AZ Republic Article-Martha Nibley Beck & childhood sexual abuse

[free thinker]

An article concerning the new book " Leaving The Saints" appeared in The Arizona Republic today. To read it go to azcentral.com and do a search for "leaving the saints". I think you will find it interesting!

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

An article concerning the new book " Leaving The Saints" appeared in The Arizona Republic today. To read it go to azcentral.com and do a search for "leaving the saints". I think you will find it interesting!

Free Thinker

In case anyone wants to check out this review, the review address is:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0225Mormon-Memoir-ON.html

I have great reservation or exercise extreme caution when approaching claims of sexual abuse repressed memory. It was very much the "flavour of the month" for quite a while, but has been brought under extreme suspicion by extensive research. This was one area where some elements of feminism were found to be extremely popularist and unscientific.

The easier thing in the world to do as a therapist is to encourage or facilitate a client being convinced they are a victim of some abusive force out there. You can keep a client in therapy for years churning over their victimhood. That does not, however guarantee you have got any closer to the truth or have facilitated a clients healing and moving on.

Only a week ago a psychologist friend briefed me on some new research findings on the extreme suggestability of children, who even when three authority figures confirmed that events they "constructed" were not true, 20% of the children were still insistent their "recollections" were accurate.

The small part of me might feel tempted to Mo-bash because their record in this area is so lacking, but truth is more important to me, than having my biases reinforced.

That the woman was so into twisting herself iinside out at one point to prove her homosexuality could be "cured", also leaves some big questions for me.

Personally, I would be wanting to see the methodology of her therapists. In my state we have Dept of Families staff still blantantly using leading questions, in spite that they have been trained in how to not risk implanting memories, and knowing they are being video recorded.

In short, I regard this a very fraught area, and would tread with extreme caution before leaping to any conclusions.

Daryl

[free thinker]

I appreciate your common sense, and professional advice in this area Daryl! Maintaining integrity, based on a search for truth, is hopefully what we are engaged in. As I read the article I felt somewhat dubious about it. If it is true, then shame on Hugh Nibley. If not, then shame on Miss Beck!!

Free Thinker

[lsands]

I have read all three of her books and her monthly article in Oprah magazine. Reading her has been very empowering and supportive of me as a woman and human being. Her authenticity and honesty shine through her writing. I have obviously not read this book, but I will as soon as I can. With that caveat in mind, I will state here that due to reading her other writing, I am inclined to believe her.

This article in the Arizona Republic is obvioiusly slanted in what it chooses to report, although it is less biased than some. It gives little information on Dr. Beck's distinguished, successful career. And what does her and her husband's homosexuality have to do with whether what she is saying is true? What does it have to do with ANYTHIING?

Come on, people, consider the source!! Who is criticizing Martha Beck? Why would she make up such a thing? What does she have to gain vs. what do those who criticize her have to lose? Do you really think that a major publishing company would open themselves up to a lawsuit without compelling evidence that her story is true?

You can read the siblings' full statement at http://www.hughnibleydefense.com/. I am saddened to read the family's vicious attack on their sister, all the while claiming that they "love her." Look also at Martha's website, http://leavingthesaints.com/.

I know several people who have experienced the tragic effects of sexual abuse in their families. Every one of them has said that the story sounds all too familiar, and that there are many of their own relatives who would have issued similar statements if their family member had been as famous as Hugh Nibley. The "recovered memory syndrome" defense has been used by the perpetrator in their families as well.

We can discuss all of this now, but the REAL discussion will start after we've read the book!

[Born Free]

I have read all three of her books and her monthly article in Oprah magazine. Reading her has been very empowering and supportive of me as a woman and human being. Her authenticity and honesty shine through her writing. I have obviously not read this book, but I will as soon as I can. With that caveat in mind, I will state here that due to reading her other writing, I am inclined to believe her.

This article in the Arizona Republic is obvioiusly slanted in what it chooses to report, although it is less biased than some. It gives little information on Dr. Beck's distinguished, successful career. And what does her and her husband's homosexuality have to do with whether what she is saying is true? What does it have to do with ANYTHIING?

Come on, people, consider the source!! Who is criticizing Martha Beck? Why would she make up such a thing? What does she have to gain vs. what do those who criticize her have to lose? Do you really think that a major publishing company would open themselves up to a lawsuit without compelling evidence that her story is true?

You can read the siblings' full statement at http://www.hughnibleydefense.com/. I am saddened to read the family's vicious attack on their sister, all the while claiming that they "love her." Look also at Martha's website, http://leavingthesaints.com/.

