Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pahoran

The Roof Falls In On Martha

Recommended Posts

Here you can read two review essays on Martha's book.

Kudos to Jackson and Taggart for dealing with her claims.

A gem from Taggart:

Why was it necessary for you to add polygamy to the mix in that story of the guy with five wives who visited your father to discuss doctrine and then not long after shot himself? Then, according to you, his wives pushed their children to their death

Share this post


Link to post
Here you can read two review essays on Martha's book.

Kudos to Jackson and Taggart for dealing with her claims.

A gem from Taggart:

Why was it necessary for you to add polygamy to the mix in that story of the guy with five wives who visited your father to discuss doctrine and then not long after shot himself? Then, according to you, his wives pushed their children to their death

Share this post


Link to post

There is a time for open mindedness. When the facts are in, the sensible person can make a determintion. To delay coming to a conclusion then becomes a stubborn denial of the facts. Is it too soon to decide whether or not the earth is flat? Or if the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa?

Share this post


Link to post

It's easy for you to be convinced of what you wish to be convinced. I prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.

Both reviews were spot on.

I grew up a mere 2 miles from BYU. Both my parents worked and taught there. I lived very close to the campus as well. I had friends who lived in Oak hills. If anyone is qualified to know the religion there, or the culture there it is I.

There is no mere 'wishing' to believe buddy. Ms Beck's claims are a bunch of garbage. What do you have to say to that?

Now I wonder if your suppossed open mind extends to my witness on this matter?

Share this post


Link to post

No kidding? The apologists didn't like Beck's Book?

Forming your opinion of a book critical of Mormonism, and particularly one critical of a fellow apologist like Nibley, by reading a FAIR review is like deciding how to vote by reading just one candidate's promotional materials.

Share this post


Link to post
It's easy for you to be convinced of what you wish to be convinced. I prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.

Cowpie,

congratulations on your (suddenly) open mind. Does it (now) extend to matters you have previously treated with sneering dismissal?

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
No kidding?  The apologists didn't like Beck's Book?

If by "apologists" you mean "informed Latter-day Saints" then you're right; no kidding.

Forming your opinion of a book critical of Mormonism, and particularly one critical of a fellow apologist like Nibley, by reading a FAIR review is like deciding how to vote by reading just one candidate's promotional materials.

Perhaps, but does that mean you shouldn't read the reviews at all?

And do you have a problem with people forming negative opinions of the Church of Jesus Christ by reading "a book critical of Mormonism?"

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Spinner, you make an unwarranted leap in your post explaining what "apologetics" is. From "work that is done from a faithful perspective" to "prop up Mormonism" is a twist and spin. Is that the reason for your screen name?

Share this post


Link to post

Good reason for screen name, by the way how do get the cool pictures by your name. I want a cool picture by my name.

Share this post


Link to post
By apologist I mean participants in an organization whose stated purpose includes engaging in "work that is done from a faithful perspective and...[that] can shed light on the various ancient contexts from which [Mormonism's] sacred writings emerged, can further scholarship in several related areas of study, and can significantly contribute to a better understanding of and appreciation for our LDS scriptural heritage."

And by "didn't like Beck's Book" you meant "let's try to poison the well by marginalising them instead of actually engaging their arguments."

Don't worry, Spinner. I know what you're up to.

This is a group that exists to prop up LDS beliefs.  I'm not saying that this automatically invalidates everything they say, just that you're not likely to get an objective review by such a group of a book critical of Mormonism.

And what exactly is an "objective review." Have you ever read one? Can you recommend a source for one?

I don't think people should form their view of Mormonism by relying exclusively FARMS materials any more than they should learn about Mormonism simply by reading fundamentalist Christian tracts on Mormonism.  Neither is objective.

So what? Neither are you.

So, have you read the reviews, and what is your response?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

I generally agree with Taggart's refutation of Beck's book. More interesting to me is the motivation she had to compromise what reputation she had in writing this sludge. I can't think of a single person she benefitted in the long run, including herself. It is a shoddy work of memoir, biographical, feminist, conversion, and survivor writing all rolled up into one. Anything valuable she might have had to say was utterly compromised by her dumbfounding "methodology."

