The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Baeth_Ku]

gtaggart:

I don't have the time right now to address your concerns regarding gossip and history.  I'm not sure I have an answer.

First, thanks for the reference. Second, no worries about the gossip and history thing. I am not going to lose any sleep over Elder Packer's talk, since I am not an LDS historian of Mormonism. I enjoy reading what these folks write, and they can judge their own motives and practices well enough. They can worry about what Elder Packer has to say on the subject, or not.

I think that what you have to say about skepticism is interesting and useful. Your decision to exclude the statements of the President from this skepticism must indicate the line of faith for you. Your interpretation of it is on the other side of that line.

I am impressed by the ability of all sides of this FAIR discussion to see what they desire to see in these materials. Each believes him or herself to have the real scoop, while others are merely distorting, have blinders on, etc. I except no one from this observation. I personally believe that Rollo has a plausible interpretation of the spirit of Packer's talk. But, so you do. I don't believe in the perfect interpretation either. This leaves us with the personal choice to believe according to our understanding of the truth, or not.

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.

Yes, I recalled that at the time, and I should have been careful to point out your inclusion of this point in my post. What I was calling into question was the idea that the imagined audience of the book was essentially the ignorant. Ignorant of some things maybe, but plenty of my friends who lived in Provo and attended BYU found a twisted version of things with which they were familiar from their personal experience. Although they did not care for the book over all, they did find black humor in moments like those. I am not here to defend Beck's credibility in any way.

[charity]

Okay, Rollo, so what do we learn from your latest post?

1. You tell us to listen to an excommunicated member in preference to an apostle of the Lord.

2. You can make unsubstantiated claims about faculty dismissed, etc. Names, dates, etc. please if you want to make such charges. And Quinn is singlular, even if we accept that. Faculty is plural. And the name of the person who said there is suppression and fear or else you can't make the claim.

3. You lie to your wife and to people at church.

4. You don't believe that apostles are guided by the Lord, and that you know better.

5. You have a problem with authority.

6. You don't believe that actions people take can affect them spiritually.

[Rollo Tomasi]

1. You tell us to listen to an excommunicated member in preference to an apostle of the Lord.

I'd rather emphasize that he's a historian doing what he's been trained to do.

2.  You can make unsubstantiated claims about faculty dismissed, etc.  Names, dates, etc. please if you want to make such charges.  And Quinn is singlular, even if we accept that.  Faculty is plural.  And the name of the person who said there is suppression and fear or else you can't make the claim.

A few that I recall at the moment, in addition to Quinn: Knowlton, Farr, and Evenson (sp?).

3. You lie to your wife and to people at church.

True, but only "little" ones.

4. You don't believe that apostles are guided by the Lord, and that you know better.

Untrue. I just don't put them on a pedestal like you do.

5. You have a problem with authority.

True.

6. You don't believe that actions people take can affect them spiritually.

Untrue.

[gtaggart]

gtaggart:

I don't have the time right now to address your concerns regarding gossip and history.  I'm not sure I have an answer.

First, thanks for the reference. Second, no worries about the gossip and history thing. I am not going to lose any sleep over Elder Packer's talk, since I am not an LDS historian of Mormonism. I enjoy reading what these folks write, and they can judge their own motives and practices well enough. They can worry about what Elder Packer has to say on the subject, or not.

I think that what you have to say about skepticism is interesting and useful. Your decision to exclude the statements of the President from this skepticism must indicate the line of faith for you. Your interpretation of it is on the other side of that line.

Maybe I should continue the Riddle quote, because I don

[Kevin Christensen]

Hey Rollo, three questions:

Did Joseph Smith send for the Nauvoo legion from Cartthage jail? Tell us the historical facts of the matter based on what the primary sources say.

