Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does John have major credibility problems?

Not to my knowledge.

Does Martha?

Oh, absolutely. As (partially) chronicled in the various reviews.

When their "eyewitness" testimony conflicts, it's not really all that difficult to figure out whom to trust.

This reminds me of George Orwell's great essay, "Shooting an Elephant." Towards the end of the piece, he recalls how he felt an overwhelming pressure from the crowd of onlookers. They all seemed to be urging him on to carry out this act of violence. I wonder: did John feel that LDS Church authority, BYU, the apologetic community, the Mormon community writ-large, and, heck, maybe even Jesus and Heavenly Father, were "urging him on"? And if so, how might that affect his credibility?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I wonder: did John feel that LDS Church authority, BYU, the apologetic community, the Mormon community writ-large, and, heck, maybe even Jesus and Heavenly Father, were "urging him on"? And if so, how might that affect his credibility

John is, so far as I'm aware, a practicing homosexual who resigned his position at BYU with a vocal attack on the University and who is entirely out of the Church.

It's possible that he defers to LDS Church authority, etc., but, candidly, as fantastic theories go, this is not among your best efforts.

[_Pahoran]

It's not merely a case, as you would like to pretend, of a family in denial. 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.

This is not how Martha described it in her book. According to Martha, her mother had taken her little sister (and roommate) to the doctor, and her other brothers and sisters were at school, when she says Hugh came in, tied her hands, and said she was an Abrahamic sacrifice he had to make.

If it happened, the sister could not have failed to have known.

The sister certainly could have if this occurred while she was at the doctor's.

And her sister was at the doctor's every time it happened over a three year period?

Now Rollo, you seem to have missed my earlier question. Perhaps you'd like to tell us, on your honour as a Washington, D.C. attorney, that formal ritual shunning, as Martha described it, is normative LDS practice?

Well?

Is it, or isn't it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

I wonder: did John feel that LDS Church authority, BYU, the apologetic community, the Mormon community writ-large, and, heck, maybe even Jesus and Heavenly Father, were "urging him on"? And if so, how might that affect his credibility

John is, so far as I'm aware, a practicing homosexual who resigned his position at BYU with a vocal attack on the University and who is entirely out of the Church.

It's possible that he defers to LDS Church authority, etc., but, candidly, as fantastic theories go, this is not among your best efforts.

I really have to come to Scratch's defense here, Daniel. I'd say this is pretty much as good as his theories get.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

What facts are you referring to, in connection with the alleged abuse?

We can't get directly at the abuse. It's a she said/he said situation, and he's dead.

But we can test her credibility, and, to put it mildly, her credibility doesn't hold up well. At point after point after point where her claims can be tested, she fails. Unambiguously. Which doesn't exactly strengthen the confidence of reasonable people regarding a claim from her that can't really be tested.

In a she said/he said case where she is manifestly untrustworthy and even prone to the invention of falsehoods (as the reviewers demonstrate she clearly is), he should not be convicted.

You remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, I'm sure. The wolf came and ate the sheep, even though the boy who cried "wolf" was ignored because his credibility was gone. His credibility aside, the sheep were still eaten by the wolf... the same goes for Martha. Just because Martha lied over and over and over and over (if she did indeed lie) doesn't mean the alleged abuse didn't happen.

Her credibility isn't tied to the alleged action.

Try again.

[_Pahoran]

We can't get directly at the abuse. It's a she said/he said situation, and he's dead.

But we can test her credibility, and, to put it mildly, her credibility doesn't hold up well. At point after point after point where her claims can be tested, she fails. Unambiguously. Which doesn't exactly strengthen the confidence of reasonable people regarding a claim from her that can't really be tested.

In a she said/he said case where she is manifestly untrustworthy and even prone to the invention of falsehoods (as the reviewers demonstrate she clearly is), he should not be convicted.

You remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, I'm sure. The wolf came and ate the sheep, even though the boy who cried "wolf" was ignored because his credibility was gone. His credibility aside, the sheep were still eaten by the wolf... the same goes for Martha. Just because Martha lied over and over and over and over (if she did indeed lie) doesn't mean the alleged abuse didn't happen.

Her credibility isn't tied to the alleged action.

Try again.

She is the sole source of the accusation -- an accusation which is astonishing and unbelievable on its face. An accusation based upon so-called "recovered memories." An accusation that has all the hallmarks of the "ritual abuse" hysteria of the 1980's.

