The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Sput]

I think they would if it was critisized properly. The problem with alot of these books is that the are filled with lies and misconceptions and sensationalism. Martha Beck's book doesnt even have the support of her siblings. So why would FARM or FAIR give her accustaions or her book could hold any water. Unfortuently the burden of proof is on Martha and other critics. Yet they fail to meet this simple requirment.

[Hacedor Costoso]

What amazes me is that it is simply fine for those who oppose Martha to have their mind made up and be convinced and to know that there is nothing more to be said on the matter.

While those who believe Martha - even when some unimportant book reviewers give her a negative review - are disparaged for their "closed-mindedness".

I haven't read the book and I probably won't read the reviews. I don't really care what some irrelevant daughter wrote about some irrelevant apologist and his mostly irrelevant (to the rest of the world) church.

Hacedor

[spinner]

I think they would if it was critisized properly. The problem with alot of these books is that the are filled with lies and misconceptions and sensationalism. Martha Beck's book doesnt even have the support of her siblings. So why would FARM or FAIR give her accustaions or her book could hold any water. Unfortuently the burden of proof is on Martha and other critics. Yet they fail to meet this simple requirment.

I agree that a lot of books critical of Mormonism are poorly written and sensationalist. The point of my posts has merely been to underscore that I don't believe you're going to get a fair evaluation of any materials not friendly to Mormonism from apologists, any more than you'd get an unbiased assessment of Bush's proposed social security reforms from Harry Reid. They are partisans. I guess you believe that the apologists would give favorable reviews to unfriendly literature if it was well done; for myself, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Kevin Christensen]

So tell me this: do you believe that FARMS would ever write a favorable review of a book that was critical of Mormonism?

Who is FARMS that is can write anything? Answer, FARMS writers are now over 200 individuals.

But in answer to the question, here for example is the conclusion of Richard Bushman's review in Review of Books on the Mormon 6:2.

All in all, Inventing Mormonism is a far cry in both spirit and substance from the iconoclastic studies of Mormonism that descend from E. D. Howe and Alexander Campbell to Fawn Brodie and the early Wesley Walters. The book assembles material that has not been part of the record before, and in good faith offers variant readings of Joseph Smith's history. I have taken exception to the most critical conclusions, but I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing. The book makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered.

The answer is of course yes.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[spinner]

So tell me this: do you believe that FARMS would ever write a favorable review of a book that was critical of Mormonism?

Who is FARMS that is can write anything? Answer, FARMS writers are now over 200 individuals.

But in answer to the question, here for example is the conclusion of Richard Bushman's review in Review of Books on the Mormon 6:2.

All in all, Inventing Mormonism is a far cry in both spirit and substance from the iconoclastic studies of Mormonism that descend from E. D. Howe and Alexander Campbell to Fawn Brodie and the early Wesley Walters. The book assembles material that has not been part of the record before, and in good faith offers variant readings of Joseph Smith's history. I have taken exception to the most critical conclusions, but I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing. The book makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered.

The answer is of course yes.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I guess what I mean by 'FARMS' is anything written in a FARMS publication, be it on the internet or in print. (Not including, however, something like this message board, which is a different sort of beast entirely.)

Can you tell me where to find the whole review you reference? If I'm shown to be wrong on this, I will eat crow and change my tune.

[gtaggart]

Another example, or multiple examples, of FARMS publishing things critical of the Church and Church-related matters would be much of what Hugh Nibley wrote. Check out "Brigham Challenges the Saints" and "Approaching Zion." He was also very critical of superficial Mormon scholarhship. In one of his essays, he showed how you could prove that the Hill Cumorah (I think it was) was located on Antelope Island, using the methodology of some Book of Mormon apologists. Finally, he was a social critic if he was anything, and much of his criticism struck the nerves of LDS lawyers, bankers, insurance salesmen, and the like. All of this, published by FARMS.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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

Is there a way to read these reviews without subscribing? When I clicked on the link, it required a subscription to view the reviews.

[The_Monk]

Kent Jackson (BYU Rel. Prof.) had some very negative things to say about one of Hugh Nibley's books, and that review was published by FARMS.

[Programmer]

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

Is there a way to read these reviews without subscribing? When I clicked on the link, it required a subscription to view the reviews.

Rollo

That link worked fine for me. And I don't have a subscription either.

Perhaps you could do a refresh from your browser?

It brought me to a TOC page where I could click on a link to an online PDF.

[Programmer]

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

Is there a way to read these reviews without subscribing? When I clicked on the link, it required a subscription to view the reviews.

Aha, Rollo is setting an example that others, sympathetic to ms beck, on this thread should have followed:

i.e. clicking on the link.

not too hard, and doesn't require too much brain power.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Aha, Rollo is setting an example that others, sympathetic to ms beck, on this thread should have followed:

i.e. clicking on the link.

I did click on the link for "view pdf format," and I get bounced to a page that says "Purchase Subscription." Is this FARMS's way of telling Rollo to stay away?

not too hard, and doesn't require too much brain power.

Perhaps, but that's no guarantee that I have sufficient for my needs, especially when it comes to computers.

[Programmer]

Aha, Rollo is setting an example that others, sympathetic to ms beck, on this thread should have followed:

i.e. clicking on the link.

I did click on the link for "view pdf format," and I get bounced to a page that says "Purchase Subscription." Is this FARMS's way of telling Rollo to stay away?