I know several people who have experienced the tragic effects of sexual abuse in their families. Every one of them has said that the story sounds all too familiar, and that there are many of their own relatives who would have issued similar statements if their family member had been as famous as Hugh Nibley. The "recovered memory syndrome" defense has been used by the perpetrator in their families as well.

We can discuss all of this now, but the REAL discussion will start after we've read the book!

lsands,

The Boy from Oz is not familiar with local politics.

I raised the homosexuality issue, not becuase I give a rats about the issue, but that I regard with some concern that she and her ex switched their positions so dramatically. Now, I do appreciate that if the paper is selling to a largely homophobic Mo readership, then just the mere mention of the H-word will be sufficient for most Mos to go "Oh yes, and what truth can I expect from her?", as if us heteros have a monopoly on the truth!! :cool:

The seductiveness of the "abuse issue" is this, and it applies not just to sexual abuse. Lets hypothesise for a moment that my life is a mess for whatever reason (could be mental problems, a run of poor decision etc), and I present to therapy.

What I really need to hear is the truth, and that I need confront past poor decisions and skills deficiencies, and get on with addressing those. What is a path of much lower resistance is to find a "reason" why I am stuck where I am, and to justify myself, whilst in effect hiding behind that.

Now let me shout very loud at this point, the above statement in no way should be construed to read that I deny real abuse occurs, trivialize it when it does, or anything like that. But, I am saying that there is a trap that must be watched for.

Let me use booze as an example to illustrate my point. Let us assume my Dad had a drink problem, and under his varied example and abusive treatment, I have gone into adult years with a serious drink problem myself. Now I can sit around bemoaning my Dad all I like; it is not going to solve my problem.

To fine tune the example better to this situation, my Dad may have disappeared and I have only my mothers distorted descriptions of my fathers behaviour. Based upon that I create memories that "explain" my behaviour. Have I communicated the trap?

Clearly I have no idea of this woman's history. I gather her family have closed ranks big time, but some of the siblings seemed to be close to her, and genuinely sympathetic to her, but could not recall evidence to corroborate her recollections.

So we are left with the question! I guess I am a little cautious, as I have seen two highly successful women writers in the last 5 years in this country, who have told heart-rending "victim stories" as historical fact, that were big sellers, until someone exposed them as complete fabricators of the truth. (One turned out to be a major conwoman, who had grown up in New Yrok as I recall) One claimed to be a victom of ethic atrocities in Boznia, the other, the friend of an Moslem Arab woman killed for her love of a Christian boyfriend.

As culture, we are hard wired to be protective of woman in distress, but have not matured enough to see how we get suckered sometimes on that one BIG time.

Daryl

PS: See if I don't cop some flack over that one!!!! :rolleyes:

[lsands]

Daryl,
Our different perspectives and experiences (you in Australia, me in Utah) are very evident here. The two "conwomen" you mention would certainly cause anyone to be more skeptical of a victim's claims.

I cannot say that there are not women who don't make these stories up; I'm sure there are. And I did not imagine that you were discrediting Martha Beck (or anyone else) for being gay.

However, I think your comments are based on an article that gives a biased account slanted by people with an agenda. I don't know how those other women got away with their cons, but Martha Beck is a very successful woman who has been in the public eye for almost ten years. She has a large body of work that is ample evidence of her intelligence, ability, and honesty. The idea that she is motivated by a need for attention or for monetary gain seems ludicrous, given that she has an ample supply of both.

I am not saying that people never make false claims or accusations, but I do choose to ALWAYS start by believing the victim. In my experience, the vast majority of the time they are telling the truth, and their greatest fear and worst nightmare is that they will not be believed.

Laraine

[Born Free]

Daryl,
Our different perspectives and experiences (you in Australia, me in Utah) are very evident here. The two "conwomen" you mention would certainly cause anyone to be more skeptical of a victim's claims.

I cannot say that there are not women who don't make these stories up; I'm sure there are. And I did not imagine that you were discrediting Martha Beck (or anyone else) for being gay.

However, I think your comments are based on an article that gives a biased account slanted by people with an agenda. I don't know how those other women got away with their cons, but Martha Beck is a very successful woman who has been in the public eye for almost ten years. She has a large body of work that is ample evidence of her intelligence, ability, and honesty. The idea that she is motivated by a need for attention or for monetary gain seems ludicrous, given that she has an ample supply of both.

I am not saying that people never make false claims or accusations, but I do choose to ALWAYS start by believing the victim. In my experience, the vast majority of the time they are telling the truth, and their greatest fear and worst nightmare is that they will not be believed.

