Matha Beck's book

[Jeff_Ricks]

I’ve been reading Martha Beck’s book, am about halfway through it and have a hard time putting it down! I think the Sunstone review of her book does it a great disservice. I think it’s a superb book! One of our members is writing a critique of the Sunstone review as well as her own review of Beck’s book that will be published in our online Magazine as soon as she’s finished. I’ve read a rough draft of the critique and think you’ll like it.

Regarding Beck’s book, while I’m not aware of any sexual abuse in my family I can relate to some of her experiences because I grew up in a somewhat dysfunctional Mormon family. While my childhood memories are mostly good ones we lived in a kind of fishbowl because we had, in a small way, a celebrity status growing up as Ricks’ in Rexburg. I can also relate to the book because Nibley was someone I once admired when I was a Mormon, so reading some of the inside scoop of his life has been intriguing. But ironically, it was one of Nibley’s books, Temple and Cosmos, that was the last straw for me. Once I got through that book, reading from a more objective point of view having first started doubting two years earlier, I realized that his book was not much more than a load of hot air and bullshit. Then this morning as I read in Martha’s book that she learned from some of Nibley’s onetime footnotes checkers hired by his publisher that 90% of his footnotes are partial to total fabrications. After reading Temple and Cosmos it didn’t surprise me at all to learn that. In fact, I chuckled out loud to myself as I read it. The guy could have been so much more but because of the pressure of the Church he became instead a skilled and gifted liar, following somewhat in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. It’s a sad story of wasted potential, and a sad story of the kind of abuse that goes on every day in Mormonism, often kept hidden to protect the Church and it's priesthood holders. But it's also an inspiring account of rising above it all. I highly recommend the book. Some might doubt Martha’s account but I find it to be credible and very well written.

Jeff

[silverfox]

In fact, I chuckled out loud to myself as I read it. The guy could have been so much more but because of the pressure of the Church he became instead a skilled and gifted liar, following somewhat in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. It’s a sad story of wasted potential, and a sad story of the kind of abuse that goes on every day in Mormonism, often kept hidden to protect the Church and it's priesthood holders. But it's also an inspiring account of riding above it all. I highly recommend the book. Some might doubt Martha’s account but I find it to be credible and very well written.

Jeff

I have not read this book. I've read a lot of comments, negative and positive about it.

I've found the negative comments centered more toward her lifestyle than anything. It appears the focus is being shifted from valuable info in the book to her lifestyle choices.

Many seem to choose to focus primarily on her being gay, divorced, etc, etc rather than the info she is offering in her book.

For those who have read the book, do you feel this is true? Are those who are critical uncomfortable with her honesty and openness?

I also think some may feel she is writing the book solely to discredit or hurt the church but my understanding is the book is geared more toward offering support for those who have been abused, sexually or otherwise. Does this appear true?

[peter_mary]

I have not read this book. I've read a lot of comments, negative and positive about it.

I've found the negative comments centered more toward her lifestyle than anything. It appears the focus is being shifted from valuable info in the book to her lifestyle choices.

Many seem to choose to focus primarily on her being gay, divorced, etc, etc rather than the info she is offering in her book.

For those who have read the book, do you feel this is true? Are those who are critical uncomfortable with her honesty and openness?

I also think some may feel she is writing the book solely to discredit or hurt the church but my understanding is the book is geared more toward offering support for those who have been abused, sexually or otherwise. Does this appear true?

I've not read the book, but Silverfox's assessment of the personal attacks on the author are reminiscent of the favorite tactic of appologists, including Nibley himself: namely, if you can't debunk the material, at least discredit the author. The hope is that by discrediting the author, the reader won't bother giving his/her story any further consideration and the matter will just drop.

If you've ever read Nibley's "No Ma'am, That's Not My History," you'll know exactly of what I speak. It was the single most patronizing, marginalizing and minimalizing book I've ever read, and his sole purpose was to paint Fawn Brodie as a clueless twit...which is of course lunacy. But Mormons love to point to that book and say, "See? Nibley dealt with Brodie, and proved it's all nonsense." And they can say that with a great deal of satisfaction because they didn't bother to read HER book!

I would expect the same kind of nonsense in this case. "We don't like what she's saying, so we don't like HER!"

Gag...No! Wait! I mean :Puking

Peter_Mary

[miss taken]

I’ve been reading Martha Beck’s book, am about halfway through it and have a hard time putting it down! I think the Sunstone review of her book does it a great disservice. I think it’s a superb book! One of our members is writing a critique of the Sunstone review as well as her own review of Beck’s book that will be published in our online Magazine as soon as she’s finished. I’ve read a rough draft of the critique and think you’ll like it.