Do you believe there is such a thing as spiritual masochism? That is, where as an act of pride, somone determines to publically demonstrate their capacity to face unpleasant truths without flinching. The unspoken foundation of this pose is that there must be unpleasant truths to publically face, the more unpleasant the truth, the greater the intellectual integrity demonstrated by publically facing it. Apologetic perspectives which diminish both the private suffering and public pose, and are therefore, inherently suspect and counter-productive. One becomes a mere 'apologist" rather than an unflinching champion of truth. There is a natural, unconcious tendency among spiritual masochists to inflate problems by controlling sources and perspectives as a way of enhancing the intensity of their public performances. There is a distinction between spiritual masochism, which may be public but directed at one's self, to project an image, and spiritual sadism, that delights in inflicting pain on someone else.

Do you see the relationship of the second question to the first?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[gtaggart]

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.

Yes, I recalled that at the time, and I should have been careful to point out your inclusion of this point in my post. What I was calling into question was the idea that the imagined audience of the book was essentially the ignorant. Ignorant of some things maybe, but plenty of my friends who lived in Provo and attended BYU found a twisted version of things with which they were familiar from their personal experience. Although they did not care for the book over all, they did find black humor in moments like those. I am not here to defend Beck's credibility in any way.

As I also make clear in my review, there's a bit of truth, er, rumor to much of what Martha says in her book. What does not ring true is that all of it is fact, and it all happened to her.

[Mark Beesley]

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

QUOTE 

5. You have a problem with authority.

True.

Is this a problem with all authority, or just religious authority? Would you have a problem with a police officer exercising his/her authority telling you to drop your weapon? Or would you obey because the cop has a bigger gun? Would you be more inclined to submit to religious authority if the ecclesiastical leader had a gun to your head? Or is it just that case that you will only submit to authority if you are compelled to do so?

Well, news flash bro! No one is going to compel you to follow the prophet. No one is going to force you to heaven. So you just keep on asserting your right to be a free-thinker and think yourself right into the bondage that Lucifer has prepared for his minions.

[awyatt]

Rollo said:

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).

Nice sidestep of the question. You were asked who did Elder Packer censor and you responded with how you it was clear he did it by virtue of his office. In other words, you provided a "how" when asked for a "who."

Was this intentional on your part? Do you not have the asked-for information?

Rollo said: 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).

Again, assertions without specifics. How do you know there have been such instances? And, more importantly, how do you know that those instances were because of their publishing things that Elder Packer was specifically addressing? While it is true that Quinn was excommunicated, his case has already been addressed here--by someone better suited to know the details of the case than you are. Why, exactly, should we accept your belief over his? Are you saying that you are privy to information on this matter that Dr. Peterson is not? Or, perchance, you are asserting that Dr. Peterson is not telling the truth in this matter?

Rollo said: 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.

I'm curious about your professor friend. How long has he been a "former" BYU professor? If it has been any length of time that he has been away from BYU, why do you give weight to his statement concerning the "mood" at a BYU of which he is no longer part?

Also, who, exactly, is the person (or committee) who decides what is "negative?" It certainly isn't Elder Packer, from his 24-year-old talk, as he speaks in generalities and doesn't provide specifics as to what is "negative" in all instances. Does your friend know of any existing standard by which writing and/or teaching is to be judged? (Perhaps it is this unseen and unrevealed standard that undergirds the mood of fear he references.)

Rollo said: Of course, we now have the "statement against symposia." And let's not forget about the Strengthening Church Members Committee.

And let's not forget that many BYU professors have participated in those symposia since that statement, without affect upon their position. Or that the hoo-hah over the Strengthening the Members Committee was blown out of proportion and led Eugene England, once he learned more details, to apologize for his reaction to it. How, exactly, would you suggest that the Church accomplish what the Lord commands in D&C 123, Rollo? Or do you think that such command should be ignored?

Rollo said: Fear of truth and knowledge, whatever it may be, shouldn't exist in a university setting, imo, regardless of religious sponsorship.