So yes, the believability of the accusation is inextricably connected to the credibility of the accuser.

Now Harmony, I think I recall you saying somewhere that you had been abused. If that is the case, then I am very sorry; but you must also realise that you may, because of that experience, be disposed to too readily believe such accusations.

The burden of proof still lies with the accuser. The presumption of innocence still applies to people accused of child abuse -- yes, even Mormons (ugh!)

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

She is the sole source of the accusation -- an accusation which is astonishing and unbelievable on its face. An accusation based upon so-called "recovered memories." An accusation that has all the hallmarks of the "ritual abuse" hysteria of the 1980's.

My sister was the sole source also, when she told my mother. Yet it happened. Just because no one believes doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So yes, the believability of the accusation is inextricably connected to the credibility of the accuser.

So, no, it's not. What you're saying is that no child abuse happens unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And I know that is not so. Child abuse happens, whether it is reported or not, whether there is a conviction or not, whether the abuser feels remorse or not. It happens. Just because you don't believe it happens, it happens, even in the best homes. Just because you have your head buried as deeply as my mother did doesn't mean diddly.

I'm not saying it happened in Martha's case. I'm saying you can't disregard the allegation just because he's dead or she's lied in the past. crap happens every day, and no one believes it. There is no magic shield that protects a child, just because her home is an LDS home with a priesthood holding father.

Now Harmony, I think I recall you saying somewhere that you had been abused. If that is the case, then I am very sorry; but you must also realise that you may, because of that experience, be disposed to too readily believe such accusations.

And I think you are too ready to dismiss such accusations, simply because of who the target is. You cannot believe that someone as highly placed in the church could do that. You forget Apostle Lee, though. No one thought he would do that either... but he did.

The burden of proof still lies with the accuser. The presumption of innocence still applies to people accused of child abuse -- yes, even Mormons (ugh!)

There is no 'burden of proof' on anyone. The man is dead. Proof is immaterial.

[_Jersey Girl]

I haven't read Beck's book, but have read excerpts and such online. So, I'm only going on that. Also, I have no particular axe to grind regarding Hugh W. Nibley either way, so maybe that allows more objectivity on my part.

I do believe that abused children can have repressed memory. My fairly recent discussions with Robert Pitsor on this board offered a reasonable explanation as to why and how traumatic memory can be repressed and recovered. Having said that...

On the surface, and based only on what I've read, I don't believe Beck's claim.

Let me ramble out a few things here...

1. Yes, she could have been abused in a small home full of siblings if no one was home at the time, which I think is her claim.

My question is, where was her mother and why was her father home at the time? Did he work at home?

2. I've read two different explanations for the scarring. One had to do with child birth and the other said that later, a physician told her it could have been from sexual abuse as a child.

When was this scarring discovered? Any physician worth their salt would admit that scarring could be consistent with abuse or childbirth. It could have been caused by a number of things. I don't know which account to believe and those are the only two explanations that I've found.

3. There was an account (I'll be as non-graphic as I can be) of her memory of blood between her thighs.

I'm not clear as to whether she remembered this while fully conscious, in a dream or what. I'm also not clear as to what age she was when she recovered the memory or when she thinks she had the memory. I can think of a number of reasons why she might have a memory of blood between her thighs even as a young child. I don't think I will list them unless asked to explain.

4. I read an excerpt where Beck claims to have received a comment from some unidentified person in a grocery store who told her that her Dad's work was ficitious and his footnotes were bogus. She claims to have felt empowered upon hearing that.

Why in hell would a PhD feel empowered by the claims of a person without having checked them out herself? Did she ever check this out or did she just deliver the allegation and left it at that? If she didn't validate the claim, I think this shoots her credibility in the foot.

5. What's up with her claim to homosexuality on the part of her and her former husband?

I'm not certain that I trust the rationality of a well educated person who doesn't know until well into adulthood what their sexual orientation is. She co-authored a book with her husband about compulsive behavior wherein homosexual behavior was included. Why wouldn't two PhD's know what the heck is up with their own sexuality when they wrote the book and years later, when they both decided they each were homosexual.

6. She claimed sexual abuse on the part of a teenage neighbor at age 9.

What is up with that? I'm not understanding alot of this. I could see where if she had been sexually abused from 5-8, that at age 9 she might take part in acting out somehow with a teenage boy.