Regarding Beck’s book, while I’m not aware of any sexual abuse in my family I can relate to some of her experiences because I grew up in a somewhat dysfunctional Mormon family. While my childhood memories are mostly good ones we lived in a kind of fishbowl because we had, in a small way, a celebrity status growing up as Ricks’ in Rexburg. I could also relate to the book because Nibley was someone I once admired when I was a Mormon, so reading some of the inside scoop of his life has been intriguing. But ironically, it was one of Nibley’s books, Temple and Cosmos, that was the last straw for me. Once I got through that book, reading from a more objective point of view having first started doubting two years earlier, I realized that his book was not much more than a load of hot air and bullshit. Then this morning as I read in Martha’s book that she learned from some of Nibley’s onetime footnotes checkers hired by his publisher that 90% of his footnotes are partial to total fabrications. After reading Temple and Cosmos it didn’t surprise me at all to learn that. In fact, I chuckled out loud to myself as I read it. The guy could have been so much more but because of the pressure of the Church he became instead a skilled and gifted liar, following somewhat in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. It’s a sad story of wasted potential, and a sad story of the kind of abuse that goes on every day in Mormonism, often kept hidden to protect the Church and it's priesthood holders. But it's also an inspiring account of riding above it all. I highly recommend the book. Some might doubt Martha’s account but I find it to be credible and very well written.

Jeff

Jeff, I have never read 'Temple and cosmos'. Can you say in a nutshell, what it was about???
Mary

[nate]

I've not read the book, but Silverfox's assessment of the personal attacks on the author are reminiscent of the favorite tactic of appologists, including Nibley himself: namely, if you can't debunk the material, at least discredit the author. The hope is that by discrediting the author, the reader won't bother giving his/her story any further consideration and the matter will just drop.


This is all too common, and not just with religious apologists, but political as well. I was sickened to see the extent to which this was used in the last election, on both sides of the isle. It was disgusting.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff, I have never read 'Temple and cosmos'. Can you say in a nutshell, what it was about???
Mary


The content of Nibley's book isn't actually all that significant relative to being a reason to leave the Church. Other books dealing with other subjects are much more damning to the Church. I once considered Nibley an amazing scholar too complex to fully understand. But from the more objective view I was learning to trust, I came to realize that Temple and Cosmos was mostly arm waving and smoke blowing and for that reason it was a significant turning point in my exit from the Church. But to answer your question, Temple and Cosmos is an apologetic work that attempts to show that Joseph Smith and Brigham didn’t just make up the temple ceremony and the design of the temples. In his several hundred pages of text, pictures and footnotes he tries to make the reader think that he’s showing how the “restored temple” ceremony and building designs are directly derived from Solomon’s Temple of the ancient Hebrews. But after I blew away all the smoke and saw past the mirrors he uses I found that there is not one solid connection back to Solomon’s Temple, but many links to various pagan and occult religious traditions. I came to that conclusion without checking any of his footnotes. It wasn’t until this morning that I learned that perhaps 90% of his footnotes he uses in his apologetic works are fabrications or information removed from context. Everyone thinks that his thinking is so advanced that it’s useless to try to understand him and he has apparently taken every advantage of the fact.

I hope that answers your question.

Jeff

[lsands]

I'm the one Jeff referred to who is writing a review; unfortunately I've gotten a little sidetracked by a vacation and starting a new job. I plan to have it finished by this weekend.

The title of the book is: Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith. The title is, in my opinion, an accurate description of the main message. The book is not primarily about sexual abuse, Hugh Nibley, nor about the LDS church, although it is easy to see why Mormons react to those things. It is about Martha's spiritual path, which led her out of Mormonism. This is the part of the book that I could especially relate to, and that has deep meaning for me. There is SO much in there that exmo's will identify with. And Martha's writing style is easy to read and very witty; a friend of mine likened her to Mark Twain.

Full review coming soon!

Laraine

[free thinker]

I loved this book. Absolutely loved it. I am anxious to read Laraine's review.

I learned a lot about Hugh Nibley that I did not know before. The man had some obvious cognitive dissonace related to the book of abraham issue. Once before giving a lecture on it he had a complete memory loss. Even got lost outside the building were he was scheduled to lecture. I thought that was very revealing. Also the footnote issue that Jeff mentioned was quite interesting! I was taken aback by that! And the source of that info to Martha was quite intrigueing. Blew me away. :cool:

I am convinced that Mr. Nibley did molest his daughter. It is appalling and sickening to think about, but IMHO it happenned!!

After I read this book I thought how much I would love to sit and have a cup of coffee with Martha Beck. I think it would be a very interesting conversation. She refers to Joesph Smith as a " libidinous narcissist" !! :) Fitting don't you think?

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

I loved this book. Absolutely loved it. I am anxious to read Laraine's review.

