The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Sput]

can someone tell me why anytime rollo enters a thread suddenly takes on a life of its own. although i find alot of rollos information interesting and very well documented why do you hijack every thread instead of starting your own.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Are you some kind of secret apostle with special knowledge and you just can't tell the rest of us why you can speak to the issue of eternal progression of God's children better than Elder Packer?

No, I'm nothing special. I have no special knowledge. Just my personal opinions, observations and conclusions. I wish I had more to offer, but that's all I have.

[gtaggart]

I repeat: Show us where Elder Packer tells anyone to bury embarassing "facts." By the way, did you notice what "near diety" Elder Packer said near the end of that talk?

The Brethren then and now are men, very ordinary men, who have come for the most part from very humble beginnings. We need your help! We desperately need it. We cannot research and organize the history of the Church. We do not have the time to do it. And we do not have the training that you possess. But we do know the Spirit and how essential a part of our history it is. Ours is the duty to organize the Church, to set it in order, to confer the keys of authority, to perform the ordinances, to watch the borders of the kingdom and carry burdens, heavy burdens, for others and for ourselves that you can know little about.

Do you know how inadequate we really are compared to the callings we have received? Can you feel in a measure the weight, the overwhelming weight, of responsibility that is ours? If you look for inadequacy and imperfections, you can find them quite easily. But you may not feel as we feel the enormous weight of responsibility associated with the callings that have come to us. We are not free to do some of the things that scholars think would be so reasonable, for the Lord will not permit us to do them, and it is His church. He presides over it. (emphasis added)

Rollo, selectively quoting from a speech does not show that you understand that speech. It only shows that you have an agenda. There is so much truth in what Elder Packer counsels, and you appear to be missing it in order to "prove" that he asks Church educators to "bury embarassing" information.

And your strawman "near diety" argument is growing tiresome.

Truth hurts, eh?

Yes, it does. You must be in a lot of pain.

[Rollo Tomasi]

can someone tell me why anytime rollo enters a thread suddenly takes on a life of its own. although i find alot of rollos information interesting and very well documented why do you hijack every thread instead of starting your own.

I certainly don't intend to; it just seems like whenever I post anything, a core of certain posters tend to come after me (regardless of what I say). For some odd reason, I seem to attract controversy ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

I repeat: Show us where Elder Packer tells anyone to bury embarassing "facts."

I just did by quoting numerous statements from his talk; if you want more, simply click on the link to the entire text of the talk.

By the way, did you notice what "near diety" Elder Packer said near the end of that talk?

Too bad folks like you never seem to hear that part.

Rollo, selectively quoting from a speech does not show that you understand that speech.  It only shows that you have an agenda.  There is so much truth in what Elder Packer counsels, and you appear to be missing it in order to "prove" that he asks Church educators to "bury embarassing" information.

You asked me for specific statements to back up my conclusions. I did that. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But that's how I read his statements.

[juliann]

Are you agreeing with me that Bro. Packer was wrong to instruct that embarrassing LDS history be effectively buried?

I'm agreeing with the others that you do not know how to give anything that might upset your agenda a fair reading...thus your insistence on adding words that arent' there. And I continue to find it amusing that you are stuck in a different century....do you still wear your 80s clothes, too?

[gtaggart]

I repeat: Show us where Elder Packer tells anyone to bury embarassing "facts."

I just did by quoting numerous statements from his talk; if you want more, simply click on the link to the entire text of the talk.

By the way, did you notice what "near diety" Elder Packer said near the end of that talk?

Too bad folks like you never seem to hear that part.

Rollo, selectively quoting from a speech does not show that you understand that speech.  It only shows that you have an agenda.  There is so much truth in what Elder Packer counsels, and you appear to be missing it in order to "prove" that he asks Church educators to "bury embarassing" information.

You asked me for specific statements to back up my conclusions. I did that. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But that's how I read his statements.

Rollo, you only proved that you don't understand what Packer was saying. You offered no proof that he said "bury embarassing" information.

By the way, I have read the speech, a number of times. If memory serves, I just recently corrected your misquote from that speech--like about 30 minutes ago.

I repeat: Where did Packer say "bury embarassing" information about the Church. The quotes you cut and pasted don't say that, especially when they are quoted in context.

Ooops. There's that troublesome word. Context.

[urroner]

Are you agreeing with me that Bro. Packer was wrong to instruct that embarrassing LDS history be effectively buried?