Laraine

Laraine,

What I do find intersting here is that Moism has met a serious match for the capacity to get publicity.

Moism is so used to outgunning its opponents, so what makes this very interesting from my perspective, is that they come up against the Oprah machine, which is pretty formidable. Interesting that they have obviously mobilized their troops to try to intimidate Oprah, but I would guess they are pushing wet noodles up hill with a chopstick.

I will be interested to see how it all unfolds, and how some of you find the book when you read it for yourself.

Is it just my thinking, or is there a rising tide of Mo-critical books coming forth?

Daryl

PS: I see gayness as having absolutely nothing to do with integrity whatsoever. My concern there was the switch in position, but I am guessing (from a distance) that they tried to turn themselves inside out to fit as Mormons (as many do), then when they realised that it was not only unsustainable, but possibly even a sure formula for severe mental stress, they came out, and left the toxic Church environment.

[lsands]

Daryl,
This thread seems to have turned into a dialogue between you and me! Your skepticism/cynicism about this book and its author surprises me, particularly since you are a therapist. I hope that the following discussion does not come across as critical, because I have always enjoyed and valued reading what you say and respect you; hence my surprise.

The seductiveness of the "abuse issue" is this, and it applies not just to sexual abuse. Lets hypothesise for a moment that my life is a mess for whatever reason (could be mental problems, a run of poor decision etc), and I present to therapy.

What I really need to hear is the truth, and that I need confront past poor decisions and skills deficiencies, and get on with addressing those. What is a path of much lower resistance is to find a "reason" why I am stuck where I am, and to justify myself, whilst in effect hiding behind that.

Now let me shout very loud at this point, the above statement in no way should be construed to read that I deny real abuse occurs, trivialize it when it does, or anything like that. But, I am saying that there is a trap that must be watched for.

Perhaps my reaction to your post is based on different points of view about therapy and how people heal. You seem to be espousing a behaviorist approach, "Stop whining and change your behavior." Based on my reading and personal experience (I am not a sexual abuse victim, although I endured a great deal of physical and emotional abuse), people need to have their feelings and experiences seen, heard, and validated. Abuse is perpetrated in secret, and the victim nearly always feels responsible for what happened and/or that they deserved it in some way. The victim takes on a lot of shame and guilt. They need someone to hear and witness their pain and tell them that it was NOT THEIR FAULT.

Of course, because their sense of self is so damaged and they carry around so much pain, unhealed victims of abuse often make poor decisions. They also often continue to place themselves in situations where they are revictimized. Children who are sexually abused are more likely to be abused again by a perpetrator who is completely unrelated to the first person who abused them. Many women who were beaten as children continue that pattern and marry one or more men who beat them. Many (most?) young people and adults who abuse alcohol and/or drugs are trying to medicate the pain that they feel and don't know how to deal with.

I believe that the first "truth" that these people need to learn is to repair their wounded sense of self-worth. I believe that we all want to live happy, successful lives. If someone is making self-destructive choices, then they need to recover their sense of self. They need to rage and grieve and FEEL all of the emotions that they may have been denied, and they need someone to help them as they go through this. They need to be accepted completely and compassionately in a nonjudgmental way before they can begin to effectively make different choices. This isn't about looking for excuses or a reason to "justify" oneself or to "hide."

I agree that some people don't seem to get past seeing themselves as victims and don't become empowered and healthy, however, this doesn't mean that they weren't victimized to begin with. It simply means that, for some reason, they are stuck and need to move on.

As you can see, Daryl, I feel strongly about this. I wonder why you are focusing on this "trap" rather than the larger picture. Why are you more inclined to believe Martha Beck's detractors than Martha herself?

Laraine

[dogzilla]

First, this "...I would guess they are pushing wet noodles up hill with a chopstick." just about made me spew coffee all over the monitor. Who else had an image in their head of a bunch of white guys with nametags, futilely trying to maneuver their little chopsticks? ("Oh, my HECK! This noodle just won't go!?")

Hee hee. I think I'll go out for Chinese food for lunch today, in honor of Daryl's post.

Next, I don't think he's overlooking this part at all:
The victim takes on a lot of shame and guilt. They need someone to hear and witness their pain and tell them that it was NOT THEIR FAULT.

I think his post implies that, AFTER that process, people still need to take responsibilty for the choices they make as adults, or as non-victims.