I learned a lot about Hugh Nibley that I did not know before. The man had some obvious cognitive dissonace related to the book of abraham issue. Once before giving a lecture on it he had a complete memory loss. Even got lost outside the building were he was scheduled to lecture. I thought that was very revealing. Also the footnote issue that Jeff mentioned was quite interesting! I was taken aback by that! And the source of that info to Martha was quite intrigueing. Blew me away. :cool:

I am convinced that Mr. Nibley did molest his daughter. It is appalling and sickening to think about, but IMHO it happenned!!

After I read this book I thought how much I would love to sit and have a cup of coffee with Martha Beck. I think it would be a very interesting conversation. She refers to Joesph Smith as a " libidinous narcissist" !! :) Fitting don't you think?

Free Thinker

It is interesting to see how the No Mo takes on the book vary so much from the apologists.

I wonder what crazy head space Nibley must have been in. If Ed was right and he was (high functioning) autistic, that would render him at elevated risk of offending, due to reduced capacity to empathise.

On top of that, if he was half bright, to live in the crazy space of knowingly living a lie every day of his life, while at the same time being lauded and recompensed within Moism for that duplicity, must be crazy-making; more particularly if he felt that most the people applauding him were fools and/or willfully blind, which was likely the case.

I find it a miracle he didn't completely lose the plot years ago.

Daryl

[miss taken]

The content of Nibley's book isn't actually all that significant relative to being a reason to leave the Church. Other books dealing with other subjects are much more damning to the Church. I once considered Nibley an amazing scholar too complex to fully understand. But from the more objective view I was learning to trust, I came to realize that Temple and Cosmos was mostly arm waving and smoke blowing and for that reason it was a significant turning point in my exit from the Church. But to answer your question, Temple and Cosmos is an apologetic work that attempts to show that Joseph Smith and Brigham didn’t just make up the temple ceremony and the design of the temples. In his several hundred pages of text, pictures and footnotes he tries to make the reader think that he’s showing how the “restored temple” ceremony and building designs are directly derived from Solomon’s Temple of the ancient Hebrews. But after I blew away all the smoke and saw past the mirrors he uses I found that there is not one solid connection back to Solomon’s Temple, but many links to various pagan and occult religious traditions. I came to that conclusion without checking any of his footnotes. It wasn’t until this morning that I learned that perhaps 90% of his footnotes he uses in his apologetic works are fabrications or information removed from context. Everyone thinks that his thinking is so advanced that it’s useless to try to understand him and he has apparently taken every advantage of the fact.

I hope that answers your question.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. :)

[lsands]

For any of you living in Utah, or who want to listen online, Martha Beck was interviewed on the University of Utah public radio station yesterday. A brother and sister of hers will be on today's show. It runs at 11 a.m. and is broadcast again at 7 p.m. I get the show at 90.1 FM here in Utah county.

[Jeff_Ricks]

For any of you living in Utah, or who want to listen online, Martha Beck was interviewed on the University of Utah public radio station yesterday. A brother and sister of hers will be on today's show. It runs at 11 a.m. and is broadcast again at 7 p.m. I get the show at 90.1 FM here in Utah county.

Does anyone know if the radio program is accessible via the web???

Jeff

[silverfox]

Does anyone know if the radio program is accessible via the web???

Jeff

I am searching while on my conference call. All I've found so far is this link
http://www.kute.org/staticpages/index.php?page=20050223221947518

I don't see any info regarding even scheduling but there is a phone number. Studio Line: 801-585-3449

There is also a link to click to listen to what they are currently playing on air.

If I get a minute I will call and see if they offer anything for our listening pleasures online.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I have not read this book. I've read a lot of comments, negative and positive about it.

I've found the negative comments centered more toward her lifestyle than anything. It appears the focus is being shifted from valuable info in the book to her lifestyle choices.

Many seem to choose to focus primarily on her being gay, divorced, etc, etc rather than the info she is offering in her book.

For those who have read the book, do you feel this is true? Are those who are critical uncomfortable with her honesty and openness?

I also think some may feel she is writing the book solely to discredit or hurt the church but my understanding is the book is geared more toward offering support for those who have been abused, sexually or otherwise. Does this appear true?

In my opinion, those who are critical seem to be taking the typical programmed stance -- defend the reputation of the Church at all costs -- even if that means sacrificing a family member to do it!

She’s dead on the mark when she mentions various Mormon quirks that are too weird for non-Mormons to believe but any Mormon knows are true. She could have stretched the truth about Mormonism’s quirks to spice up her story for her non-Mormon market but I think she simply calls it as she sees it. I was chuckling throughout her account -- yep, that’s Mormonism to a tee!

