This is a review of Beck's book by Jeff Needle. It was originally posted to AML today. I should note in passing that Jeff is not a Mormon although he is very well read on Mormon literature and history. I'm reprinting it here with permission.
Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle
When my copy of Martha Beck's book arrived, I was very aware that, although I had an obligation to read this book, it was not a read I was looking forward to. In the interest of full disclosure, I had the pleasure of meeting both Dr. and Mrs. Nibley some years ago in a very informal setting, a pizza dinner at the home of their daughter, Zina, and son-in-law, Boyd Petersen, author of the very good biography of Hugh Nibley.
The contents of this book had already been widely discussed in so many quarters. It has ignited a veritable firestorm of controversy that has yet to die down. At this writing, Beck has appeared on "Good Morning, America," and will surely surface in other venues. For those not familiar with the book, Martha Beck is really Martha Nibley Beck, one of eight children of the late Hugh Nibley. Nibley is widely considered one of the most influential Mormon apologists and thinkers of the 20th century, one whose voluminous works have been instrumental in motivating study of all things Mormon, in particular the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
Beck's accusation is that her father abused her sexually when she was a young girl. This has been denied by her siblings and by others associated with the family. Beck insists the abuse actually occurred, and in this anguished memoir, she makes her case with a forceful presentation of events as she now remembers them.
The subtitle of the book, "How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith," understates the case. It isn't just the Mormons she's lost. It's never that simple when it involves an enveloping and consuming religion like Mormonism. Friends, family, life work and community can all be lost when one loses Mormonism. Beck walks a fine line between mourning and celebrating this separation. I get the sense that she isn't done with her quest.
Chapter 2 is headed, "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, I Am from Utah." If nothing else, this is an early indication of the direction of the book. Yes, I smiled, acknowledging that Utah Mormons really are a distinctive lot, living in an environment composed of unequal parts of faith, love, community and a vague discomfort with those outside the clan. All of these provide a safe, warm environment for those on the inside, but in combination create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, a formidable obstacle to those who, like Martha and her husband John, dare step outside the gates.
Her story is folded into an ongoing narrative wherein she confronts her famous father in a hotel room, secretly accompanied by Miranda and Diane, familial co-conspirators in her quest for the truth. Her position is clear -- "Daddy, I know you did this, *you* know you did this, I understand what led you to do this, given your own upbringing, I forgive you, just please admit you did it and we can move on to a more loving, accepting relationship." It is only as you read her amazing chronicle that you begin to wonder just what kind of relationship she's hoping for. She paints a dreary picture of a distant, somewhat maniacal father and an impotent, emotionally diminutive mother, all in the context of a large, and largely poor, family context. Can such a past be healed by rehearsing the alleged sins of the past? It's a psychology I cannot quite grasp.
The reader can understand at the outset that this writing is intended as a catharsis of sorts, a way of resolving one's inner conflicts by bringing them out into the open, aiming for a healing much as one lances a boil to initiate the healing process. To her credit, she seems legitimately concerned about collateral damage, and takes great pains to put her subjects into whatever positive light she can manage. However, no matter how skillful the writer (and she is a very skillful writer), no matter how good the intentions, such an emotional regurgitation as is this book cannot help but injure others along the way.
Make no mistake -- child abuse is a very serious issue. And if her memories are true, if she truly is a victim of such abuse, then the issue needs to be confronted and, with much work, much counselling, edged toward healing. It remains to be seen whether this book will be a step toward that healing, or a catalyst for further pain, not just for Beck, but for those who surround her.
Beck begins her narrative with a revealing, and for myself, an amazingly reflective observation:
Mormons tend to know a whopping lot of stuff beyond a shadow of a doubt. My whole life is shadowed by doubt. The only conviction I embrace absolutely is this: whatever I believe, I may be wrong. (p. 6)
As soothing as this sentiment may be, as an intriguing starting point, Beck's effort in this book belies this premise. When it comes to the abuse, she is convinced, absolutely. There is no doubt. And if you detect an air of disdain toward the Mormon community, you're correct. Couched in her laudatory comments about her fellow Mormons are observations that lead to the conclusion that their beauty is, to coin a phrase, only skin deep. With minor exceptions -- chiefly a Relief Society president who seems to see into Martha's soul and understand her struggle -- the LDS community is presented as a group doing good, but from less than admirable motives.
On a secondary level, "Leaving the Saints" tries to be a primer of Mormon doctrine from Beck's point of view. Here's an example of her teaching style:
Mormons believe in a literal Father and Mother in heaven. (In fact, a whole bunch of heavenly mothers, since the Father is supposed to be impressively polygamous. Each Mormon man, if exalted after death, is supposed to be given his own worlds -- that is, planets -- to populate. You can't do that working with just one woman, so the more chicks the man-God, the better.) Female figures that are important in other religions, such as Mother Mary, aren't given divine status; Mother in Heaven is a vague and bashful figure in Mormonism. One is not supposed to discuss her too frequently or in any detail, lest her tender feelings be hurt. (p. 75)
Other readers of this book will confirm that this is just one example of Beck's tendency to treat things considered holy in a mocking manner. And this raises an interesting question: just who constitutes Beck's target audience? If she's looking to convince believing Mormons, her trite treatment of the doctrine may cause them to dismiss everything else she says. On the other hand, if her target is the non-Mormon audience, does she need to mock the religion in order to make her case?