Another question sticks with me. Nibley states that "it is understandable that nearly all standard exposes of Mormonism are written by women." Why does Taggart include this quote without any hint as to the reasoning behind his use of it? Later in the essay he essentially concludes that Martha's work was calculated to invite more sympathy because it played on contemporary suspicions regarding patriarchal culture. The quote, however, just hangs out there.

Other miscellaneous points:

I am not sure why Harvard should be particulary ashamed of Beck. A degree from an Ivy doesn't guarantee that one isn't a kook. I am sure they are as aware of this as Taggart should be.

If a person spends a great deal of time engaging in apologetics, is it not safe to say that the person is an apologist for the LDS Church? Just because a number of non-LDS people deride the term, doesn't make it meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post

One last question: how is it that he feels he can declare victory for LDS folk in the DNA debate?

Share this post


Link to post
No kidding? The apologists didn't like Beck's Book?

Well, I am not an apologist, nor do I have any academic pretensions. I am a businessman who, unlike Mr. Nibley, has spent his whole life working for a living. Nibley, who sneered at men like me, was a career academic who never had to meet a payroll or produce anything useful.

Over many years I have developed the survival instincts of a successful businessman. I am fairly certain that I can smell a fraud. And Martha Beck is a fraud. Actually, her book appears to be a pile of bunk built on a mountain of fantasy. I would stake my whole business on it.

Share this post


Link to post
No kidding?  The apologists didn't like Beck's Book? 

Well, I am not an apologist, nor do I have any academic pretensions. I am a businessman who, unlike Mr. Nibley, has spent his whole life working for a living. Nibley, who sneered at men like me, was a career academic who never had to meet a payroll or produce anything useful.

Over many years I have developed the survival instincts of a successful businessman. I am fairly certain that I can smell a fraud. And Martha Beck is a fraud. Actually, her book appears to be a pile of bunk built on a mountain of fantasy. I would stake my whole business on it.

from the Pickle jar: Mr Nibley sneered at businessmen? How unfortunate. Could you possibly produce that quote, because I never heard of that before. And he didn't produce anything useful in his entire life? Again, that seems over the top. Everyone produces something, even academics.

Martha's book is useful, if only as an example of a book that should never have been written. Had the allegations and accusations in the book been provable, Martha would have been better served to take her case to the courts, rather than the printing press. Currently, the book is useful... as a door stop, as a booster seat for a small child, as toilet paper for an outdoor bippy.

Share this post


Link to post

cj, I think you misrepresent Hugh Nibley. I doubt he sneered at anyone, except the sloppy thinkers who tried to pass themselves off as scholars.

There is more to being useful and productive than meeting a payroll. The people who work in your business, but don't have your responsibility, are they worthy of your contempt, as well?

Share this post


Link to post

I hardly misrepresent Hugh Nibley. Several of his books contain remarks that are highly derogatory of businessmen because, well, they are businessmen. "Brigham Young Challenges the Saints" is probably the worst, but you find it in other of his writings. Most other businessmen I know feel they same way about Nibley, so it is not like something I pulled from the clear blue sky. Nibley appears to have thought that the profit motive was highly suspect, that retailing was a means of stealing from the masses, and that businessmen were more interested in personal gain than in the things of God. Sitting in his ivory tower (paid for by businessmen and lawyers), Nibley apparently had quite a condescending attitude toward those who actually work for a living.

Interesting that the Nibley apologists think that a businessman must have contempt for his employees, even while they deny that academics, including Nibley, sneer at businessmen. A good businessman has the highest respect for his employees. He knows their skills and accomplishments and rewards them accordingly. It would be a rare day for me to overrule an employee on anything. Some of the people working for me were extremely talented artisans. In my tile roofing company, for example, I had guys who could fit tiles together into a perfect circle -- something that other tile companies said could not be done. The detail and beauty of their metal work was wonderful, even though they knew that no one would ever see it. I certainly have no such talents, and I have tremendous respect for those that do. But I doubt that the ivory tower types will ever realize how real businessmen feel about real employees.