I doubt it... Does this link work for you?

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NDQ0...m&type=cmV2aWV3

not too hard, and doesn't require too much brain power.

Perhaps, but that's no guarantee that I have sufficient for my needs, especially when it comes to computers.

I think you should blame it on $Microsoft$

[Rollo Tomasi]

Does this link work for you?

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NDQ0...m&type=cmV2aWV3

That worked! Thanks for your help.

[Kevin Christensen]

For Spinner, the link to the Richard Bushman review:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=156

Another example would be John Sorenson's Sourcebook for Geographic Events. Much LDS thought comes under the scalpel in that invaluable resource.

Yet another would be the essay by Owen and Mosser in FR 11:2.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=318

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[spinner]

Another example, or multiple examples, of FARMS publishing things critical of the Church and Church-related matters would be much of what Hugh Nibley wrote. Check out "Brigham Challenges the Saints" and "Approaching Zion." He was also very critical of superficial Mormon scholarhship. In one of his essays, he showed how you could prove that the Hill Cumorah (I think it was) was located on Antelope Island, using the methodology of some Book of Mormon apologists. Finally, he was a social critic if he was anything, and much of his criticism struck the nerves of LDS lawyers, bankers, insurance salesmen, and the like. All of this, published by FARMS.

Criticizing the sloppy methodology or work of fellow apologsists or criticizing the lifestyles of many Mormons is still not the same as being critical of the church itself or endorsing work that is critical of the church. Nevertheless, your point about FARMS being willing to publish criticism of one of its own is interesting, and in that regard I stand corrected.

[Programmer]

I just read Boyd Peterson's remarks from the 2005 Fair conference.

It is quite disturbing how Martha sicked her lawyers on her family in a vain attempt to keep them quiet. Kudo's to Peterson for having the courage to stand up to that wolf in sheeps clothing.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've decided to return briefly from (a very pleasant) FAIRboards retirement to protest cjcampbell's absurd suggestion that academic work doesn't count as "working for a living."

I do not like some of Hugh Nibley's comments about business, and I think them mistaken. I do not share many of his political views, though I appreciate (and largely share) the moral perspective from which they come. But I can promise cjcampbell that the many thick volumes that Nibley wrote didn't simply fall from the sky into his lap. Writing is hard work. Research is never ending. University teaching, if done conscientiously, is also hard work.

A construction worker is typically finished by 3:30 or 5 PM, or so. (I know, because I grew up in a family that still runs a construction business, and I worked several thousand hours as a construction laborer myself, through graduate school.) An academic who teaches classes, lectures publicly, serves on University committees, researches, and writes, typically works evenings and, very often, on weekends.

Businessmen are not the only people who "work for a living." So do doctors and lawyers and accountants and farmers and dentists and carpenters and, yes, academics. Widgets (e.g., bottles of bleach, cigarette lighters, and flipflops) are not the only "products" that count. So do corporate finance reports. So do crops. So do educated children and youth. So do surgically corrected heart valves. So do books and symphonies.

If cjcampbell thinks that he works while I'm just a drone, I invite him to step into my shoes right now and finish the editing of Majid Fakhry's translation of Ibn Sina's Physics for me. I'm heartily weary of this incredibly abstruse 800-page manuscript (and that's not counting the Arabic original, which will also go into our eventual edition, and on which I haven't yet begun to work), and I would happily turn it over to someone like cjcampbell, who, unlike us useless and slothful academics, knows how to work.

On the main subject of the thread: Martha Beck's book has, in my opinion, no credibility at all, but I'm impressed at the devotion with which some of her partisans continue to cling to the true faith.

[Zakuska]

Martha starts early and controls often, putting words in the mouths

of her grade-school teacher after she had befriended a Catholic girl at

school (

[Pahoran]

On the main subject of the thread:  Martha Beck's book has, in my opinion, no credibility at all, but I'm impressed at the devotion with which some of her partisans continue to cling to the true faith.

Ah, but Dan; it isn't that her partisans actually believe her; it is that they want others to believe her.

Because they know that she's full of it, and that it was only ever a matter of time before this was proven to be the case, they didn't want to stand up and declare themselves as believers. They've known all along that if they tie their credibility to hers, she would sooner or later drag them all down.

However, they have wanted, and continue to want, to exploit her whoppers for polemical purposes. That's why the most close-minded of them can piously claim to be keeping "an open mind" about her lies, and in the very next breath dismiss anything and everything written by "apologists" as simply unworthy of consideration. Their "open minds" are only open in one direction.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Martha starts early and controls often, putting words in the mouths... of an unnamed adviser on the proper way to advertise for a babysitter in Utah County (

[juliann]

On the main subject of the thread:

[Rollo Tomasi]

That is what makes it a true religion.

The best evidence for whether a religion is "true" is how its professed followers treat others ... that generally says it all.

[Sput]

That is what makes it a true religion. 

The best evidence for whether a religion is "true" is how its professed followers treat others ... that generally says it all.

Well that throws out the EV's.

[Rollo Tomasi]

That is what makes it a true religion.

[Pahoran]

That is what makes it a true religion. 

The best evidence for whether a religion is "true" is how its professed followers treat others ... that generally says it all.

So if that is your view, I take it you'll no longer be trying to exploit various anti-Mormon books to attack the Church of Jesus Christ, since they clearly don't say anything of relevance?

Regards,

Pahoran