Martha Beck vs. King Gidorah: The Series

[_Droopy]

Scratchworld (along with its various satellites) is, without a doubt, the strangest place I've ever visited.

Yeah, kind of like the psychedelic trip sequence at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Disorienting and incoherent...yet fascinating.

[Guest]

This wouldn't surprise me at all in Utah. Let's face it, the LDS Church is extremely patriarchal. Example: it's official doctrine that the father "presides" in the home over the wife and children. Scary stuff.

Other "dissidents" have thought the same thing as Martha. And, let's face it, Church security is full of former FBI and CIA guys.

The Church is different things to different members. Those on the fringe (like Martha) may see things very differently than TBM's (like yourself).

Getting up in the morning, looking up at the ceiling, and thinking "How many people can I fool today" would really not be my cup of herb tea.

That Rollo finds it stimulating and important to his self concept is disturbing, to say the least.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I find it interesting that not one member of the First Presidency attended his funeral, and the only GA's who did attend were his former/current bosses.

I don't know why the First Presidency weren't there. My suspicion is that they're rather busy and not always free.

Not one of the FP can drive the 45 minutes to Provo to attend the funeral of an icon like Nibley?! C'mon, Dan, now who's being the gullible one here?

But to attempt to spin attendance at the funeral by two members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speeches from a sixth of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and a formal statement from the First Presidency into evidence of disdain on the part of the Brethren seems a rather tall task.

Spin all you want, but the bottom line is this: the only GA's who attended his funeral were his former/current bosses. Kinda sad for a giant like Nibley.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't remember whether his passing was mentioned in General Conference or not. But if you're trying to suggest that the Brethren disdained him, or something of that sort, I would simply point to his funeral in the Provo Tabernacle, which I attended, and which was also attended by the current president of BYU, Elder Cecil O. Samuelson of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and three past presidents of BYU -- Elder Merrill J. Bateman of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Jeffrey R. Holland of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. Elder Holland spoke -- among other things, reading a statement about Professor Nibley from the First Presidency of the Church -- and Elder Oaks spoke, bestowing, among other things, what he termed "an apostolic blessing" upon Hugh Nibley's family and work.

Interesting. Though we've been told in the past that there have been no "apostolic blessings" for apologists, it seems that this is precisely what took place vis-a-vis Nibley. I wonder if the blessing was interpreted as a "go thou forth and defend my Church" by the living Mopologists.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This wouldn't surprise me at all in Utah. Let's face it, the LDS Church is extremely patriarchal. Example: it's official doctrine that the father "presides" in the home over the wife and children. Scary stuff.

Other "dissidents" have thought the same thing as Martha. And, let's face it, Church security is full of former FBI and CIA guys.

The Church is different things to different members. Those on the fringe (like Martha) may see things very differently than TBM's (like yourself).

Getting up in the morning, looking up at the ceiling, and thinking "How many people can I fool today" would really not be my cup of herb tea.

That Rollo find it stimulating and important to his self concept is disturbing, to say the least.

I just call 'em as I see 'em, Loran.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here's another example: For a significant period of time (nearly 20 years in the 60's and 70's, I believe) women were not allowed to offer a prayer in sacrament meeting.

And this old Church policy for sacrament meetings that was in place from 30 to 50 years ago demonstrates that hairdressers need priesthood clearance for hairstyle changes in today's Utah . . . how, exactly?

I knew a man in my ward who would walk out of sacrament meeting whenever a woman got up to give a prayer.

I've never known such a man, but it's certainly conceivable that such an individual might have existed somewhere, at some point.

I knew a man in my home ward who voted for Bo Gritz for president. He's dead now. The man in my ward, not Bo Gritz. (Maybe he's dead, too. I don't know.)

Face it, Dan, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the sand on this one, the LDS Church, historically and culturally, has been extremely patriarchal, and what the hairdresser said seems completely believable in that context.

Not to anybody who lives here. I live here. My wife lives here. When I first encountered Martha's claim, I ran it by my wife. (I allow her to speak on alternate Tuesdays.) She laughed. She thought it was ridiculous. I ran it by some of the other women I know. The ones, anyway, who are permitted outside of their houses (while wearing black chadors.) I interviewed them from behind a screen. They laughed, too. They thought it was ridiculous. I've never run into anybody who lives in Utah County who hasn't laughed and thought it ridiculous.

It would have been laughable and ridiculous in the seventies, too.

Martha was not alone. Steve Benson, Mike Quinn and Maxine Hanks also believed their phones were wiretapped by the Church (during the time of the 1990's purge of intellectuals).

Martha thinks this was coördinated from her local chapel.

I'm a bishop. Can you give me any idea where the room in our building is, from which such efforts are coordinated? I confess that I just can't imagine where it might be. I've never actually called a ward electronic surveillance specialist. Do you know whether that's a stake calling?

John Beck's review on Amazon took issue with just two parts of the book: the portrayal of his parents and Martha's description of "shunning." He did not dispute the wiretapping story in the book.

John Beck denied the wiretapping story in personal correspondence with Boyd Petersen dated April 2005, a copy of which is in possession of Gregory Taggart, who cites it at footnote 70 of his response to Martha Beck's book.

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

[_TAK]

Funny, I don't recall a mention - let alone praise, of the old Icon and his passing at the following Conference either.

Deafening !

I don't remember whether his passing was mentioned in General Conference or not. But if you're trying to suggest that the Brethren disdained him, or something of that sort, I would simply point to his funeral in the Provo Tabernacle, which I attended, and which was also attended by the current president of BYU, Elder Cecil O. Samuelson of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and three past presidents of BYU -- Elder Merrill J. Bateman of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Jeffrey R. Holland of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. Elder Holland spoke -- among other things, reading a statement about Professor Nibley from the First Presidency of the Church -- and Elder Oaks spoke, bestowing, among other things, what he termed "an apostolic blessing" upon Hugh Nibley's family and work.

