackson's thesis falls flat on its face (which is likely the reason for the additional "book reviews" by FARMS).

It doesn't, and it wasn't.
_Eric

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Eric »

Daniel Peterson wrote:It doesn't, and it wasn't.


Incredibly convincing retorts. Consider me chagrined.

:rolleyes:

Care to try again?


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:

Boyd Jay Peterson wrote: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...
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _asbestosman »

Maybe you two should try a different approach. You know what they say about insanity . . .
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Eric wrote:The landmark biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, was only reviewed once by FARMS

That biography was originally published in 1945. The FARMS Review first appeared in 1989.

That we ever published anything about it at all is more significant than the fact that we did so only once.

Eric wrote:Boyd Jay Peterson [sic], a school teacher with no other literary reviews to his credit.

As a matter of fact, Boyd Petersen holds a doctorate in comparative literature, teaches at Utah Valley University and Brigham Young University, and won the 2002 Best Biography Award from the Mormon History Association (meeting in Kirtland, Ohio) for his Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _harmony »

Could you two take your respective imitations of a 5 year old's temper tantrums outside?

If not, just ignore each other. The pissing match just started and already it's a waste of bandwidth.

Eric, why did you think Boyd Petersen was just a school teacher? Or do you consider all university professors just school teachers?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _moksha »

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



This seems very wise. Even Harry Potter had to stab the diary several times before the basilisk died.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Eric

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Eric »

harmony wrote:Eric, why did you think Boyd Petersen was just a school teacher? Or do you consider all university professors just school teachers?


That's what he is. He is a teacher. It's not a punitive description, I'm simply noting that - like Jackson - he is completely unqualified to comment on: child abuse, "recovered memories," etc.

Instead of focusing on the insolence, SPAM, and lack of response from the editor of the FARMS review of authors, I will just note what points I have made that he has not responded to:

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.

*The editor of the FARMS review of authors chose to respond to this statement.

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.

*The editor of the FARMS review of authors chose to respond to this statement.


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

Boyd Jay Peterson wrote: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...[/quote]
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

For those interested in reading the three FARMS reviews for themselves, as well as the Sunstone review, the links are provided above.
Post Reply