I'm agreeing with the others that you do not know how to give anything that might upset your agenda a fair reading...thus your insistence on adding words that arent' there. And I continue to find it amusing that you are stuck in a different century....do you still wear your 80s clothes, too?

Hey, being a child of the 60's and 70's and still loving bell bottom pants and totally awesome polyester leisure suits, I'm totally offended. Take that back or I'll start pumping ABBA's "Does Your Mama Know" in over you speakers day and night.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And I continue to find it amusing that you are stuck in a different century....do you still wear your 80s clothes, too?

Yes. Someone told me the 80's look was in style again (of course, I've never really recovered from the 70's). Must have been that Napolean Dynamite movie (I'm a big fan).

[Baeth_Ku]

gtaggart:

The quote comes from the same "handbook" as the 36 rules.  It's her father's quote.  Martha's a woman.  And her book is an anti-Mormon book.  Seemed fitting to me.  Oh, and she is one of the "ladies" he refers to under rule 35.

So, by opening up with that quote, your explication of Martha re: rule 35 seems especially important. Would you go so far as to say that her appeal to modern feminist assumptions is really what she is relying on to persuade her reader?

If so, it is interesting that Mormonism's vision of womanhood continues to be a central issue so long after the cessation of polygamy.

[charity]

Rollo, is every little fact, if it were to result in the loss of testimony of a person not yet strong in the faith, worth it to you? Sons and daughters of God sacrificed on the altar of your ego?

[Daniel Peterson]

Apparently FARMS doesn't think Martha has "outlived her usefulness;" otherwise, they wouldn't continue to publish scathing reviews of her book. 

I suppose, since I'm leaving on a jet plane tomorrow morning, that it won't hurt to monitor this particular thread off and on over the next few hours.

Who is "they," Rollo? I'm the editor of the FARMS Review, and the psychiatrists haven't yet found any traces of multiple personality disorder in me. FARMS is not some mysterious psychological collective.

And how are we "continuing" to publish such reviews? We've never published any before.

First of all, the new issue of the FARMS Review appeared long past its scheduled date. It was delayed because a great deal of editorial staff effort has been going into the revised second edition of Hugh Nibley's extraordinarily complex The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. What this means is that the Jackson and Taggart reviews have been on hand for a very long time. They were written and submitted back when I frankly thought that Martha's book would sell more and create a bigger stir than it actually did. (Had she written a less absurd, implausible, and over-the-top book, it might have done considerably more damage.)

However, although Leaving the Saints seems to have fallen effectively stillborn from the press after an initial flurry of attention, and although it appears that only a fiercely dedicated minority of its Mormon-knowledgeable readers have found it convincing, I'm aware that the book will, quite literally, have a very long shelf-life. Some will read it, even years from now, and, lacking the first-hand acquaintance with Utah and with Mormon life that, for most normal minds, has been more than enough to undermine Martha Beck's credibility, will swallow it hook, line, and sinker. It seemed important to me, therefore, that substantial critiques be entered into the public record for the benefit of potentially innocent and unforewarned future readers.

On the matter of the speech of a junior member of the Twelve from many years ago, I'm not sure that it actually represents an official stance of the Church, and I'm not even sure that those who profess high indignation about it are interpreting it correctly. Be that as it may, however, I would really appreciate it if, instead of airy a priori dogmatizing on the basis of a certain reading of an old talk from Elder Packer, critics would actually point to specific instances where believing Mormon historians like Leonard Arrington, Stanley Kimball, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Dean May, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Milton Backman, Andrew Hedges, S. George Ellsworth, Grant Underwood, Thomas Alexander, and others have actually violated the canons of professional historiography at the behest of Elder Packer and/or the Church. Let's have some empirical evidence. Otherwise, the critics' claims remind me more than a little of those who once insisted, on the alleged authority of Aristotle, that weights of different magnitudes fall at different speeds, but who could never be bothered to carry out the kind of simple empirical test of that proposition that Galileo Galilei -- one of cjcampbell's unproductive drones, by the way -- performed after climbing the bell tower at Pisa.

[Nighthawke]

Apparently FARMS doesn't think Martha has "outlived her usefulness;" otherwise, they wouldn't continue to publish scathing reviews of her book.

Are you thinking perhaps of the two reviews which appeared in a recent Sunstone magazine?

