What Would You Do?

[_maklelan]

It's true that those who disbelieve in Martha Beck's accusation against Hugh Nibley could have remained silent and allowed her voice to be the only one heard on the matter.

It's true that people associated with FARMS, who knew Hugh Nibley's family and had studied under him and worked with him for years and published his collected writings and been his friends, could have permitted his reputation to be publicly assaulted without coming to his defense.

It's true that those who question Martha Beck's allegation could have suppressed their doubts and said nothing while she spread her claim nationally and even internationally by means of a major publishing house.

Doing so, however, doesn't seem particularly honorable, let alone a moral imperative.

Sorry. I simply reject the notion that anybody is free to make all manner of grave accusations and then, by hiding behind a claim of victimhood, avoid any and all questions, doubts, or objections.

In the meantime, here are links to four critical reviews of Martha Beck's book, the last of which wasn't published by FARMS (but was written by a woman):

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

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

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

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index. ... &issue=136

Hey, don't forget Marianne Jennings' review at jewishworldreview.com:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/j ... 42105.php3

An interesting tidbit:

Dr. Beck, Harvard PhD, life coach, bulimic, and incest recollector extraordinaire, bears a striking resemblance to Frau Farbissina, the Austin Powers sidekick, something that makes it all the more difficult to take her lion, camel, butterfly meditations, and evolutions seriously. Beck's book has four themes: (1) she threw up a lot; (2) Mormons are loaded with problems because they cook, clean, raise decent children, head to church with regularity, and, worst of all, helped her through a pregnancy in which she was bedridden (one can understand why she hates them so); (3) she threw up a lot; and (4) her father, Mormon scholar, Hugh Nibley, molested her, something she recollected after she passed out whilst listening in on BYU students allegedly confessing to date rape, child sexual abuse, and pretty much anything Toni Morrison has loaded into her dime-store smut.

[_Mary]

If you are writing a book about your experiences at West Ridge then I think maybe that the background of an LDS apologist isn't particularly relevant?

[_harmony]

If you are writing a book about your experiences at West Ridge then I think maybe that the background of an LDS apologist isn't particularly relevant?

And why is Beck's situation relevant to West Ridge?

When in doubt, don't.

[_Morrissey]

[/quote]Hey, don't forget Marianne Jennings' review at jewishworldreview.com:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/j ... 42105.php3

An interesting tidbit:

Dr. Beck, Harvard PhD, life coach, bulimic, and incest recollector extraordinaire, bears a striking resemblance to Frau Farbissina, the Austin Powers sidekick, something that makes it all the more difficult to take her lion, camel, butterfly meditations, and evolutions seriously. Beck's book has four themes: (1) she threw up a lot; (2) Mormons are loaded with problems because they cook, clean, raise decent children, head to church with regularity, and, worst of all, helped her through a pregnancy in which she was bedridden (one can understand why she hates them so); (3) she threw up a lot; and (4) her father, Mormon scholar, Hugh Nibley, molested her, something she recollected after she passed out whilst listening in on BYU students allegedly confessing to date rape, child sexual abuse, and pretty much anything Toni Morrison has loaded into her dime-store smut.

[/quote]

This snippet does not give me a lot of confidence that this reviewer was objective, or made any attempt at objectivity. She appears very much to have an axe to grind. But, I'm simply judging from the snippet. For those who actually read her review, what's your take on her objectivity/bias?

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions based on what I wrote above, let me state again that I do not believe Beck's story about abuse, I think FARMS or whomever else are justified in counterattacking (as I have zero tolerance for unwarranted accusations of child or sexual abuse--though there's a fine line here, as I think FARMS would have gone on the attach and attempted to destroy Beck's reputation, even had the accusations been valid, after all, protecting the interests of Mormon Inc. is FARMS' apologetic categorical imperative, not devotion to the truth), and I think recovered memories are a load of crap.

I wonder, however, that since I have concluded that recovered memories are unreliable, whether I fall under Maklelan's condemnation for not granting Beck's claim of recovered memories a priori credibility?

[_Some Schmo]

Eric, to answer the question of the thread, I would make my decision solely on whether it's relevant to the subject matter of the book and whether it's adds or subtracts from its overall quality.

If it's for revenge/justice, those are not good reasons. Be true to the intent and vision of the book. It will turn out better that way.

[_maklelan]

I wonder, however, that since I have concluded that recovered memories are unreliable, whether I fall under Maklelan's condemnation for not granting Beck's claim of recovered memories a priori credibility?

If you rejected her claim simply because it involved recovered memories then you weren't being objective. If you were skeptical of her claim and then rejected it because she's demonstrably lying about pretty much everything else and the testimony of others conflicts entirely with her account, then you're being perfectly objective.

[_Eric]

If you are writing a book about your experiences at West Ridge then I think maybe that the background of an LDS apologist isn't particularly relevant?

Theoretically, it doesn't.

Unless of course the LDS apologist and I had some sort of relationship or interaction leading up to my stay West Ridge. You have to remember that I was raised around LDS apologetics. It was always a big deal growing up. I even met John Sorenson while I was at West Ridge.

[_Eric]

I wonder, however, that since I have concluded that recovered memories are unreliable, whether I fall under Maklelan's condemnation for not granting Beck's claim of recovered memories a priori credibility?

Well, you certainly fall under my earlier condemnation for betraying a surprising ignorance of the nature of "recovered memories."

*I hope to revisit the topic of FARMS' treatment of Martha soon, because it is very interesting to me, but I simply don't have the time now. What I will say, however, is that most of you seem to betray a surprising ignorance of the nature of "recovered memories." (I don't necessarily blame you, if you chose to obtain your information about such things in hobby magazines like Sunstone and FARMS).

[_asbestosman]

I feel like I might be forced to do it, though.

Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't blame them on FARMS / apologists. Now certainly if someone sullies your name then it's wise to defend yourself. But in such a case nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you think releasing the information is a rotten thing to do, don't do it and don't make excuses. If you need to defend yourself, then do it and don't bother justifying it as none is required.

[_asbestosman]

(i.e calling Nibley's molestation "incest").

Except that they also called it sexual abuse several times.

Except that they mentioned her age at the time of the alleged incident and I'm sorry, but children cannot consent to sexual acts with adults and therefore they could not have meant that it was consensual.

Except that incest can be either consensual or non-consensual and it was obvious (see the other two excepts) that the alleged incident was not consensual.


My advice (not because I think you give a rip about me or my opinion, but because I hate abuse and think you're intelligent) is to stick to the core topic so that the guilty will be punished instead of giving the defense a bunch of side issues they can use to distract the court and bring up irrelevant doubts similar to the ones I have mentioned.