After reading her book (almost finished) and reading critical reviews of it I think the critics are being unfair. I’m sure Martha doesn’t have all the facts exactly as happened because it happened so long ago but I find an underlying honesty in her account. I believe she was sexually abused by her father and in a way that is in general agreement with how she describes it.

I find her family to be following the pattern found throughout Mormonism in sexual abuse cases. That is, protect the Church at all costs! Even if it means sacrificing a family member – the victim. Since I’ve become acquainted with many former Mormons in the last 3 or 4 years I’ve heard enough accounts of child sex abuse in Mormon families that I have no reason to doubt her account. Yes it’s bizarre but bizarre happens in Mormon families behind closed doors. If I was going to fabricate a sexual abuse account then I’d come up with something more “normal” like, my dad raped me. No spicing up to cast doubt on the account, just plain ol’ rape. I think the reason Martha chose to present a rather strange account is because that’s the way it happened. And Nibley had a reputation for being a odd duck.

So, that’s my take on it.

Jeff

[flotsam]

Hi Folks,

I'm new. The mysterious Peter_Mary knows me. And I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.

I'm just going to post this. I wrote it for another, more conservative, list, where all the comments on her book were pretty much negative, but ended up not sending it out. I think I'd get a more constructive response out of you folks anyway.


This is a bit long. But I’m building an argument – one that has no validity. Remember that.

Recently I have become very interested in how I react to stories. I’m not talking about fiction or even nonfiction books or movies, but the unspoken assertions made by the mere presence of something: an institution, a building, a person’s clothing. I’ve thought about many of the stories that have crossed my path: an advertisement, a beggar in the street, the reasons why I have to drive in order to get to the grocery store, the reasons I’m spending my life getting a Ph.D. I’ve realized that there are stories that I believe behind everything I do. Whether they’re true or not seems to make no difference. I believe them enough that I act according to them.

When I first started seeing these stories I instinctively decided that they were based in falsehood, as if it were a fault for a story to be discovered (in a way I think that’s true, the strongest stories are the most invisible). For example, I read Daniel Quinn’s My Ishmael where he argues that public school is essentially a tool used by the economy to keep people off the job market until it is able to bear them. It doesn’t take 12 years of schooling to wash dishes or work as a cashier; you can learn those skills in days. Nevertheless our society, so in need of stability, has elected to waste the time of our young ones in school in order to keep the status quo going. I believed this idea and immediately identified the public education system as evil.

I uncovered a lot of stories beneath the Church too. Not the anti-Mormon ones questioning the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, but the structural stories. I could see the political machinations, the social control theories and such that would be obvious to any business analyst. And I began to see the Church as a machine that had made me into a cog for the past 28 years. It had acted as a censor, blocking my view of the beauty of life in exchange for a feeling of security and superiority.

After that, whenever I came across someone whom I knew liked the Church and was involved in it, I would get taciturn. Why? Because their story was very strong. I had lived it. It was about being a part of a royal generation, about doing the work of God in His church. We may have been cogs in a huge machine, but we were cogs with a purpose. And deep down, I wanted that sense of purpose back (still do). When I heard critiques of the Church, I would listen carefully. I wanted the critiques to be true, because I wanted to find a story stronger than the Church’s story, one that would free me from its story.

From time to time, one of these stories did catch my eye and I’d grab onto it. But, surprisingly at the time, I didn’t find the freedom I thought the story was offering me. I had to think about it for a long time, but finally I realized that what I was doing was trading one orthodoxy for another. It was exhilarating to change stories, but after the first blush of the romance had worn off, I realized that this new place, though it had different pictures on the wall, was essentially the same house.

I had thought before that some of the stories were truer than others. Now I question that. Stories only seem to differ from each other in structure and strength.

However, this insight, whatever its value, didn’t point a direction for me to go. So what if the Church is a strong story? So is Christianity, so is Islam and Buddhism and capitalism and blah blah blah. That doesn’t give me any grounds for either accepting them or rejecting them.

So for now, I’ve given up on finding truth. Instead, I’ve started listening to the stories for their own sake. I’ve started to listen to the people who tell those stories for their own sake. I’ve taken down my preconceptions of truth (the ones I can see) and tried to see what it is like to be in a conversation with a story instead of sitting in judgment of it (or letting it sit in judgment of me).

This new worldview has been quite a turning point in my life. And of course, I’m not willing to say if it’s good or bad, or if it matters. So now, when I go to Church (yes, I do go on a regular basis) I don’t feel as threatened as I used to. When I first started my explorations, I always felt like there was a giant shadow over me. Like whenever someone bore their testimony or talked about some doctrine, I had to either find a way to falsify it, or give in and say it was true. If I took the second path, then my explorations were leading me to hell. If I took the first, then I had no idea where I was going, but the Church had to be false. But now, I’m willing to just start listening to the stories and hear them on many different levels. I no longer let stories call me to judgment. They no longer say, “If I’m true then you’re wrong and need to repent and cling to me.”

