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]
