The Roof Falls In On Martha

[charity]

Anna, you made some pretty glossy statements about truth, and academic institutions and fear of truth. I was responding to those.

The purpose of life is not to attain academic degrees and sit and debate philosophy. And particulalry in knowledge by the word's standard which is changeable. The Lord's truth does not change. So different standards apply for scholars of the Lord's caliber, rather than the bargain basement philsophies of men.

Andyes, my undergraduate degree was at BYU. My graduate degree was not.

[Anna]

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.

Anger aside, could you elaborate on what your point is? Difficult to follow you here.

  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.

No head count here either. I think it comes from living and travelling outside the mormon corridor of the intermountain west. As you know, there is a much greater visibility via TV and name recognition of Notre Dame than BYU. But common sense would tell me, despite the fact that catholics outnumber LDS in this country by about 11 to 1, if the question was to to our general population regarding these two schools, even if all other votes were equal, BYU would lose out on the african american vote. I trust you would concur on that fact.

But I would be most interested to hear why you think BYU would garner more recogniton as being the Lords University. That is, of course, if you are about more than an "insult and run" tactic!

Just as much as your off-topic response does.

Aww shucks charity, I didn't even see you lips move on that one!

[juliann]

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.

Actually, it invites proof-texting with a lot of twisting. Let's see what was really said:

I solemnly testify that when another

[juliann]

Anger aside, could you elaborate on what your point is? Difficult to follow you here.

That is called sarcasm. It is a philosophical problem. Not worth getting into for the purposes here.

No head count here either.  I think it comes from living and travelling outside the mormon corridor of the intermountain west.  As you know, there is a much greater visibility via TV and name recognition of Notre Dame than BYU.  But common sense would tell me, despite the fact that catholics outnumber LDS in this country by about 11 to 1, if the question was to to our general population regarding these two schools, even if all other votes were equal, BYU would lose out on the african american vote.  I trust you would concur on that fact.

You say no head count and then ask for a head count. Charity made a declarative statement. She didn't base it on a vote. If you want to find out who considers Notre Dame the "Lord's university" go for it. It is irrelevant.

But I would be most interested to hear why you think BYU would garner more recogniton as being the Lords University.  That is, of course, if you are about more than an "insult and run" tactic!

Do you want to run the part where anyone but you said BYU would garner anything so I can sit here and insult?

[Beowulf]

Most fascinating thread.

I had to catch up, because I was reading the two reviews. Both hugely entertaining and spot on.

I, too, grew up two miles from BYU, and the town and campus that Martha Beck describes is simply fantasy.

A wonderful fantasy that out-of-towners love (remember the disastrous book written by a New Yorker in honor of a murderer executed in Utah for crimes committed in Provo? -- he killed two young men who were married students at BYU, not that anyone on the East Coast remembered THEM). This is part of the allure of Martha Beck. She tells sophisticated Easterners lurid tales that they want to believe about that exotic land of Utah. Her father nailed the very same attitudes in the 19th century exposes in a format that gtaggart so wittingly utilized.

But I digress.

What I really wanted to comment on is Bro. Packer's admonitions of a quarter-century ago that have certain people here so up in arms.

Specifically, I am thinking of our friend Michael Quinn. Actually, despite his professed belief, he does in fact violate Bro. Packer's admonitions. Why? Because Quinn ever since the early 1980s (since the time of Bro. Packer's talk, come to think of it) has set out to publish shocking information (or what he considers to be shocking information to mainstream Mormons) in every book he has published.

All the facts are true, such as they are (but many are debatable, because of the problem of CONTEXT, but lets pass over that problem in silence for the moment). The real problem is what facts are listed. I am referring to a Quinn chronology that he once drew up, highlighting the major events in Church history as he saw it.

The chronology did not list any enlightening events. It was a long litany of embarrassing events, of gossip (yes, THAT word), and unpleasantnesses. Nowhere is there anything uplifting or pleasant. All the events were real, I admit (any organization lasting 170 years is going to have SOME embarrassing happenings). But were they really the HIGHLIGHTS of Church history? No one would think so, except maybe the Tanners (which is where I saw this chronology, btw).

The chronology does not mention the Revelation of 1978, the Proclamation on the Family of 1995, the beginnings of Family Home Evening in the 1910s, the beginnings of the Church Welfare Program in the 1930s. In fact, it does not mention ANYTHING of importance to the Church in the 20th century.