[gtaggart]

On the matter of the speech of a junior member of the Twelve from many years ago, I'm not sure that it actually represents an official stance of the Church, and I'm not even sure that those who profess high indignation about it are interpreting it correctly.  Be that as it may, however, I would really appreciate it if, instead of airy a priori dogmatizing on the basis of a certain reading of an old talk from Elder Packer, critics would actually point to specific instances where believing Mormon historians like Leonard Arrington, Stanley Kimball, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Dean May, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Milton Backman, Andrew Hedges, S. George Ellsworth, Grant Underwood, Thomas Alexander, and others have actually violated the canons of professional historiography at the behest of Elder Packer and/or the Church.  Let's have some empirical evidence.  Otherwise, the critics' claims remind me more than a little of those who once insisted, on the alleged authority of Aristotle, that weights of different magnitudes fall at different speeds, but who could never be bothered to carry out the kind of simple empirical test of that proposition that Galileo Galilei -- one of cjcampbell's unproductive drones, by the way -- performed after climbing the bell tower at Pisa.

Dr. Peterson, you are such a wet blanket.

[Baeth_Ku]

believing Mormon historians like Leonard Arrington, Stanley Kimball, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Dean May, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Milton Backman, Andrew Hedges, S. George Ellsworth, Grant Underwood, Thomas Alexander, and others have actually violated the canons of professional historiography at the behest of Elder Packer and/or the Church.

You don't think the inclusion of Leonard Arrington in the list opens up some other issues? I would say that the history of his position (Church historian) and his tenure in it have some bearing on your representation of the practice of LDS history from a believer's position.

I also notice that you do not include Michael Quinn, who maintained his testimony after his excommunication. If we do not know the details of his excommunication, we also don't have grounds for excluding his historical work from the list of work by believers.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, selectively quoting from a speech does not show that you understand that speech.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, is every little fact, if it were to result in the loss of testimony of a person not yet strong in the faith, worth it to you? Sons and daughters of God sacrificed on the altar of your ego?

Let the individual members decide that. There is no reason to hide truth from us, regardless of the paternalistic feelings the Brethren may have to "protect us" from ourselves. Nothing to do with my ego ... it's just about truth.

[Nighthawke]

I also notice that you do not include Michael Quinn, who maintained his testimony after his excommunication. If we do not know the details of his excommunication, we also don't have grounds for excluding his historical work from the list of work by believers.

So what? He didn't include Terryl L. Givens either, or a bunch of other believing historians.

[gtaggart]

gtaggart:

The quote comes from the same "handbook" as the 36 rules.  It's her father's quote.  Martha's a woman.  And her book is an anti-Mormon book.  Seemed fitting to me.  Oh, and she is one of the "ladies" he refers to under rule 35.

So, by opening up with that quote, your explication of Martha re: rule 35 seems especially important. Would you go so far as to say that her appeal to modern feminist assumptions is really what she is relying on to persuade her reader?

If so, it is interesting that Mormonism's vision of womanhood continues to be a central issue so long after the cessation of polygamy.

Polygamy, patriarchy, sexual abuse, male priesthood holding students telling her what for, second-class citizenship, caricatures of the temple--yes, I'd say that she was appealing to the modern feminist, the feminist who brooks no male authority figures.

[juliann]

You don't think the inclusion of Leonard Arrington in the list opens up some other issues?

Who cares. Deal with your "issues" later. Answer the question.

  point to specific instances where believing Mormon historians like Leonard Arrington, Stanley Kimball, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Dean May, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Milton Backman, Andrew Hedges, S. George Ellsworth, Grant Underwood, Thomas Alexander, and others have actually violated the canons of professional historiography at the behest of Elder Packer and/or the Church.  Let's have some empirical evidence.

[Daniel Peterson]

You don't think the inclusion of Leonard Arrington in the list opens up some other issues? I would say that the history of his position (Church historian) and his tenure in it have some bearing on your representation of the practice of LDS history from a believer's position.

I know the political circumstances surrounding the release of Leonard Arrington extremely well, and his two associate Church historians, James Allen and Davis Bitton, are close personal friends of mine. (Dr. Bitton is teaching at BYU Hawaii at the moment, but my wife and I spent last evening with, among others, the Allens.) The story of the Church historian's office is complex and, while I myself have some concerns about certain aspects of it, does not lend clear support to the critics' case. Besides, among all the theoretical charges that Elder Packer's speech must, as a matter of abstract logical necessity, have led to dishonest or disingenuous Latter-day Saint historiography, I, who am inclined toward empiricism, would simply like to see a few examples of this supposed dishonesty in the work of top-flight professional Mormon historians.

