The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Cowpie]

In standard anti-Mormon fashion, you are consciously and intentionally misrepresenting President Packer's remarks in order to manufacture an accusation against him which you know to be false; and you are doing so to try to deceive the uninformed into thinking that the Church is opposed to the truth.

If there is "context" that justifies Packer's remarks why don't you trot it out? I highly doubt there is any.

[Baeth_Ku]

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

Wow. I bring up some points politely, and this is the response you offer? Perhaps you should take some pointers from Dr. Peterson.

I didn't realize that I was the one to whom this question was posed. Did I criticize Elder Packer or Mormon historians here? Am I therefore responsible to make the case for those who have?

Decent manners and careful reading go a long way in keeping the discussion civil and useful.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

Details, please? Neither the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies nor the FARMS Review -- and those are our only two periodicals and our only two review venues -- has reviewed Martha Beck's book.

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

Oh, but he could. Her allegations caused him considerable pain, and have pained the family as well.

But if you mean that FARMS will permit no criticism of Hugh Nibley, you're wrong. I myself have published criticism of Hugh Nibley, some of which I myself wrote.

An "official stance of the Church" is hard to come by these days.

Try publicly denying the existence of God, the prophethood of Joseph Smith, the deity of Christ, or the efficacy and necessity of the Atonement, and I think you'll find official stances quite easy to discern.

[charity]

I think the reviews that Rollo was referring to were on FAIR.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Details, please? Neither the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies nor the FARMS Review -- and those are our only two periodicals and our only two review venues -- has reviewed Martha Beck's book.

I thought it was FARMS, but it may have been FAIR. Sorry.

Try publicly denying the existence of God, the prophethood of Joseph Smith, the deity of Christ, or the efficacy and necessity of the Atonement, and I think you'll find official stances quite easy to discern.

How about polygamy, racism, "God was once a man," BofM issues like DNA, fiction, etc., and a myriad of other juicy issues raised on this board? Those are the fun ones to talk about, anyway.

[Daniel Peterson]

(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...

I've just responded over there.

And now I've got to run, although I may perhaps reappear later tonight.

[Mark Beesley]

I guess this is as good a thread as any to throw this in since it seems to have taken a slight turn to talking about historians.

I am currently in the midst of reading two books. The first one is about political history: The Truth - with Jokes by Al Franken. The other one is Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman.

Both books have the following characteristic in common-they both tell the historical truth that some believers of a particular ideology might find uncomfortable. The difference between the two books, however, is more important to note.

Al Franken's book is written about a 21st Century politician (George Bush) and his polical hacks and it is easy to understand the historical and cultural backdrop for what he has written.

Richard Bushman's book on the other hand, is written about a man who lived 200 years ago. The 19th Century cultural traditions are something that we, in the ultra-technological 21st Century view as superstitious and just plain weird. I have been facinated to read about 19th Century folklore that the Prophet Joseph grew up with, and so far none of it has caused me any concern. Peep stones or seer stones, treasure hunting and the like--none of it seemed to be particularly out of place in the early 19th Century, and if God did not work, to a certain extent, within the context of the time period where He is performing His work, He would be hard-pressed to find any prophet who could successfully mediate His word.

Thus, to the extent that someone like Elder Packer might urge some discretion in what historians write about when writing about Church history (though I certainly did not understand him to be telling anyone to "bury" embarassing facts), it is understandable that he is only urging that a healthy dose of context be served up with the raw facts.

But then, maybe this is what Rollo means when he uses the term "bury," i.e., burying the facts in a sea of context rather than simply offering a raw fact without context.

[Baeth_Ku]

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.

Well, I must say I appreciate your honesty. It probably does not lend _clear_ support to the critics. I wish I had your perspective on the events, and if you have any way of guiding me closer to them, I would appreciate it.

I can also appreciate your inclination toward empiricism, but I imagine that such proof will be hard to come by. Would Bushman have written a different Joseph Smith biography if Packer had not spoken on the subject of history thusly? I doubt it.

To me this does not erase the possibility that Packer's talk was designed to have a chilling effect on the writing and publication of history that challenges the LDS perspective in a serious way. I don't think that this amounts to a Church pronouncement on the issue, but I notice that there has been no significant message from a General Authority that would contradict his position substantially [if you can guide me to one, I stand corrected]. I do believe that the overall cultural climate can shape discourse. One need not point to instances of dishonesty. There is also the matter of selectivity. Still, this does not invalidate faithful historiography.

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.