This is what Bro. Packer was talking about.

Can't you tell the difference Rollo?

Beowulf

[Anna]

You say no head count and then ask for a head count.

Juliann,

Please, "read" before you post and attribute things to others that were never stated:

Where did I ask for a head count?

I said "you will have more people supporting Notre Dame as the "Lord's" University than you ever will BYU".

Then I supported my statement with the following:

"No head count here either. I think it comes from living and travelling outside the mormon corridor of the intermountain west. As you know, there is a much greater visibility via TV and name recognition of Notre Dame than BYU. But common sense would tell me, despite the fact that catholics outnumber LDS in this country by about 11 to 1, if the question was to to our general population regarding these two schools, even if all other votes were equal, BYU would lose out on the african american vote. I trust you would concur on that fact."

Charity made a declarative statement. She didn't base it on a vote.

So what did she base it on? Could she or you provide support?

While I am beginning to conclude that you have taken over as charity's official spokesperson, I believe her statement was driven off an emotion of, perhaps a testimonial. If not, she is more than welcome (with your permission and approval by all means) of supporting her conclusion via reason and common sense as I have.

But what say you? Any flaws in the reason and support of my concluding that Norte Dame would have more people supporting it as the "Lord's" University. It's ok if you want to speak either for yourself and/or for charity too.

Please, finish this one out with me!!!!!

If you want to find out who considers Notre Dame the "Lord's university" go for it. It is irrelevant.

Was it irrelevant when charity brought it up? If so, please tell her as well!

Do you want to run the part where anyone but you said BYU would garner anything so I can sit here and insult?

Don't follow you here. If you would elaborate I promise I will respon and not just run!

[Beowulf]

Anna,

You are plainly miscomprehending our Mormon culture here.

We have a university, run by the LDS church. It is Brigham Young University. Therefore, in a Mormon context, it is The Lord's University.

As a Catholic (which I presume you are) you do not have to accept this. But you do not have to get in a snit over it, either. This is a MORMON forum, after all.

Notre Dame University is a fine school, I'm sure. As is St. Joseph's in Philadelphia, and many other Catholic schools in America too numerous to name. In a Mormon context, however, The Lord's University refers to only one place, BYU.

Beowulf

[charity]

Anna, I can speak for myself. I stated that BYU is the Lord's university, not based on a head count of how many people know where or what BYU is. It is the Lord's university because it was established by the Lord's Church. No emotion there. Pure fact.

I didn't bring up Notre Dame or a comparison between that school and BYU. I mentioned BYU because that is the context of way the topic had taken off. Elder Packer spoke at BYU and made the statement that people were posting about academic freedom, and making statements that there was an atmosphere of fear, etc. I wasn't being emotional. It was other post-ers who were sounding a little hysterical about academic freedom, etc.

[Daniel Peterson]

I said "you will have more people supporting Notre Dame as the "Lord's" University than you ever will BYU".

So what? What has that got to do with anything?

What do numbers signify here?

Charity expressed a belief. A believing Latter-day Saint will believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's is the Lord's Church. And it is a very short leap from understanding that that Church owns BYU to believing that BYU is (very plainly in the sense of sheer ownership, if nothing more) "the Lord's University." That other people, perhaps even a vast majority, might believe otherwise has no obvious relevance.

Your reasoning strikes me, too, as calling for a head count, or, perhaps better, as presuming that one has already been completed -- and that it somehow renders Charity's statement false.

[Anna]

Beowulf,

My husband and I grew up in the church. Both are famililes are BIC type members and very active.

But it was speeches like Boyd's, amongst many many other things that gave us insight to go a different direction with our active participation with the church. We are still on the rolls, but have a much different perspective than most our family.

That's why this forum is so much fun, it brings back all those cultural memories!!

Juliann is but one of them!

But it is way past my bedtime now and my husband thinks I spend way too much time here lately. He is probaly right!

Nite all.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: in the internet age we currently enjoy, it's very difficult to hide any information. To some, this is not a good thing. To others, it is the fulfillment of a dream. To me, it just adds to the need for personal responsibility. Some people just need to find out things for themselves.

PS (welcome back, Dr Peterson. I see Addictio is back after a long absence too).