I also notice that you do not include Michael Quinn, who maintained his testimony after his excommunication. If we do not know the details of his excommunication, we also don't have grounds for excluding his historical work from the list of work by believers.

I have serious reservations about Mike Quinn's historical methodology (some of these have been explored in a number of essays in the FARMS Review) and have reason to believe that his excommunication occurred entirely or substantially for reasons unrelated to his historical writing -- reasons that I do not intend to enlarge upon. I did not mention Mike Quinn for a reason, and will maintain silence about him. I am grateful that he appears to maintain his testimony, and wish him well.

[juliann]

I repeat: Read above and my prior posts. It's all there. Your problem is not with "context," but rather, what is "obvious." Good luck in your quest.

Ah, "I already answered it!", the last refuge of the...oh, never mind. Answer the question:

  point to specific instances where believing Mormon historians like Leonard Arrington, Stanley Kimball, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Dean May, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Milton Backman, Andrew Hedges, S. George Ellsworth, Grant Underwood, Thomas Alexander, and others have actually violated the canons of professional historiography at the behest of Elder Packer and/or the Church.  Let's have some empirical evidence.

[Baeth_Ku]

So what? He didn't include Terryl L. Givens either, or a bunch of other believing historians.

True, but I would say that Quinn's work is more germane to the issue here, seeing as he is (was?) a believer, whose work did not conform to the guidelines proposedby Elder Packer. The omission of Quinn's name from a list of believing historians is a pertinent observation in this discussion.

[Nighthawke]

(off topic)

Dr. Peterson, if possible, can you help me with Arabic spelling for just a second please? I started a thread but it's already moving down the list and you might miss it...

Need help...

[Rollo Tomasi]

I suppose, since I'm leaving on a jet plane tomorrow morning, that it won't hurt to monitor this particular thread off and on over the next few hours.

Hello Daniel.

Good to see you back on the bb; I've missed your insight. I hope all is going well for you and yours.

Who is "they," Rollo?  I'm the editor of the FARMS Review, and the psychiatrists haven't yet found any traces of multiple personality disorder in me.  FARMS is not some mysterious psychological collective.

My apologies. I guess I should have used "it" instead. But, if you as the editor of FARMS Review think I should have referred to you instead of "they," then I guess I should have used "he."

And how are we "continuing" to publish such reviews?  We've never published any before.

When I searched Martha's name at the FARMS site, I found other, earlier reviews of her book.

First of all, the new issue of the FARMS Review appeared long past its scheduled date.  It was delayed because a great deal of editorial staff effort has been going into the revised second edition of Hugh Nibley's extraordinarily complex The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment.  What this means is that the Jackson and Taggart reviews have been on hand for a very long time.  They were written and submitted back when I frankly thought that Martha's book would sell more and create a bigger stir than it actually did.

Thank you for this "behind-the-scenes" info.

(Had she written a less absurd, implausible, and over-the-top book, it might have done considerably more damage.)

Impossible. Hugh Nibley could not possibly be "damaged."

It seemed important to me, therefore, that substantial critiques be entered into the public record for the benefit of potentially innocent and unforewarned future readers.

Thanks be to FARMS (or you?) for this sacrifice.

On the matter of the speech of a junior member of the Twelve from many years ago, I'm not sure that it actually represents an official stance of the Church, and I'm not even sure that those who profess high indignation about it are interpreting it correctly.

I doubt anyone knows for sure. An "official stance of the Church" is hard to come by these days.

Be that as it may, however, I would really appreciate it if, instead of airy a priori dogmatizing on the basis of a certain reading of an old talk from Elder Packer, critics would actually point to specific instances where believing Mormon historians like Leonard Arrington, Stanley Kimball, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Dean May, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Milton Backman, Andrew Hedges, S. George Ellsworth, Grant Underwood, Thomas Alexander, and others have actually violated the canons of professional historiography at the behest of Elder Packer and/or the Church.

Too bad Mike Quinn isn't in that group (although a "believing Mormon historian," he believes that it was Packer who had him axed).

Btw, it is good to have you back. Have a safe trip.