Hmmm. I see. So, the list is composed of believers whose historical methodology you do respect? Well, it doesn't look like I can determine from your answer what your reasons for excluding him actually were, with the possible exception of the methodology issue. Once again, I wish I had your perspective, but lacking the information you have, it is hard to divine your position, other than that you would prefer evidence that Packer's talk has had a negative effect on believing history. I tend to think we won't find _clear_ evidence of this. I really doubt that Elder Packer's talk has such amazing power over the minds of LDS historians.

I think some of the best evidence to the contrary of critics' claims is Todd Compton's work. How many critics would maintain that he pulled a lot of punches? You may not care for his methodology either, but it is a clear case of a believer writing something generally considered controversial without sacrificing his membership in the process.

Cheers!

[Daniel Peterson]

How about polygamy, racism, "God was once a man," BofM issues like DNA, fiction, etc., and a myriad of other juicy issues raised on this board?  Those are the fun ones to talk about, anyway. 

Oh, okay. One more minute. I'll settle those for you.

Polygamy? Yes, Joseph Smith practiced it, and so did Brigham Young. The Church has never denied that they did.

Racism? Yes, various Church leaders from earlier periods failed, in statements public and private, to meet twenty-first-century standards of political correctness.

"God was once a man"? Yes, this has long been believed among the Latter-day Saints. I believe it. We know very little about it other than the sheer statement, however, and, for that and other reasons, it is seldom given a great deal of attention in our sacrament meetings and Sunday school classes.

The Book of Mormon and DNA? Current studies of Amerindian DNA provide no clear support, if any at all, for the Book of Mormon. Of course, they were not intended to examine the Book of Mormon in the first place. Nor do they refute the Book of Mormon.

Fiction? Many novels are worth reading. Many more, however -- and I would include Martha Beck's in this number -- are really not.

There. I hope I've answered all your questions.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Polygamy? Yes, Joseph Smith practiced it, and so did Brigham Young. The Church has never denied that they did.

But it certainly has downplayed it (in a misleading way, imo), as we've recently pointed out with this year's Sunday School booklet Our Heritage and, more recently, with the BY manual. Throw in the Church Almanac, and you've got the makings of a conspiracy.

Racism?  Yes, various Church leaders from earlier periods failed, in statements public and private, to meet twenty-first-century standards of political correctness.

Spin it as "political correctness" or whatever you want, but the fact remains (as you seem to admit) that at least several of the Lord's mouthpieces on Earth (at least well into the 1970's, if not later) were racist. For some reason, Nephi (if 2 Nephi 26:33 is any indication) seems to have overcome that problem some 2,500 years before.

"God was once a man"?  Yes, this has long been believed among the Latter-day Saints.  I believe it.  We know very little about it other than the sheer statement, however, and, for that and other reasons, it is seldom given a great deal of attention in our sacrament meetings and Sunday school classes.

Excuse me, but perhaps you need to pay more attention in class. This very doctrine has been in the final lesson in the Gospel Principles manual used to teach the Sunday School class for new members and investigators for the past 27 years. And the 4th lesson in the BY priesthood/RS manual highlights this very doctrine as "unique" to the LDS Church.

The Book of Mormon and DNA?  Current studies of Amerindian DNA provide no clear support, if any at all, for the Book of Mormon.

Agreed.

Nor do they refute the Book of Mormon.

Agreed. But, as Tom Murphy found out, be careful about how loudly you claim the contrary.

Fiction?  Many novels are worth reading.

But don't let Dallin Oaks know you think the BofM is historical fiction. As you'll recall from his FARMS speech, this is a no-no.

Many more, however -- and I would include Martha Beck's in this number -- are really not.

I disagree. I enjoyed her book.

[Pahoran]

Polygamy?  Yes, Joseph Smith practiced it, and so did Brigham Young.  The Church has never denied that they did.

But it certainly has downplayed it (in a misleading way, imo), as we've recently pointed out with this year's Sunday School booklet Our Heritage and, more recently, with the BY manual. Throw in the Church Almanac, and you've got the makings of a conspiracy.

That's the anti-Mormon position, so of course it's yours.

There is no "conspiracy." They really aren't out to get you.

"God was once a man"?  Yes, this has long been believed among the Latter-day Saints.  I believe it.  We know very little about it other than the sheer statement, however, and, for that and other reasons, it is seldom given a great deal of attention in our sacrament meetings and Sunday school classes.

Excuse me, but perhaps you need to pay more attention in class.