............................

edited for spelling.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's been fun, but I don't plan to stay. I'm off to Washington DC tomorrow morning, and I intend that to be the end.

Best wishes to all.

Incidentally, if anybody in the area wants to see our new film about the ancient Arabian frankincense trail, Golden Road, it will premiere at the Washington DC Temple visitors center on Wednesday night. (It's the non-LDS-oriented sister production to FARMS's Journey of Faith, which deals with Lehi's trail from Jerusalem to Arabian Bountiful. They're both pretty good, in my opinion.)

[Anna]

Ok, last post for this Peterson guy.

Charity expressed a belief.

No she did not. She made a statement. It was not "prefaced" with "I believe".

She then stated that "BYU has a higher standard of truth" without support.

Do you support that Mr. Peterson? If so why?

Your reasoning strikes me, too, as calling for a head count, or, perhaps better, as presuming that one has already been completed -- and that it somehow renders Charity's statement false.

Without giving a "non-answer", tell us: do you find fault in my reasoning/logic? Do you think in any way our general populus would conclude that BYU would be picked over Notre Dame as the"Lord's" University? Forget about going into some apologetic spin on what the term "Lord's" means for this question.

I do believe charity has a right to her "feelings". My point was that there was nothing more than "feelings" to her statement. Everyone has feelings and the right to declare what university is of the "Lords". I just believe BYU would come out on the short end of the stick if it was put to a vote. I think you would concur.

[juliann]

But it was speeches like Boyd's, amongst many many other things that gave us insight to go a different direction with our active participation with the church. We are still on the rolls, but have a much different perspective than most our family.

That's why this forum is so much fun, it brings back all those cultural memories!!

Anna, you have not been able to offer much on this forum beyond vacuous lectures and sly finger pointing. Life is more than "cultural memories". Martha proved that. Would you like to join in on a discussion about early Christianity? Debate the latest scholarship on an issue relevant to Mormonism? Anything?

[juliann]

I do believe charity has a right to her "feelings". My point was that there was nothing more than "feelings" to her statement. Everyone has feelings and the right to declare what university is of the "Lords". I just believe BYU would come out on the short end of the stick if it was put to a vote. I think you would concur.

Our point is that there is nothing more than "feelings" to your statements. Ever.

[gtaggart]

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.

You can find Elder Packer's talk here http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm.

I don't have the time right now to address your concerns regarding gossip and history. I'm not sure I have an answer. Frankly, I find myself defending Elder Packer's talk not so much because I agree with everything he says--though I agree with much if not most of it--but because I've seen his words distorted to the point that I had trouble believing I was reading the speech in question based on what I'd heard. Thus, when someone like Rollo, who in my view has a track record of getting things wrong, deigns to offer his opinion on Packer's talk, I'm there to correct what I see as gross exaggerations ("burying embarrassing" information, for example).

I'm reminded of a quote by Chauncey Riddle. He says that one thing philosophy teaches you is to be skeptical about "anything any human being says on any subject, anytime, anywhere . . . The person we ought to be least skeptical of is the President of the Church, but I think we should even be skeptical there. Now don't misunderstand me when I say that: When I say skeptical, I mean we shouldn't take what we think he's saying at face value. We should be skeptical of our interpretation of what he's saying."

Most critics of the Church seem **** sure about what Elder Packer said. After reading his speech, I think they would do well to be skeptical of their understanding. Maybe I should as well. But hey, we all start somewhere.

One more thing: Ankles. As I make clear in my review, that someone, somewhere made up the silly rational for the sox's policy is believable. Martha's argument was that it was the offical reason for the policy. Not. And Martha knows it was not the reason for the policy--she admits as much in correspondence with Boyd Peterson, which I footnote in my review.

[Daniel Peterson]

Charity expressed a belief.

No she did not. She made a statement. It was not "prefaced" with "I believe".

A silly, nitpicking distinction without a difference. If a Catholic says "Benedict XVI is God's vicar on earth" or an evangelical says "Jesus loves you," it is absurd to deny that these are expressions of belief merely because the Catholic did not say "I believe that Benedict XVI is God's vicar on earth" and the evangelical failed to say "I believe that Jesus loves you."

She then stated that "BYU has a higher standard of truth" without support.

Do you support that Mr. Peterson?  If so why?