I certainly know where I’ve gotten that drive toward judgment. It’s the Mormon story. It’s the American story. It’s the story of Western civilization. Seek after truth, because it’s there, then cling to it and do whatever it says. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith is a prophet. If Joseph Smith is a prophet then the church he founded is God’s church. If this church is God’s church, then you need to be baptized into it. Every story was a call to action. Are you for us, or against us? Sheep or goats? Two paths!

I remember one of my mission companions, during a particularly frustrating afternoon of tracting, saw the little light in the peephole of yet another apartment door overshadow and then return, letting us know that the person on the other side had looked at us and chosen not to answer. He started telling a story to no on in particular as we walked down the urine-reeking stairway to the next floor down. “In the next life, that guy will be brought before the judgment bar and God will say. “Whoop, you messed up. You didn’t accept the truth when it was brought to you.” And this guy will say, “What? I never heard the truth.” “Yes you did,” God will say. “February 16, 1995, 2:34 p.m. two missionaries knocked on your door. You saw them, but you didn’t open the door.”

That story looks kind of funny to me now. But he believed it. And I have to admit. I did too. This is the worldview I grew up with: “We have the truth. The truth demands obedience. You leave the fold and you’ll go to hell.” My wife says this worldview is pretty weird. She had always envisioned a God who was much more understanding than that. It makes me wonder, how did I get these ideas?

Well, as far as I’ve been able to see, the Church certainly pushes them. And they’re ideas my mother clings to. My father believes them after a fashion as well, as do many of my relatives, most of my friends in Utah, and the people in my ward. I was brought up in structures (Mormon, American, Western, Capitalist) that prided themselves on being right. I took their assertion on their word. I couldn’t question it because the assertion was the premise of my knowledge and worldview. Thus it was invisible, and therefore an overwhelmingly strong story in my life.

This is where I think my experience can talk to Beck’s. If you take the rhetoric of the structures I belonged to, they sound a lot like the rhetoric of the sexual abuser. The sexual abuser has a great interest in convincing his or her victim that the abuser is right. That the abuser has the power and the support of the larger world. The victim is powerless, and if he or she tries to challenge the power of the abuser, he or she is also challenging the power of the world. The world is right, and therefore, the victim must be obedient, or be cast off.

The difference between the abuser and the person who brings a child up in a rigorous religious worldview is that the second is acting for reasons he or she believes are good. The abuser is only trying to protect him or herself from social retribution. But the structure of their stories are the same. And they’re both very powerful. I’ve heard this same analogy used to decry raising children in polygamous groups.

The metaphor of a strongly religious upbringing being like sexual abuse is a potent one for me. When I look back over my life while under my previous worldview, I see all that I missed. So much beauty that I shut myself off from, so much understanding, so many healthy relationships. I’ve read that the survivors of abuse feel the same way. Leaving the domain of the abuser could be like leaving the security of the rigorous religious worldview. You’re certain you’re going into hell. But you find, slowly, and painfully that there’s something inside you that is worth more than the security that you now see as being a prison.

So what about Martha Beck? She was brought up in the very core of Mormonism. Her father was a prominent Mormon. General authorities were regular houseguests. How much more strongly was the story instilled into her? How much harder did she have to fight to find herself?

The subconscious mind seems to be a master at finding metaphors to help us think about our inner lives. If Beck were rising out of the rigorous religious worldview, I can see how her mind would see her father in priestly robes abusing her to be an excellent metaphor for how she felt about how she had been treated by the Church’s story. She probably felt as though it had been thrust upon her when she had no power to understand what was happening.

I guess you could call what Beck and (to a lesser extent) I have gone through “ideological abuse:” an outside force filling you with powerful story that insists on total allegiance, to the extent that all other stories (especially the story of independence) are squashed. Having experienced this kind of “abuse,” I can empathize with Beck’s metaphor. How does one question the structure that has the allegiance of your loved ones? I love my mother and father. But they uphold the system that has caused me so much suffering. I’m crazy to question it. It’s amazing that I even thought I could.

Since I’ve let stories be a conversation companion, rather than a judge, my life has become much larger. I see more. I feel more. I don’t hide as much as I used to. I see people instead of potential converts. I have conversations rather than missionary discussions. The human idiosyncrasies I have are no longer damning sins, but important insights into my own character, and peepholes into the world around me.