Why? Has he said something to give you the impression he hasn't heard of it?

This very doctrine has been in the final lesson in the Gospel Principles manual used to teach the Sunday School class for new members and investigators for the past 27 years.

But Professor Peterson is one of those who haven't had occasion to attend that class, since he was never an investigator; so it wouldn't matter how much he "paid more attention in class" when he didn't attend that class. And, as we have seen, this teaching only takes up one sentence of lesson 47--which, contra your astoundingly uninformed assertion, may be taught at any time during the year.

And the 4th lesson in the BY priesthood/RS manual highlights this very doctrine as "unique" to the LDS Church.

"Highlights" in a single suggested discussion question. Seven years ago. And you think this qualifies as "a great deal of attention?"

I don't.

But then, unlike you, I've actually used that manual.

Fiction?  Many novels are worth reading.

But don't let Dallin Oaks know you think the BofM is historical fiction. As you'll recall from his FARMS speech, this is a no-no.

So, er--what happened to your "no Church position," Rollo?

Many more, however -- and I would include Martha Beck's in this number -- are really not.

I disagree. I enjoyed her book.

Of course you did.

It's an anti-Mormon book, and you're--well, you know the rest.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nighthawke]

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.

Just an aside here, but if it was an "official stance of the Church" wouldn't other GAs have given similar talks these past 20-30 years?

[Baeth_Ku]

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.

So, it would have less or no appeal to the woman who accepts male authority in a context which also allows equal opportunity for female authority? I think the group that "brooks no male authority" is far out on the fringe of modern feminism. You probably won't find that many women out there, aside from the hardline fringers, to whom such a position would appeal. I would also say that in spite of Ms. Beck's gross authorial misconduct, she did not strike me as the kind of person who fit this description either.

[gtaggart]

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.

What exactly did you think Brother Packer meant by these phrases:

<snip>

I repeat: Where did Packer say "bury embarassing" information about the Church.

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.

Rollo, you're all quote and no context

[Baeth_Ku]

So historians should not report "gossip as fact. 

Fancy that.

While historians should avoid reporting gossip as fact, the engaging of gossip as historical data is a well-worn practice that has a great deal of value. Gossip is indicative of the values of the people who trade in it, and even some who don't. Gossip can also have its own impact on the course of history. I think any historian worth his or her salt would not report gossip as bearing some factual value without any compelling justification for doing so. Each case should be judged on its merits, not according to a simpleminded "rule."

[gtaggart]

So historians should not report "gossip as fact. 

Fancy that.

While historians should avoid reporting gossip as fact, the engaging of gossip as historical data is a well-worn practice that has a great deal of value. Gossip is indicative of the values of the people who trade in it, and even some who don't. Gossip can also have its own impact on the course of history. I think any historian worth his or her salt would not report gossip as bearing some factual value without any compelling justification for doing so. Each case should be judged on its merits, not according to a simpleminded "rule."

I'm not the one arguing that Packer proposed simple minded rules. My point is that it's simple minded to say that Elder Packer's talk encouraged historians to "bury embarrassing" information. Rather, it encourages fairness as historians discuss their subject's foibles, mistakes, and human frailties and care in sharing those facts with the spiritually immature. For some reason, that strikes me as wise counsel.

[gtaggart]

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.

So, it would have less or no appeal to the woman who accepts male authority in a context which also allows equal opportunity for female authority? I think the group that "brooks no male authority" is far out on the fringe of modern feminism. You probably won't find that many women out there, aside from the hardline fringers, to whom such a position would appeal. I would also say that in spite of Ms. Beck's gross authorial misconduct, she did not strike me as the kind of person who fit this description either.

I'm not sure who Martha's audience is. I agree with Dr. Jackson, however: I don't think it is the BYU faculty or informed Mormons.

[Anna]

I'm not the one arguing that Packer proposed simple minded rules. My point is that it's simple minded to say that Elder Packer's talk encouraged historians to "bury embarrassing" information.

I think anyone who made the statement that Packer made in a University setting, has an agenda. Packers statement would have been admonished at any other academic setting as fearful censorship.

Things that are truthful, can never be harmful, particularly in an academic setting. That's what reason via an education allows intellegent minds to determine, if it is useful or not. Making the statements that Packer did showed a great deal of fear.

Rather, it encourages fairness as historians discuss their subject's foibles, mistakes, and human frailties and care in sharing those facts with the spiritually immature. For some reason, that strikes me as wise counsel.