I tend to agree, but you have not provided any concrete examples or first-hand knowledge that such fear has a pervasive existence at BYU. Thus, while your opinion is appreciated, it doesn't seem to be applicable to the current discussion.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

Do you believe there is such a thing as spiritual masochism? That is, where as an act of pride, somone determines to publically demonstrate their capacity to face unpleasant truths without flinching. The unspoken foundation of this pose is that there must be unpleasant truths to publically face, the more unpleasant the truth, the greater the intellectual integrity demonstrated by publically facing it.

I have never equated standing up for or to truth as masochism in any form.

[Mark Beesley]

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I have never equated standing up for or to truth as masochism in any form.

And you do it well, standing up to truth, i.e. in contravention of it!

[Rollo Tomasi]

Is this a problem with all authority, or just religious authority?

No. Just authority (of any type) that I think is wrong or is trying to have me do wrong or is not being honest with me.

Would you have a problem with a police officer exercising his/her authority telling you to drop your weapon?  Or would you obey because the cop has a bigger gun?

If I had a gun, it probably wouldn't make any difference if his is bigger than mine. All I would need to take care of things is a .22 caliber.

Would you be more inclined to submit to religious authority if the ecclesiastical leader had a gun to your head?

Probably less inclined.

Or is it just that case that you will only submit to authority if you are compelled to do so?

I would only submit if I felt it was right. If not, then I could not be compelled to do anything.

No one is going to compel you to follow the prophet.

Agreed.

No one is going to force you to heaven.

My sweet wife is going to try.

So you just keep on asserting your right to be a free-thinker and think yourself right into the bondage that Lucifer has prepared for his minions.

Oh, great. "The glory of God is intelligence" mantra has led me to Outer Darkness. Looks like Lucifer's pre-mortal plan won out in the end, anyway (all the "enslaved thinkers" got back to God, just as Lucifer promised).

[Mark Beesley]

Rollo wrote:

Oh, great. "The glory of God is intelligence" mantra has led me to Outer Darkness.

Read the entire scripture Rollo:

36  The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

37  Light and truth forsake that evil one.

Intelligence is not raw knowledge. It is not the accumulation of facts. It is the comprehesion of truth through the light of the Spririt.

Raw facts, raw knowlege lead one to make silly statements like, "No. Just authority (of any type) that I think is wrong or is trying to have me do wrong or is not being honest with me." (Emphasis added.)

[Rollo Tomasi]

You were asked who did Elder Packer censor and you responded with how you it was clear he did it by virtue of his office. In other words, you provided a "how" when asked for a "who."

Do you think that Elder Packer's office didn't add any "meat" to his counsel? Do you think the audience would have taken it differently if a mere "Rollo Tomasi" had said the same things? Would this talk even be discussed as much as it is now (some 24 years later) if a non-apostle had said these same things to historians and educators? As for "who," the best example is Quinn's later punishment. The problem is, the Strengthening Church Members Committee does not divulge which apostles told them to look at certain persons. Wish they did, though.

Again, assertions without specifics. How do you know there have been such instances? And, more importantly, how do you know that those instances were because of their publishing things that Elder Packer was specifically addressing?

Speaking with BYU faculty of their experiences; also press reports; Quinn, of course. But, I must admit, it is gratifying to see you question whether Packer's talk had any impact. Folks like you give me hope.

While it is true that Quinn was excommunicated, his case has already been addressed here--by someone better suited to know the details of the case than you are. Why, exactly, should we accept your belief over his? Are you saying that you are privy to information on this matter that Dr. Peterson is not? Or, perchance, you are asserting that Dr. Peterson is not telling the truth in this matter?

I can only base my conclusions and opinions on what Quinn has written and said. Dr. Peterson has offered some very vague and cryptic statements that the circumstances were different, but has declined to offer any details. Thus, I have nothing on which to judge what Dan is saying, because he hasn't really said anything.

I'm curious about your professor friend. How long has he been a "former" BYU professor? If it has been any length of time that he has been away from BYU, why do you give weight to his statement concerning the "mood" at a BYU of which he is no longer part?

It has been a recent departure.

Also, who, exactly, is the person (or committee) who decides what is "negative?"