His passing was not mentioned.

Just a coincidence I suppose that Martha’s book came out after her Father’s death (and funeral) and before Conference..

[Guest]

Her dud of a book hadn't yet appeared, perhaps, but Martha's accusation against her father was public and very well-known by the time of his funeral. Yet the First Presidency issued a public statement praising him, and two members of the First Quorum of the Seventy attended his funeral and two members of the Council of the Twelve Apostles spoke at his funeral.

To try to paint this as the Church leadership "backing away" from Professor Nibley is simply ridiculous.

Not one of the FP can drive the 45 minutes to Provo to attend the funeral of an icon like Nibley?! C'mon, Dan, now who's being the gullible one here?

With everything else, it's about an hour each way. That's two hours. And the funeral was something like two hours long. That's four hours.

Did they have four free hours on that particular day? I have no idea. And neither do you. I don't even know whether they were in the country, or in the state of Utah.

But they issued a formal statement on his death, which was read at the funeral. If they had wanted to distance themselves from him, they wouldn't have done so. Nor would they have authorized attendance at the funeral by two apostles and two members of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

Spin all you want, but the bottom line is this: the only GA's who attended his funeral were his former/current bosses. Kinda sad for a giant like Nibley.

I've attended a number of funerals for former and current BYU faculty. I've never attended one with two members of the Seventy and two members of the Twelve, accompanied by a First Presidency statement.

You're rather desperate on this one, it seems.

I don't really see why. How much hinges on it?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Here's another example: For a significant period of time (nearly 20 years in the 60's and 70's, I believe) women were not allowed to offer a prayer in sacrament meeting.

And this old Church policy for sacrament meetings that was in place from 30 to 50 years ago demonstrates that hairdressers need priesthood clearance for hairstyle changes in today's Utah . . . how, exactly?

I think the policy ended in 1978. My point was not the policy, but a priesthood holder's reaction to the policy's being rescinded. His incredibly chauvinistic attitude upset the sisters, of course. His absurd reaction illustrates that a stupid comment from a hairdresser, as described by Martha, is very possible in such a paternalistic society.

Face it, Dan, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the sand on this one, the LDS Church, historically and culturally, has been extremely patriarchal, and what the hairdresser said seems completely believable in that context.

Not to anybody who lives here. I live here. My wife lives here. When I first encountered Martha's claim, I ran it by my wife. (I allow her to speak on alternate Tuesdays.) She laughed. She thought it was ridiculous. I ran it by some of the other women I know.

I did the same, and my wife and other women I spoke with thought it very plausible in Utah.

I've never run into anybody who lives in Utah County who hasn't laughed and thought it ridiculous.

It's been my experience that most folks and communities are blind to their idiosyncrasies, and Utah County is no exception.

It would have been laughable and ridiculous in the seventies, too.

It would have been more likely, in my opinion. Remember, in the 70's blacks were still under the Mormon-fomented "curse" and women were told to fight against the ERA.

Martha was not alone. Steve Benson, Mike Quinn and Maxine Hanks also believed their phones were wiretapped by the Church (during the time of the 1990's purge of intellectuals).

Martha thinks this was coördinated from her local chapel.

That's because she observed a wire going to there, which was a lot easier to set up than connecting the wire to the COB.

I'm a bishop. Can you give me any idea where the room in our building is, from which such efforts are coordinated? I confess that I just can't imagine where it might be. I've never actually called a ward electronic surveillance specialist. Do you know whether that's a stake calling?

Ask your buddies on the SCMC; I'm sure they'd be happy to share their tricks of the trade.

John Beck's review on Amazon took issue with just two parts of the book: the portrayal of his parents and Martha's description of "shunning." He did not dispute the wiretapping story in the book.

John Beck denied the wiretapping story in personal correspondence with Boyd Petersen dated April 2005, a copy of which is in possession of Gregory Taggart, who cites it at footnote 70 of his response to Martha Beck's book.

And which I'm sure is filed right next to the 2nd Watson letter and pictures of Big Foot.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Not to anybody who lives here. I live here. My wife lives here. When I first encountered Martha's claim, I ran it by my wife. (I allow her to speak on alternate Tuesdays.) She laughed. She thought it was ridiculous. I ran it by some of the other women I know.

I did the same, and my wife and other women I spoke with thought it very plausible in Utah.

It's ridiculous.

Do you live in Utah?

What's your experience in Utah County?

It's patently ridiculous.

I've never run into anybody who lives in Utah County who hasn't laughed and thought it ridiculous.

It's been my experience that most folks and communities are blind to their idiosyncrasies, and Utah County is no exception.

If this is anything like routine in Utah County, that ought to be demonstrable. Nobody I've spoken with has ever heard of such a thing. My wife's hairdresser has certainly never called me for official priesthood permission to do something to her hair.

Have you or your wife ever actually heard of an occurrence such as this? Forget finding it "plausible." Your plausibility meter, when it comes to things critical of Mormonism, seems to me wholly dysfunctional. Can you cite any actual case(s) of it?

It would have been laughable and ridiculous in the seventies, too.

It would have been more likely, in my opinion. Remember, in the 70's blacks were still under the Mormon-fomented "curse" and women were told to fight against the ERA.

Irrelevant.

The simple fact is that such a thing would have been laughable and ridiculous in the Utah of the seventies, just as it is today. Excepting summers, I lived in Utah County from 1970 to 1972, and from 1974 to 1977. I have relatives who are native Utahns. I never heard of such a case. I've never heard of one since then, either. Have you ever actually heard of such a case, apart from Martha's claim?