Truth should not be handed out based on ones spiritually maturity. All that does it let someone stand in judment of others "spirituality" and then determine it's ok to withhold truth.

Rather, truth should play a significant role in the direction and strength of ones spirituality without one standing in judgement (censoring) as to which truths are allowed and which are not.

I think Packer felt very comfortable making these statements at the time he did as, I believe, he had comfort in a much more isolated and controlled evironment that existed back then at BYU. But he, nor anyone else could never make such a statement today without a great loss of credibility to an academic institution.

[charity]

Brigham Young University is more than the run of the mill university. It is the Lord's University. There is a higher standard of truth than you find at any other school. Philosphies come and go. The Lord's standard is much higher than that. You may sneer if you wish. The purpose and goal of life is not to accumulate stores of knowledge which will be learned and then replaced by different knowledge.

[Baeth_Ku]

I'm not the one arguing that Packer proposed simple minded rules.  My point is that it's simple minded to say that Elder Packer's talk encouraged historians to "bury embarrassing" information.  Rather, it encourages fairness as historians discuss their subject's foibles, mistakes, and human frailties and care in sharing those facts with the spiritually immature.  For some reason, that strikes me as wise counsel.

Neither am I. I am dubious about your gloss of his statement on the relationship between gossip and history, however. The quote you offered is not very encouraging to me either. I prefer to believe that the ideal of the historian's craft is to pursue the evidence and build arguments that best account for them. I would be loathe to compare it to gossip, unless I were referring to a particularly odious example of the craft. Still, I do not have a copy of Packer's address handy. I do not care to characterize the whole based on the snippets I have been able to find. If someone will direct me to a complete text of the address, I would appreciate it.

It is my feeling that LDS historians who work on Mormonism do have a greater duty to their covenants than their craft when it comes to the specific topic of Mormon history. I am not certain where Quinn falls with regard to the line separating responsible LDS history written by a member. He was a member when he wrote much of his historical material, and the question of whether he stepped over the line can only be settled through acquiring knowledge of things we are not privileged to know. I am somewhat heartened by the fact that very few LDS people I meet have any idea who Quinn or Nibley are. It makes me think that if there are unusual views on one side of the spectrum or the other, they will have a very limited impact in the end.

I would certainly never raise controversies to my fellow members. I see no good purpose in it. I think the best policy is to allow people to walk their own path and discover things in their own time. If they need help dealing with them, I will do my best to help them out. If they need FARMS or FAIR kind of help, I will direct them there. If they don't buy these arguments, there are other perspectives out there which may help them remain in the fold. If they are determined to leave, and there is nothing I can do for them, I will wish them the best and move on.

I hate to think that an LDS person who studies history should have to write history according to the snippets I have of Packer's address. But, there are always sacrifices to make in life according to our priorities. If one prefers LDS history over LDS membership, then I guess there are no limits. It is a choice. There are plenty of other topics to research out there. Personally, I would be inclined to tell it how I see it, and that is why I stay out of such professional pursuits. I don't want to be stressed out over the possible fallout.

[Baeth_Ku]

I'm not sure who Martha's audience is.  I agree with Dr. Jackson, however: I don't think it is the BYU faculty or informed Mormons.

I guess I'm not so sure about the imagined audience here. I think it represents yet another weakness in her work. She never seems to have settled on a clear audience. When it comes to an honest and factual representation of Mormonism today, Beck's work is a catastrophe. On the other hand, there are a number of things she reports, in an admittedly skewed manner, which ring true in spirit in spite of the obvious factual problems involved.

A couple of brief examples, which have been raised in this thread. Pubic ankles. Absurd, yes. But, it does jibe with my experience of people's anxieties and fears on BYU campus. People do reach beyond the mark in some sad but humorous ways.

Forgive the abuser. Obviously the circumstances of these remarks were totally fabricated, but it does not take too much twisting to reconstitute the source of this fabrication in places like Elder Scott's 1992 General Conference address entitled, "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse." Which I quote here: "The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure."

It is a problematic statement, and one which unsurprisingly invites some measure of criticism.

Much of what Martha said about Provo culture is, in my opinion, an unflattering distortion of it. But it is a distortion which still bears a marked resemblance to the negative aspects of it. For this reason, I remain uncertain that this book was targeted at the ignorant. I think it may have been targeted at the disillusioned as well. People who are unhappy with life in Provo, or perhaps Utah in general, are likely to buy into some of Beck's less outrageous claims. Some of these are frankly plausible.