7. Where and who are Hugh Nibley's other alleged victims?

Pedophiles don't act out on one child for three years and then abandon the behavior.

I find all of this confusing.

I'm just dragging this forward in the thread since an actual discussion is taking place. ;-)

At the moment, I'm interested in #7 on the above list. Where are Dr. Nibley's other alleged victims?

[_harmony]

[b]7. Where and who are Hugh Nibley's other alleged victims?

Pedophiles don't act out on one child for three years and then abandon the behavior.

I don't see this as locked in stone, Jersey, judging by my own experience.

It's always possible that he stopped because of an epiphany in his life that changed him (assuming the allegations are true).

[_Pahoran]

She is the sole source of the accusation -- an accusation which is astonishing and unbelievable on its face. An accusation based upon so-called "recovered memories." An accusation that has all the hallmarks of the "ritual abuse" hysteria of the 1980's.

My sister was the sole source also, when she told my mother. Yet it happened. Just because no one believes doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Look, I don't want to pry into your sister's situation. In fact I know perfectly well that it does happen.

But presuming that your sister's case was a "normal" one, when we look at the details of what Martha alleged, can't you see how abnormal it is?

Martha's sole basis for making the accusation was a set of "recovered memories." In other words, she had no inkling that her father had ever done such a thing until she convinced herself of it, with someone else's help. Do you think such "memories" are reliable? Do you realise that, after the hysteria of the 1980's and 1990's, practically nobody relies upon them any more?

Yes, child abuse happens. So do bogus accusations.

So yes, the believability of the accusation is inextricably connected to the credibility of the accuser.

So, no, it's not. What you're saying is that no child abuse happens unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that people who tell incredible stories, and some of those stories can be shown to be false, have no right to expect others to believe the stories that can't be proven -- or even supported -- one way or another.

And I know that is not so. Child abuse happens, whether it is reported or not, whether there is a conviction or not, whether the abuser feels remorse or not. It happens. Just because you don't believe it happens, it happens, even in the best homes. Just because you have your head buried as deeply as my mother did doesn't mean diddly.

You have no evidence that my head is "buried." I have examined Martha's allegations. I do not find them credible. She claimed that her father molested her in the same tiny bedroom where her sister was asleep on the other bunk.

How?

She claimed that her father wore an Egyptian sacerdotal mask while abusing her.

What?

She claimed that this experience so traumatised her that anything Egyptian made her sick; yet she illustrated her father's remarkable Egyptian Endowment. I have a copy; the illustrations are beautiful. Martha is very talented. But how could she have stood it, if what she claims was true?

I'm not saying it happened in Martha's case.

Then why are you even posting? That is the only question under discussion.

I'm saying you can't disregard the allegation just because he's dead or she's lied in the past.

And I'm not saying we can.

I'm saying that, after looking at her allegations, how clearly implausible they are, their connection with the whole "recovered memory" fiasco, and the many other clearly false statements she makes, there is simply no good reason to believe her.

Let me tell you a story: one evening I got belted by a stranger when I tried to stop him belting his wife on a public street. (More fool me.) Now, if someone tells me that two carloads of people dressed as ancient Egyptians accosted them on another street in my town and beat them up, should I find that story credible because it resonates with my experience? If I was operating purely on emotion, I might; but if I stopped and listened to the details of what is being alleged, I might wonder. And when, in the course of telling the selfsame story the person gets a number of easily verifiable details about my town wrong -- then haven't I the right to wonder the more?

Now Harmony, I think I recall you saying somewhere that you had been abused. If that is the case, then I am very sorry; but you must also realise that you may, because of that experience, be disposed to too readily believe such accusations.

And I think you are too ready to dismiss such accusations, simply because of who the target is.

No, I dismiss them because they are (1) incredible on their face, (2) unsupported wherever they could be supported, (3) based upon junk science, and (4) told in connection with other tales that are clearly false.

You cannot believe that someone as highly placed in the church could do that. You forget Apostle Lee, though. No one thought he would do that either... but he did.

He wasn't an apostle, and he was excommunicated. There was actual evidence in that case. There isn't in this.

The burden of proof still lies with the accuser. The presumption of innocence still applies to people accused of child abuse -- yes, even Mormons (ugh!)

There is no 'burden of proof' on anyone. The man is dead. Proof is immaterial.

So it's okay to sully his memory with baseless accusations?

I see.

Regards,
Pahoran