I’m starting to be able to visit my mom without feeling the secret weight of hell hanging over me. I can listen to her and love her without feeling called to repentance at every moment. But the fact remains: I don’t believe the way she wants me to believe. And in all possibility, I’m going to hell. Though I still have plenty of resentment and bitterness inside of me, I’ve begun to see life as such a lush place that I don’t have as much time or motivation to harbor bitterness about how so much of my life was shut down as a result of the rigorous structure I was brought up in.

Maybe some people call that forgiveness. I call it survival. In rare moments, I even start to see new meanings rising up from my experiences in my former worldview. In a way it reminds me of resurrection. I’m getting back pieces of my life made new.

So, on a metaphorical level, I resound with what I’ve heard about Beck’s story. Her journey sounds something like mine. And I agree with her; the journey out is like being betrayed by your own blood. It’s also like being the betrayer of your own blood.



Here's my addendum for the PoMo folks.

You guys seem happy to take Beck's book quite literally. Which is OK. But I'm curious, what do you get out of that viewpoint? Why is it important to you that it be factual?

[lsands]

Here's my addendum for the PoMo folks.

You guys seem happy to take Beck's book quite literally. Which is OK. But I'm curious, what do you get out of that viewpoint? Why is it important to you that it be factual?

I'm not sure I understand your question; could you elaborate, please? This is a memoir; how would I take it non-literally? I can take many lessons from the book, it is true. If I take the Book of Mormon as a metaphor, or the Bible, I can get a lot of good out of them, so I understand how to do this. But those are stories from the distant past, and I believe they were intended to be allegorical from the beginning. It is, in my opinion, a limited way of thinking to read them as history or fact.

But Beck has written her book as a memoir of her life. While I get the metaphor that you see, and agree with it to a large extent, I also find value in the story of a woman who has healed from sexual abuse and who has emerged from fundamentalism to find God. Her example appeals to me and inspires me. Certainly her claims are explosive enough that their veracity is important.

So please, explain more.

Laraine

[dogzilla]

Hi Folks,

I'm new. The mysterious Peter_Mary knows me. And I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.


And you've been reading the Harry Potter books, I presume? (Direct quote from, I believe, Book 3.) ;)


<major snip>

Here's my addendum for the PoMo folks.

You guys seem happy to take Beck's book quite literally. Which is OK. But I'm curious, what do you get out of that viewpoint? Why is it important to you that it be factual?

I haven't read the book yet, but I think the answer to that may be "conditioning." As you know, mormons are conditioned to take books quite literally. The concept of metaphor is often lost on the majority of sheeple. Here at these boards, it's possible that most of us have had our minds opened and are able to see the metaphor behind the literalism. However, I echo Laraine's question: Why would we not take this particular book as pretty much factual? Are personal memoirs now being considered fiction?

And finally, welcome to the boards. That was a great post and filled me with material to think about. Hope to see you around.

[peter_mary]

So for now, I’ve given up on finding truth. Instead, I’ve started listening to the stories for their own sake. I’ve started to listen to the people who tell those stories for their own sake. I’ve taken down my preconceptions of truth (the ones I can see) and tried to see what it is like to be in a conversation with a story instead of sitting in judgment of it (or letting it sit in judgment of me).

This new worldview has been quite a turning point in my life. And of course, I’m not willing to say if it’s good or bad, or if it matters. So now, when I go to Church (yes, I do go on a regular basis) I don’t feel as threatened as I used to. When I first started my explorations, I always felt like there was a giant shadow over me. Like whenever someone bore their testimony or talked about some doctrine, I had to either find a way to falsify it, or give in and say it was true. If I took the second path, then my explorations were leading me to hell. If I took the first, then I had no idea where I was going, but the Church had to be false. But now, I’m willing to just start listening to the stories and hear them on many different levels. I no longer let stories call me to judgment. They no longer say, “If I’m true then you’re wrong and need to repent and cling to me.”



I've been enjoying this very conversation with flotsam for a long time now, and I have to say, what he is saying and the thinking it is causing me to engage in is represents one of those magical times when your brain feels too small to deal with an idea, and so it starts pushing and pushing to expand it's own horizons. What flotsam is talking about is so much bigger than Martha Beck's book that I hope it doesn't get lost here, because this is good stuff.

For me, the nugget of this idea is captured in the quote above. And in his adendum, (which I deleted...oops!) he is simply posing the question from this new paradigm: Does it really matter if the story is "true" or not? We can't know if it is, because "truth" can be approached from so many different directions that what appears true to Martha might not appear true to us because it was not our experience, and we can BOTH be right. We can't know what she knows; can't do it. So why do we feel compelled to try to "decide" whether it's true or not? Why are we moved to this judgement? [Rhetorical questions all...not intended to be questioning anyone in particular.]