Now, I enjoy Nibley's books. I may not like his attitude about businessmen, but I like his books, for the most part. But the truth is the world will not stop turning if all of Nibley's books disappeared tomorrow. Get rid of the retailers, the contractors, even the lawyers, and let's see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
There is a time for open mindedness. When the facts are in, the sensible person can make a determintion. To delay coming to a conclusion then becomes a stubborn denial of the facts. Is it too soon to decide whether or not the earth is flat? Or if the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa?

I don't plan on making my mind up either way on this matter. For one, it's not my business; two, I don't have the means to know the truth of the matter (as do none of you); and three, my testimony of the untruth of the gospel will not be affected either way.

Share this post


Link to post

It's easy for you to be convinced of what you wish to be convinced. I prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.

Both reviews were spot on.

I grew up a mere 2 miles from BYU. Both my parents worked and taught there. I lived very close to the campus as well. I had friends who lived in Oak hills. If anyone is qualified to know the religion there, or the culture there it is I.

There is no mere 'wishing' to believe buddy. Ms Beck's claims are a bunch of garbage. What do you have to say to that?

Now I wonder if your suppossed open mind extends to my witness on this matter?

Your witness of what? You didn't witness anything. But if you're representative of the neighborhood, kudos to Martha for not fitting in.

Share this post


Link to post
It's easy for you to be convinced of what you wish to be convinced. I prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.

Cowpie,

congratulations on your (suddenly) open mind. Does it (now) extend to matters you have previously treated with sneering dismissal?

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't know what you're talking about.

But, hey, I just realized ... if errors (or apparent errors) in a book mean it should be trashed, then why are you hanging on so stubbornly to the Book of Mormon?

Share this post


Link to post

It's easy for you to be convinced of what you wish to be convinced. I prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.

Both reviews were spot on.

I grew up a mere 2 miles from BYU. Both my parents worked and taught there. I lived very close to the campus as well. I had friends who lived in Oak hills. If anyone is qualified to know the religion there, or the culture there it is I.

There is no mere 'wishing' to believe buddy. Ms Beck's claims are a bunch of garbage. What do you have to say to that?

Now I wonder if your suppossed open mind extends to my witness on this matter?

Your witness of what? You didn't witness anything. But if you're representative of the neighborhood, kudos to Martha for not fitting in.

Cowpie:

Witness to what? Are you equipped to debate here?

It's obvious you either didn't read the article and read the absurd things in there that ms beck stated, or you bought ms beck's words hook line and sinker, and have simply been duped into believing that stuff, or you have no truth in you and are using this oppurtunity to further slander the LDS church and the people of the Utah.

My Witness that the following are absurd, and are just viscious slander and lies:

Lineage matters in Mormonism. A lot... To this day the social structure of the Latter-day Saint community is more aristocracy than democracy. Descendents of the early pioneers enjoy a subtly but distinctly higher status than new converts.

This is so absurd, and demonstrably untrue.

And another even bigger lie that will surely land her soul in hell.

The one occupation recommened for Mormon females: breeding well in captivity

She loves making this stuff up like this gem of a lie:

A good Mormon girl doesn't ever engage in "direct communication"

And another demonstrably untrue assertion:

I suspect that even though the Mormon powers that be might not acutally threaten my life, they would probably try to ruin it. Yes, these suspicions were outlandish. Yes they were paranoid. And yes, they were completely accurate

When one person's lies contradict thousands of other peoples, and it is easy to see the truth of the matter.

I read the FARMS articles, and better yet I understood what the author was speaking about in refuting ms becks book. It's obvious no anti here on this board is equipped to refute the truth in the two FARMS articles linked at the top of this thread, so they resort to tangential attacks that ignore the core subtance at the heart of the matter. Why? because the truth is not in them.

I think whoever responds to this post should keep the following in mind:

Thou shalt NOT bear false witness

Share this post


Link to post
By apologist I mean participants in an organization whose stated purpose includes engaging in "work that is done from a faithful perspective and...[that] can shed light on the various ancient contexts from which [Mormonism's] sacred writings emerged, can further scholarship in several related areas of study, and can significantly contribute to a better understanding of and appreciation for our LDS scriptural heritage."

And by "didn't like Beck's Book" you meant "let's try to poison the well by marginalising them instead of actually engaging their arguments."

Don't worry, Spinner. I know what you're up to.

This is a group that exists to prop up LDS beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...