I support that, because, as a matter of faith and doctrine, I believe that BYU is called to a higher standard than any other university is, since it belongs to the Lord's Church and has a divine, prophetically given charter. And the truth or falsity of my belief will not be determined by taking polls.

Without giving a "non-answer", tell us: do you find fault in my reasoning/logic?

Yes. I find in it the most devastating logical flaw imaginable: complete irrelevance.

Do you think in any way our general populus would conclude that BYU would be picked over Notre Dame as the"Lord's" University?

No. Nor do I care. My beliefs aren't based upon head counts or popularity figures. I trust that your beliefs aren't, either.

Everyone has feelings and the right to declare what university is of the "Lords".

Everyone has beliefs and the right to declare those beliefs.

I just believe BYU would come out on the short end of the stick if it was put to a vote.  I think you would concur.

I do, and I can't see why on earth you think it relevant to a statement of faith.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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

You're right. It's probably more like "they're out to keep it from me."

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.

Perhaps he's taught the class, or accompanied a non-member friend to the class, or served as a stake or ward missionary and attended the class. My point is that this doctrine is established and important enough to be included in the manual to teach the fundamental and rudimentary principles and ordinances of the LDS Gospel for the past 27 years.

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

It was one of just 4 or 5 questions at the end of the lesson. It was in the inaugural manual of the "Teachings of Church Presidents" series. It called it "doctrine" that was "unique" to the LDS Church. Sounds like someone thought it was important enough to include in the first manual to teach ALL Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society members.

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

Did you mean to end with "... a sweet teddybear"?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Is that all you have Rollo? Nary a "bury embarrassing" information in the whole lot. In fact, if you look at the snipped quotes that I have bolded, you'll see that Elder Packer gives his stamp of approval to teaching even the "embarrassing stuff." At the very least, that's implied by his word choice.

Every quote and snippet I gave related to one thing: not writing or publishing some fact that was true for one of the many reasons I quoted. The overall theme, imo, was to supress historical items that were true but embarrassing (such as pointing out a past Church leader's foibles, etc.). Anyone can read the entire talk (which I linked) and decide for themselves. But it's clear (at least to me) that Bro. Packer was instructing Church educators and historians NOT to write, publish, or teach items in Church history that were not "faith-promoting" (i.e., embarrassing episodes in Church history and in the lives of past leaders), regardless of context or truth.

Game, set, match.  Better find another talk Rollo.

It is clear from your post that you are among those who would eat his toe jam if President Hinckley told you to ....

[urroner]

Apparently Dr. Peterson, Anna likes sticking her finger into the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. It probably gives her a sense of belonging.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rather, it encourages fairness as historians discuss ... those facts with the spiritually immature. For some reason, that strikes me as wise counsel.

Oh, great. Now, only the "spiritually mature" are entitled to know what really happened in our history. No wonder so many TBM's are ignorant of their own history.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is the Lord's University.

Be careful describing BYU this way -- in his review, gtaggart slammed Martha for doing the same.

[Baeth_Ku]

Actually,  it invites proof-texting with a lot of twisting.    Let's see what was really said . . .

Juliann,

I am well aware of what he did say, and my purpose in providing the quote was not to twist his words. I did not criticise what Elder Scott did say. I simply acknowledged the fact that it was problematic, and the kind of thing that would invite criticism from some quarters. I maintain that the sensitive nature of the subject renders his advice to have a bishop help the abused determine their level of responsibility in the abuse difficult. I am not aware that most bishops have the expertise to judge psychological matters in that way. I understand that the Spirit guides, but in areas where expertise in delicate matters makes all the difference, one does not wade in without the greatest care and preparation.

Some people out there who have been abused did not like what they heard in that talk. I figure it was a mixed bag, with a lot tending toward sound counsel. But I don't deny the possibility that the message might be received poorly by those whose lives have been harmed by abuse. An abused person might hear such things the way Beck represents them. This is my point.

juliann:

Now, I know how popular it is amongst the counter-Mormon group to blame everyone else for their perpetual pain. That is part of the CM religion and why they stay in that frame of mind. Those of us who have had abuse experiences and who do not wish to repeat them often get professional advice and find out that we are not only letting this into our lives but we have enabled it by our own self-destructive behaviors. Now, I know that is distressing to some who like to repeat their mistakes so as to remain a perpetual victim but a lot of us like to climb out of that category.

b:

Could you clarify for me whether you are calling Beck or me a counter-Mormon? What is a counter-Mormon anyway? How is it a religion? Is this something you pulled out of thin air is this a generally recognized category?