The conversation I think flotsam is suggesting that we have is, "How does this story inform my life? What have I to gain from her experience that helps me understand my own?" It then becomes immaterial whether her account is factually accurate or not, because again, how can you ever know her perspective when all you can see is yours? (Now that said, if I'm her father, then some of the factual accuracies become relavent to my life, but since I don't actually overlap with Ms. Beck in any manner beyond some small degree of similar experience, those details become irrelevant to ME.)

Therefore, the metaphor that flotsam discusses in terms of likening Beck's abuse to his own "ideological abuse" becomes a valuable insight into his own life. The story means different things to every listener, and may be wholly unrelated to the story that is told by the teller. But that doesn't matter...good stories are good precisely because they appeal to so many different listeners.

Think for instance of the story you might read in the user's manual for setting up a Sony T-1300 DVD/VHS combo player. Part of the reason this is NOT an engaging story, although factually accurate and completely "true", is that it has no relevance to the vast majority of us. Compare that to the story of Romeo and Juliet, or of Paul on the road to Damascus, or of the Buddha on his path to enlightenment, or of Moses' mother when she placed her babe in the basket of reeds. These stories strike a resonant chord with LOTS of people, and we have NO WAY of knowing whether or not the events as told actually happened. In many ways, determining the facts actually ruins the story, because as soon as you reduce it to a series of quantifiable actions, it loses its applicability to the masses. It's only when you leave it open to interpretation, open for consideration, and refuse to box it into a discussion of whether or not it is factually accurate, that it possesses real power. The "power" of the story exists in its possibility, not in its truth.

That was profound...I think I'll say it again, only in bold letters this time! The "power" of the story exists in its possibility, not in its truth. Yeah, I like that.

Flotsam, am I getting it? It feels like my brain just got bigger...

Peter_Mary

[flotsam]

Think for instance of the story you might read in the user's manual for setting up a Sony T-1300 DVD/VHS combo player. Part of the reason this is NOT an engaging story, although factually accurate and completely "true", is that it has no relevance to the vast majority of us. Compare that to the story of Romeo and Juliet, or of Paul on the road to Damascus, or of the Buddha on his path to enlightenment, or of Moses' mother when she placed her babe in the basket of reeds. These stories strike a resonant chord with LOTS of people, and we have NO WAY of knowing whether or not the events as told actually happened. In many ways, determining the facts actually ruins the story, because as soon as you reduce it to a series of quantifiable actions, it loses its applicability to the masses. It's only when you leave it open to interpretation, open for consideration, and refuse to box it into a discussion of whether or not it is factually accurate, that it possesses real power. The "power" of the story exists in its possibility, not in its truth.

That was profound...I think I'll say it again, only in bold letters this time! The "power" of the story exists in its possibility, not in its truth. Yeah, I like that.

Flotsam, am I getting it? It feels like my brain just got bigger...

Peter_Mary

I've been getting insights like this from Peter_Mary for a few months now. I wanted more, so I joined the list, and lo, I was not disappointed. Beautifully put, Peter_Mary. I'm going to hang it on my refrigerator.

This is a hard idea for me to wrap my mind around as well. I've had a few years to think about it, being a loathesome English major. I took a nonfiction class where I read books that could NOT have been entirely based in fact. I mean, huge tracts of dialogue, detailed descriptions of events the author could not have attended, etc. Yet it was sold as nonfiction. Does that mean that the line between fiction and nonfiction just got blurrier. Seems to.

For example, I have a few little personal essays getting published in the near future. The voice in those essays is the voice of the "lost" or "wandering" me. That particular voice "tells" things differently than my other voices. For example, my article in the latest Sunstone. The voice in that article makes it sound like I'm this big old churchy guy, just trying to make the Church a better place - pass the green Jell-O and give me another calling, please.

Are either of them false? No. They're different voices I have. (And they only talk to me!) :Crazy:

Love those emoticons.

When I started into the editing process for my Sunstone article, my voice was much more caustic for half the article. The editor, Dan, suggested that I replace the caustic voice with a more constructive voice so that my article would feel more whole, instead of schizophrenic.

I revised the article and saw that, indeed, the article worked better with a single unifying voice.

But is that me? Well, part of me. Would my mom recognize the events about her in my personal essays? I don't know. But their structure helped me put my life into a story that was important to me.

So see, it seems that in a way, stories have their own truth, independent of what may have physically happened. That's why I balk when a movie tells me "Based on a True Story." Who cares? If it's a good story, let it stand on its own merit. But I understand that for some people, that's a real selling point. If it happened in real life, it is naturally a better story. That's certainly a selling point on the Book of Mormon. Which is why the Church gets up in arms when scholars question its historiocity.