The problem is that her overall credibility is so bad that what might have been a dark comic send up of Provo, was written as something far worse. I think there are some genuine hurt feelings behind the debacle of this book, but I don't trust very much of it as representative of what Martha and those around her did in fact do or say.

[Anna]

Brigham Young University is more than the run of the mill university. It is the Lord's University. There is a higher standard of truth than you find at any other school. Philosphies come and go. The Lord's standard is much higher than that. You may sneer if you wish. The purpose and goal of life is not to accumulate stores of knowledge which will be learned and then replaced by different knowledge.

charity,

Actually, you will have more people supporting Notre Dame as the "Lord's" University than you ever will BYU. But should I assume you went to BYU? If not, where?

Please demonstrate, other than your personal testimony (which seems to be the most compelling aspect of your posts), how you make the claim that BYU has a "higher standard of truth" than any other academic institution.

The purpose and goal of life is not to accumulate stores of knowledge which will be learned and then replaced by different knowledge.

What does this mean?

But what I really don't follow is what your post has to do with the topic here?

[juliann]

Things that are truthful, can never be harmful, particularly in an academic setting. That's what reason via an education allows intellegent minds to determine, if it is useful or not. Making the statements that Packer did showed a great deal of fear.

Since you apparently have determined the existence and nature of TRUTH as you so eloquently pontificate...what do you even need "intellegent minds" in an "academic setting" for? You are the one confusing religion and academics here.

[juliann]

Actually, you will have more people supporting Notre Dame as the "Lord's" University than you ever will BYU. But should I assume you went to BYU? If not, where?

No kidding. What is your data on that? Since Charity never made this a head count...I can only assume this is part of that TRUTH thing you have going.

But what I really don't follow is what your post has to do with the topic here?

Just as much as your off-topic response does.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think anyone who made the statement that Packer made in a University setting, has an agenda.

Of course he did. He presumably had some purpose in what he said, and wasn't just randomly associating words to no end. Everybody who speaks or writes has some sort of agenda; otherwise, unless the person is mad, he or she would remain silent.

The relevant question is what sort of agenda he had. And my question is how critics justify the leap from his speech to their allegations of dishonest Mormon historiography without feeling at least some minimal need to present any supporting evidence for their claims.

Packers statement would have been admonished at any other academic setting  as fearful censorship.

Whom did Elder Packer censor? How, exactly, did he do it? Empirical data, please.

Things that are truthful, can never be harmful, particularly in an academic setting.

Simplistic and untrue. It's child's play to come up with examples of truths that would be harmful:

"You ask whether we are hiding Jews, Herr Oberleutnant? Why, yes we are. They're in the attic, behind the false door!"

"Sally! Sally, can you hear me? Open your eyes! I know that you're gravely ill, and that the medical staff probably haven't told you that your son and his wife and family were just killed in a home invasion robbery. Here are the crime scene photos!"

"Jimmy, put down your blocks and listen. Your Mommy hasn't gone to visit a friend like your Daddy said. She shot herself because a man raped her. She's dead. And really bloody, too. Do you know what 'rape' means, Jimmy? I'm going to explain it to you in completely accurate and truthful detail. Now put down those blocks!"

There's no point in pretending to think about serious historiographical issues if that thinking is going to be framed in bumper sticker slogans.

That's what reason via an education allows intellegent minds to determine, if it is useful or not.

And, so, the problem with Elder Packer saying that some things aren't useful is . . . what, exactly? If reason and education equip intelligent minds to determine whether something is or is not useful, I fail to see how Elder Packer's saying that something isn't useful is particularly frightening. Do reason and education offend you? Are you saying that it is the function of reason and education to equip us to hold opinions on such matters, but that we must never express those opinions? Or that LDS apostles are disallowed from expressing views on matters that are open to others? Please advise.

Making the statements that Packer did showed a great deal of fear.

I admit that I missed the "fear." Do all who express the opinions that it is the function of reason and education to equip them to hold reveal such "fear," or is it only Mormon apostles who manifest this "fear"?

Truth should not be handed out based on ones spiritually maturity.  All that does it let someone stand in judment of others "spirituality" and then determine it's ok to withhold truth.

I'm not sure that Elder Packer was advocating what you attribute to him. But, once again, your assertion is oversimplified. Of course sensitive people adjust what they say -- and not just in religion -- according to the maturity and spirituality that they observe in their conversation partners or classes. Only an insensitive clod (and a very poor teacher or parent) would fail to take such things into account.