The deficit of compassion in your writing as quoted above is astounding. You have apparently fabricated this category of counter-Mormonism, peopled it with those whose separation from Mormonism is not conducted as you would prefer, and then attributed to them a weakness for being unable to overcome some "perpetual pain." Most of this sounds about as credible as Martha Beck's book did. I see great evidence of your fertile imagination at work and little else. Most people who leave Mormonism move on with their lives. There are a few who become preoccupied with the religion they have left, but most simply enjoy the life they lead subsequently without living in a Mormon-defined world. The few may be vocal, but they hardly represent some mass movement which you should trouble to make the continuing target of your bile and hatred.

juliann:

This one is almost funny considering the topic here....

b:

I can't say I am very amused. Sad, yes. Beck is obviously a very troubled person. Her book deserves all the negative criticism in the world. She should bear the responsibility for the wrongs she has committed, where she is deemed capable to be held responsible by parties other than the two of us. I don't find what irresponsible psychology has done to the lives of people like Martha Beck as humorous in the least. It has destroyed lives and families, and probably continues to do so. I am glad that Elder Scott referred to this as a serious problem. I can also respect the fact that there are people out there who question whether he was qualified to make the statements he did make in this address on abuse. He is after all an engineer, not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or sociologist.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Not necessarily "dishonest," but misleading by omitting facts that would tend to "embarrass" the Church, however true. A good response to Packer's speech and its effect is by Mike Quinn in his speech "On Being a Mormon Historian," which can be accessed here:

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mormhist.htm

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

I think it's clear he did it by virtue of his office as an LDS apostle (and he may have been on the BYU Board of Trustees at the time, or perhaps even Church Commissioner of Education, but I'm not sure). Since then, there have been instances where BYU faculty have been "called in" and some dismissed for publishing things about the Church, its doctrines, and its leaders that the Brethren didn't like (Quinn being just one example). I understand from a former BYU (full tenured) professor that the mood today at BYU is one of suppression and fear when it comes to writing and teaching anything that may be perceived as "negative" about the Church. Of course, we now have the "statement against symposia." And let's not forget about the Strengthening Church Members Committee. Fear of truth and knowledge, whatever it may be, shouldn't exist in a university setting, imo, regardless of religious sponsorship.

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!"

I agree. I tell my wife her dinner is great, even when I don't particularly care for it. I thank someone at church for their wonderful talk, even though it bored me. I comment on folks' nice clothes, even though they may not jive with my preferred 80's look. But that's not the kind of thing we are talking about, Dan, and you know it. We are talking about Church history, and intentionally stifling what today's leaders consider "embarrassing" from the past, while accentuating the "faith-promoting" parts (which, if put together with the "embarrassing" stuff," may take on an entirely different look), is intellectually dishonest and misleading, imo. The Church of Jesus Christ has nothing to fear from truth. Paraphrasing J. Reuben Clark's wisdom, if we have truth it cannot be harmed by investigation, and if we have not truth, then it ought to be harmed.

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.

Because in the end, it is he and the other Brethren, not the trained historian, who decide what is "useful" and what is not. And I submit this is dangerous when it comes to history. If he's merely giving his opinion, that's fine -- but he's not. He's warning historians that if they print something that the Brethren disagree with, the Brethren's decision on the matter of historical scholarship wins, hands down.

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.

If Elder Packer was merely expressing his opinion, I don't have a problem. But he clearly was warning LDS historians on how they should pursue their craft, and to do so in a way that displeased the Brethren would have consequences, spiritually and temporally.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The chronology does not mention the Revelation of 1978, the Proclamation on the Family of 1995, the beginnings of Family Home Evening in the 1910s, the beginnings of the Church Welfare Program in the 1930s. In fact, it does not mention ANYTHING of importance to the Church in the 20th century.

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but in his book The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Signature Books 1997), Quinn addresses all these issues:

1978 Declaration ending priesthood ban -- page 870

1995 Proclamation on the Family -- page 895

1915 adoption of Family Home Evening -- page 814

1936 announcement of Welfare program -- page 825

In fact, Quinn's chronology for the Church in the 20th century goes on for 97 pages!