Example: My sister is morbidly obese. Big girl. Zero self-esteem. She continues to blame my father for everything that's wrong in her life (by her own perception), and seems to ignore the fact that my father hasn't made any decisions for her in a couple decades. At some point, even I (who was sexually abused) decided that I was responsible for the choices I make as a grown up and I'm not going to hide behind a dysfunctional childhood to justify poor decisions. They're still my decisions. I can choose to be a victim for life, like my sister, or I can choose to heal and move on.

That said, one of the sources for the guilt and shame is the suspicion turned on victims because repressing memories is a real thing and not just something made up by therapists trying to get rich. I find this a very sticky issue, because if nobody believes you, it's difficult to move past the problem and take the responsibility for choices, as I laid out above. I think this is why we are reacting to your comments about "the trap" because acknowledging the trap denigrates the credibility of those victims who are geuninely trying NOT to trap people into sympathy and support.

[Born Free]

First, this just about made me spew coffee all over the monitor. Who else had an image in their head of a bunch of white guys with nametags, futilely trying to maneuver their little chopsticks? ("Oh, my HECK! This noodle just won't go!?")

Hee hee. I think I'll go out for Chinese food for lunch today, in honor of Daryl's post.

Next, I don't think he's overlooking this part at all:


I think his post implies that, AFTER that process, people still need to take responsibilty for the choices they make as adults, or as non-victims.

Example: My sister is morbidly obese. Big girl. Zero self-esteem. She continues to blame my father for everything that's wrong in her life (by her own perception), and seems to ignore the fact that my father hasn't made any decisions for her in a couple decades. At some point, even I (who was sexually abused) decided that I was responsible for the choices I make as a grown up and I'm not going to hide behind a dysfunctional childhood to justify poor decisions. They're still my decisions. I can choose to be a victim for life, like my sister, or I can choose to heal and move on.

That said, one of the sources for the guilt and shame is the suspicion turned on victims because repressing memories is a real thing and not just something made up by therapists trying to get rich. I find this a very sticky issue, because if nobody believes you, it's difficult to move past the problem and take the responsibility for choices, as I laid out above. I think this is why we are reacting to your comments about "the trap" because acknowledging the trap denigrates the credibility of those victims who are geuninely trying NOT to trap people into sympathy and support.

Larraine and Dogzilla,

Larraine, I was a little surprised to see that you interpreted my response as denial or indifference to the possibility of abuse. I felt I went to great pains to 1. state that I obviously cannot know the truth in this instance, 2. state that I believe that real abuse is frequently denied and suppressed, and 3. that treatment and recovery is very complex.

Dogzilla was onto the point I was making. Let me use this example. I have a good friend whose wife is a therapist of many years experience. She recounted having a new female client in therapy for sexual abuse, who had a long history of minimal gains in therapy. The woman started to recount the reasons for her problem. The therapist interrupted her, and asked "How many times have you recounted your story?" The woman answered that she had done it hundreds of times. The therapist asked why, to which the client replied "Because people ask me about it".

The therapist then said "Do you realise that every time you repeat that description in the way you have, you retraumatize yourself, and do you want to do that?" The therapy took a different direction form that point, which started to produce results in recovery.

There comes a point in therapy (and not before, I STRESS), when a person has to accept that their pain in normal, that suffering is part of the human condition, and while we insist our pain/challenges are special, we maintain our separation from the rest of humanity, fail to forgive, and fail to get beyond being a victim to being a survivor, and then maybe even a facilitator of healing.

Eds recommendation on the threads on sexual abuse of separating discussion about different phases was very valuable, as I don't think the two phases are sustainably intertwined.

Please do not interpret my caution as callousness or indifference, because I take this issue very seriously. I went to the wire in support of a girlfriend of my daughters, and the episode eventually cost me tens of thousands of dollars personally. So, I wonder what I can do to be more clear of my intent with respect of victims, whilst at the same time minimising the chance that another victim is generated.

Waving a cautionary flag is always very fraught, but my integrity demands it. I got wrong accused of something serious once, and was denied natural justice in my defence, so I take extreme care to get both sides of stories these days.

Daryl

[dogzilla]

And, btw, the shrimp lo mein was outstanding. Glad you made the suggestion. :D

[bigeddy]

After reading the initial posts on this thread I checked out the various websites pro and con to see what issues are out there. I am very interested to see this book and will read it at first opportunity.

When I first hear something like this the post-mo part of me rejoices and I want to believe it all so that Hugh baby and FARMS get a come-upance. But, I note the caution in Daryl's posts and I agree that just because it may be what we want to hear, I don't want to advocate the same affective jumping on band wagons that got so many people into the church to begin with. I read Daryl as being cautious and appropriattly critical in thinking about this.