Could be anyone really -- an anonymous note from a student or fellow teacher, an adminstrator, even a G.A. What is "negative" is a very subjective standard, which is part of the problem.

It certainly isn't Elder Packer, from his 24-year-old talk, as he speaks in generalities and doesn't provide specifics as to what is "negative" in all instances.

I think Elder Packer is pretty clear: anything deemed not "faith-promoting" is a negative, and unacceptable, piece of scholarship or teaching by LDS historians or educators.

Does your friend know of any existing standard by which writing and/or teaching is to be judged? (Perhaps it is this unseen and unrevealed standard that undergirds the mood of fear he references.)

Yes, he does.

And let's not forget that many BYU professors have participated in those symposia since that statement, without affect upon their position.

Ah, but let's not forget that it really only relates to those who give "negative" presentations about the Church. Show me one of those, Allen.

Or that the hoo-hah over the Strengthening the Members Committee was blown out of proportion and led Eugene England, once he learned more details, to apologize for his reaction to it.

And what, pray tell, do you think Eugene England learned about it? Don't screw with the apostles (at least publicly), is what he learned. He was forced to eat crow, and is a prime example of what the Church does to out-of-line BYU educators.

How, exactly, would you suggest that the Church accomplish what the Lord commands in D&C 123, Rollo? Or do you think that such command should be ignored?

That "command" related to the saints' Missouri persecutions in 1839, both in property damage and personal injuries, to seek legal recourse for said injuries. I see a big difference in that and trying to suppress the scholarship and writings of LDS members simply addressing issues that the Brethren view as "negative" or not "faith-promoting." That you (and the Church) rely on the Missouri persecutions as the basis to create a secret committee charged with collecting public writings of Church members (and I doubt their services include clippings from the Ensign) to funnel to their local leaders, is, frankly, very scary.

I tend to agree, but you have not provided any concrete examples or first-hand knowledge that such fear has a pervasive existence at BYU. Thus, while your opinion is appreciated, it doesn't seem to be applicable to the current discussion.

Sure I have; see my posts above. Do you deny that BYU faculty don't fear Church- or BYU-discipline if they publish scholarship or teach something that could be viewed as "negative" toward the Church or its leaders?

[Baeth_Ku]

he was saying that with regard to that one source

[Rollo Tomasi]

Raw facts, raw knowlege lead one to make silly statements like, "No. Just authority (of any type) that I think is wrong or is trying to have me do wrong or is not being honest with me." (Emphasis added.)

In the end all we have to go on is our gut feelings (call it inspiration, Holy Ghost, or whatever you want). Simply doing because we are told to, albeit helpful to those in charge and trying to keep control of us, just doesn't cut it in my book.

[Baeth_Ku]

And what, pray tell, do you think Eugene England learned about it?  Don't screw with the apostles (at least publicly), is what he learned.  He was forced to eat crow, and is a prime example of what the Church does to out-of-line BYU educators.

Curious. To what are you referring? I had heard that England voluntarily left BYU when Bateman, then president of BYU, refused to honor the informal agreement on academic freedom that had been formed and observed under Rex Lee. Do you have substantially different information? I can't say my information is exactly "firsthand", but it seemed plausible to me.

[Hacedor Costoso]

Pahoran said:

So Hacedor, since you think the Church of Jesus Christ is "irrelevant," why do you waste your time trying to trash it?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't think that your small Utah based church is irrelevant. It has a lot of relevance in my life due to my extended family and their beliefs.

However, I can say with great confidence, that at least 95% of the inhabitants of this planet view your church as irrelevant - assuming that they even give it a first thought or a second thought. I say that not to be mean or snotty. That's just the way it is. Surely, as a person not living in the "promised land" of Zion, you must understand that.

And exactly where and when did I trash the "Church of Jesus Christ"? And - if I was trashing it - why would that constitute a waste of my time? How do you know what the best use of my time is?