Anyway. The reason I posted the question was because I thought Beck's book was worth more than an expose' on Hugh's life. What if we could see his life from a thousand different perspectives, and let them all talk with each other? Wouldn't that be more fulfilling than seeing only two (Church-based and Beck-based?) and rejecting one for the other?

I actually don't know if there is an answer to those questions. Truth and fact are hard things to let go of.

[miss taken]

I've been getting insights like this from Peter_Mary for a few months now. I wanted more, so I joined the list, and lo, I was not disappointed. Beautifully put, Peter_Mary. I'm going to hang it on my refrigerator.

This is a hard idea for me to wrap my mind around as well. I've had a few years to think about it, being a loathesome English major. I took a nonfiction class where I read books that could NOT have been entirely based in fact. I mean, huge tracts of dialogue, detailed descriptions of events the author could not have attended, etc. Yet it was sold as nonfiction. Does that mean that the line between fiction and nonfiction just got blurrier. Seems to.

For example, I have a few little personal essays getting published in the near future. The voice in those essays is the voice of the "lost" or "wandering" me. That particular voice "tells" things differently than my other voices. For example, my article in the latest Sunstone. The voice in that article makes it sound like I'm this big old churchy guy, just trying to make the Church a better place - pass the green Jell-O and give me another calling, please.

Are either of them false? No. They're different voices I have. (And they only talk to me!) :Crazy:

Love those emoticons.

When I started into the editing process for my Sunstone article, my voice was much more caustic for half the article. The editor, Dan, suggested that I replace the caustic voice with a more constructive voice so that my article would feel more whole, instead of schizophrenic.

I revised the article and saw that, indeed, the article worked better with a single unifying voice.

But is that me? Well, part of me. Would my mom recognize the events about her in my personal essays? I don't know. But their structure helped me put my life into a story that was important to me.

So see, it seems that in a way, stories have their own truth, independent of what may have physically happened. That's why I balk when a movie tells me "Based on a True Story." Who cares? If it's a good story, let it stand on its own merit. But I understand that for some people, that's a real selling point. If it happened in real life, it is naturally a better story. That's certainly a selling point on the Book of Mormon. Which is why the Church gets up in arms when scholars question its historiocity.

Anyway. The reason I posted the question was because I thought Beck's book was worth more than an expose' on Hugh's life. What if we could see his life from a thousand different perspectives, and let them all talk with each other? Wouldn't that be more fulfilling than seeing only two (Church-based and Beck-based?) and rejecting one for the other?

I actually don't know if there is an answer to those questions. Truth and fact are hard things to let go of.

I majored in history, and one of the big things I grappled with on every subject was the matter of perspective and truth, and I kind of understand Ponius Pilate's question 'What is truth?' It really is a 'mind blowing' question, which greater minds than mine have tried to deal with.

When we teach kids history here in the UK, one of the major things we emphasise is the difference between fact and opinion, but more often than not the opinion is part fact and the fact is part opinion, and the opinion may be perspective and it may be truth, and the same for the fact.

The last couple of years I stopped asking if the church was true or false, fact or opinion, only if it does someone good or bad, I feel released by that perspective, but it may change!!!

Mary

[dogzilla]

<snip> It feels like my brain just got bigger...

Peter_Mary

You sure that's not just your ego? :p

Don't let your brain crack your skull as it expands with all those new ideas... like a hermit crab who outgrew his shell! :Crazy:

[peter_mary]

You sure that's not just your ego? :p

Don't let your brain crack your skull as it expands with all those new ideas... like a hermit crab who outgrew his shell! :Crazy:

Like a hermit crab, I'll just have to find a bigger skull...know of any? What hat size do you wear? :D

Peter_mary

[free thinker]

There is more at stake here than different perspectives on a story!! Perhaps somewhere in the back shelves of a Barnes and Noble, is a young teen girl who has been molested by her not so righteous preisthood holding father. From reading the book, she finds she is not alone in the abuse, and gathers the courage to confront the situation. This would be a little more than an excersize in deciphering the accuracy of an historic event.

There are times, when a story told, can provide courage to free ones self from a caustic, or otherwise destructive circumstance. This, I think, would be one!!

Also the idea that Mr. Nibley may have been wrestling with some cognitive dissonance, induced by the book of abraham situation, goes to the heart of the integrity of the church. Would it's leaders allow a man, or men and women, to suffer to protect something in it's canon that was obviously false?

Last of all, and of course this hinges on the veracity of Ms. Becks story, all powerful institutions need to be held in check as to the limits of their power. Why? Because all institutions will abuse power if allowed to. I see her story as a warning shot across the bow of the church. A warning to get their house in order, and to be careful about not considering themselves, to be a law unto themselves!!

Free Thinker

[free thinker]

I think it would be fairly difficult for a metaphor to cause vaginal scarring!!! :confused:

Free Thinker