That said, I have to tell you my take on this. As a therapist it is always a huge pain to have to play detective to an extent. I hate that. I hear of abuse issues and I want to be sure what tack to take in dealing with it. There are indeed people who invent abuse, people who play for years on abuse that did happen and even people who use the fact that they were abused to heap abuse on others. What I usually do is a lot of listening and some checking things out to see if a story hangs together. When I see a logical pattern; a pattern of the abuse story, a pattern of the way it is told, a pattern concerning the abuser, a pattern concerning why the story is being told, all these patterns that fit what I have seen and that maintain a consistent picture--I tend to believe it. Then I work with the victim to head in a healthy direction with it.

This story (Martha's story) does hang together for me. I do have a couple of advantages in judging it. I have read most of what Nibley wrote and because I taught in the religion department at BYU where so much about Nibley was still discussed and re-discussed, I know a bit about him. Also, I have had the opportunity to talk to someone who knows Martha very well and has known her very well for years. I was able to ask a lot of questions concerning this whole thing and had some of my curiosity and critical poking about answered. Here's what I found and why it hangs together.
1. I believe that Nibley had a form of Asperger's disorder. The type abuse Martha divulged fits completely with others I have seen who manifest the same disorder.
2. The fact that there is physical evidence that confirms abuse in her life is always a biggy for me. Martha has scarring that usually points toward the exact type abuse she divulged.
3. Familial patterns fit very well the patterns seen in abusive homes and the abuser's patterns fit completely the profiles of abusive fathers.
4. Martha's behavior fits completely with what I would expect if the story were true. What I mean by that is that her motives do not reflect the motives seen when a person is inventing the tale. She is already well established and does not need this to become "famous" and she is not out of touch with reality in any degree. (If anything, this will hurt her, not help her in any way I can imagine.) She has not shown any pattern of a desire to simply hurt the church or her father's reputation out of her anger or bitterness. So this cannot be seen as just another step in accomplishing that motive.
5. Another way her behavior fits is the way the story came out. She has not been "chomping at the bit" to tell this but has been dealing with whether or not, and how, to tell the story for many years. (It is my understanding that she initially wanted to tell the story as a fiction without real names but finally decided to take the hits she knew would come and be open about it. )
6. Her sexual orientation fits the patterns also. Not only does it NOT say to me that she is unstable and inventing but is says to me that she is telling the truth. Her actions fit the pattern of a person abused from an early age. (Male and female homosexuality are very different. The fact that she unknowingly married a man who is gay and then when released from certain constraints, they both "came out of the closet" fits completely).
7. The response of her family fits also. A family so prominent in Moism will deny and rally round the flag when confronted with truth. I watched my own family do exactly the same thing. I expect we will hear much said about her from her siblings. Hell, my own siblings tell the same things about me. Their children are not allowed to talk to me but the kids are free to have a full relationship with their grandfather who molests children (about this, no one disagrees because he admitted it.) The person who wants it known and wants the truth honored is the bad guy.

So, while I agree fully with Daryl that care is an essential in a case like this, lest we run off and support another liar (like Joe and Brig) I do tend to believe Martha because all the patterns fit what I have seen so many times when the story is true. (Again, I have some inside information and have been able to question a person who has known Martha very very well for years.)

Ed

[free thinker]

I want to thank you all for your comments and illucidation on this subject! I find it very refreshing that we can listen to each other without pointing fingers, and blaming etc. I learned a lot from reading your posts!! :cool:

I am going to read this book as I am quite interested in what she has to say. IMHO anything that shines light on the SECRETS of mormonism, (temple rites etc), is good for the whole of us. It takes some power away from mormonism, and gives people a chance to peer inside, before having a couple of clean looking missionaries knock on their door, to teach them the sanitized version of how it all started etc.

Go Oprah!! :D

[lsands]

Dear Daryl,
I asked for clarification because what I was hearing you say was not what I expected, based on your other posts. I can certainly see the point that you were trying to make about a danger. Dogzilla, your comments also helped me understand. Bigeddy, your analysis is thorough and helpful as well. I will be referring it to others.

The issue of Martha's credibility is HUGE here. I have had several discussions already with a family member about this. I told him that I would read the book for myself and form my own opinion. While I lean toward believing Martha is telling the truth, I admitted that it is possible that she is not. And either way, it does not make any real difference in my beliefs or the way I live my life. I would be very disappointed, but my beliefs and my life rest upon my own thoughts and experiences, not anything external.

Thanks, all! :)

Laraine