Hacedor

[Rollo Tomasi]

Curious. To what are you referring? I had heard that England voluntarily left BYU when Bateman, then president of BYU, refused to honor the informal agreement on academic freedom that had been formed and observed under Rex Lee. Do you have substantially different information? I can't say my information is exactly "firsthand", but it seemed plausible to me.

Eugene England's public apology for lashing out at the Strengthening Church Members Committee was in 1993 -- he didn't leave BYU for UVSC until some years later.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

[Baeth_Ku]

Eugene England's public apology for lashing out at the Strengthening Church Members Committee was in 1993 -- he didn't leave BYU for UVSC until some years later.

Ahh. I was not aware of that one.

[Pahoran]

It is the Lord's University.

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

Really?

Here is the one and only paragraph from Greg's review that contains that phrase, quoted in its entirety:

At

[Pahoran]

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

QUOTE

[Baeth_Ku]

The reality, of course, is that he has chosen a set of authorities to follow, and he deviates not one iota from the line they lay down.  He only has a problem with those authorities who disagree with the ones who do his thinking for him.

Do you really believe that? Seems like an exaggeration to me.

So often the issue of authority comes up here. Authority is a bedrock claim of the Restored Gospel. If you accept the authority of the modern prophets, you find their counsel more amenable. If you do not, you see that claim to authority as arbitrary and unfounded. Since Michael Quinn does not claim to be an authority of the type that the First Presidency and the Brethren represent, I sincerely doubt that the parity you suggest exists in Rollo's mind.

Rollo has not covenanted to follow Michael Quinn in the same way many of us have covenanted to follow the Brethren.

The conflict here seems to me to be an extension of the longstanding tension between Mormonism and American society. The Kingdom of God is not a democratic institution, and it sits somewhat uncomfortably within a context that aspires to democratic ideals. The incorporation of Mormon society within American society decreased the tension somewhat, but it did not abolish it altogether. In the past Brigham Young had broad-reaching power to do things a President of the LDS Church simply could not do today. For those who trusted Brigham, this was not a problem. For those who believed strictly in democratic principles, or who did not trust Brigham, I imagine it posed a greater problem.

The non-democratic nature of Church government has shallower implications because we are under the law of the US of A. But it remains clear that democracy is not the highest ideal in Mormonism, at least it remains clear to me, but rather divine or divinely-appointed monarchy. Those who reject this ideal fear those who maintain it. The deep trust in democratic principles may be its own kind of religious faith, Americanism perhaps, but it is the dominant secular faith of our land. That people would turn from Mormonism to embrace it is not so surprising.

[gtaggart]

It is the Lord's University.

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

Really?

Here is the one and only paragraph from Greg's review that contains that phrase, quoted in its entirety:

At

[Scott Lloyd]

It is the Lord's University.

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

Really?

Here is the one and only paragraph from Greg's review that contains that phrase, quoted in its entirety:

At “the Lord’s University,” it’s more of the same: “official Mormon perspective” (p. 77), “church’s code of conduct” (p. 77), “religious loonies” (p. 81). Martha looks at the campus and marvels how clean the buildings were. “Probably because they had just been washed—an administrator once told me that the windows and floors were cleaned up to six times a day” (p. 78, bolded emphasis supplied). Note just how well Martha caught the spirit and letter of rule 17. First, there’s the requisite study in probabilities. Next, we have an unnamed administrator furnishing the story. Finally, . . . well is there a finer set of weasel words than “up to” ? The reader is left wondering whether Mormonism holds a particular attraction for obsessive-compulsive janitors. As Nibley warned, under rule 17, every sentence is speculative, every word is an escape hatch.

So Rollo, when you accused Greg of having "slammed" Beck for describing BYU as the Lord's University, you were making it up, weren't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

Perhaps Rollo failed to grasp this because he, himself, seems to be unclear on the proper use of quotation marks, a fact in evidence on those frequent occasions when he puts them around words that are not quotations of anyone or anything in particular -- except, perhaps, a quotation of himself from a straw man of his own contriving.