Beck travels an interesting, though curious, road when she examines her father's childhood -- one which she claims was marked by an abusive mother, one who may have had sexual interest in her son Hugh -- and integrates this into her own understanding of her father's behavior:
As absolutely as I oppose what my father did to me, as violently as I would physically attack anyone I caught doing it to another child, I know too much to assume that he could simply have controlled himself. I know how stored horror can torture the mind, how utterly despair can shatter the will. I know that my way of thinking really is similar to my father's, and I know how relentlessly pain can dominate it. Ironically, by passing on his genetic makeup and then sending me to hell in early childhood, my father used both nature and nurture to create one of the few people who can really understand him. (p. 127)
I'm not sufficiently versed in psychological methods -- I don't know how common it is to so thoroughly identify with your abuser. But this thought added a dimension to the story: behind all the mocking, all the anger, all the disenfranchisement, there remains a little girl trying desperately to understand and forgive her father. I'm not clear whether this is an example of Stockholm Syndrome, but it does present an interesting dilemma: while trying to relieve her father of responsibility for his alleged acts, she at the same time is publishing a book that will ultimately bring opprobrium on his head and on others in the family.
Beck adds yet another dimension to the story, and here is where LDS readers may very well back away from the story altogether. She alleges that the breaking point in her father's life was when the Brethren asked him to prepare a defense for Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian papyrus, which would ultimately become the Book of Abraham. She claims that her father knew Joseph was making it all up, that the characters on the papyrus had nothing to do with Abraham:
I've thought about it a thousand times, the absolute dead-end my father had faced when I was five, the year I suspect he got a fateful assignment from the brethren in Salt Lake City. He was a fifty-two-year old Mormon apologist -- a profession that didn't even exist outside of Utah -- with virtually no possibility of getting a job outside of Mormon-run BYU. With eight children to feed (eight!), what options were open to him? He could either lose his job, his livelihood, his social standing, his bully pulpit, by publicly revealing information that would undermine the very foundations of Mormonism, or he could lie flat out. In a way, I admire him for choosing the only other alternative: he went crazy. (p. 148)
Here, I think, she lays another layer of understanding that helps her to comprehend alleged events of the past. An abused child who grows up to have his own family, and then is pushed into a place where he has to sacrifice his intellectual and personal integrity in order to keep his family fed and housed, is driven into a state of madness, effectively distancing himself from the consequences of his actions. To say "he went crazy" is, in my mind, to say that, in the end, he bore little responsibility for the things he is accused of having done. And, perhaps, Beck, sharing the Nibley "genetic makeup," can likewise distance herself from whatever fallout may result from the writing of this book.
I tried to reconcile this with her message of self-determination, taking responsibility for one's actions. I couldn't. She thrives in an atmosphere that encourages independence and fearless truth-telling. On the other hand, she acknowledges behaviors that are beyond an individual's control.
From time to time her story becomes a bit incoherent. On page 234, she introduces a therapist she names "Rachel Grant." She is clear that this is a name she has invented in order to safeguard the privacy of the therapist. She then wonders whether Rachel is related to Heber J. Grant. If Beck has invented the name of the therapist, how can there be questions of ancestry? I was truly puzzled by this diversion.
Suffice it to say that there are other incongruities in the book. And at each step of her journey, her search for the positive consistently yields a dark side to the perceived good. As I turned the last page, I wondered if she was really as settled in her now Zen-like approach to life, seeing herself as in a "Stream," a flow of life where good and evil coexist. Her tale is one of someone coming to terms with memories long repressed, but now erupting in sometimes violent, always traumatic ways. Perhaps writing this book was her only way to avoid going the route she sees her father had to take, the road to madness paved with cognitive dissonance.
In the end, the question to be answered isn't, "Did he do it?" but rather, "Does Martha *really* believe he did it?" Without question, the answer to the second question is "yes." However, as a reader trying to be as fair as I can be, I wasn't convinced by her presentation that the events actually happened. I am simply unequipped to evaluate her claims clinically. I can only go by my gut.
A few closing comments:
Throughout the book, Beck describes what it's like to live and work in Provo, the daughter of a widely-admired scholar. She talks about the Church tapping her home phone, a repressive atmosphere at BYU that prevents her, and others, from speaking freely of their beliefs -- you get the idea. It paints a picture of a society that some might think conducive to producing such dysfunctional families as she describes. While it is easy to dismiss Beck's literary excesses, some might insist that there is a germ of truth in what she's saying. Is academic freedom alive and well at BYU? Is her description of life in Utah in any way accurate? Publication of this book may well be an opportunity for the Church to consider some of her complaints, and deal with them openly.
Columnist Michael Kinsley recently wrote, "All sincerity is calculation...every statement or gesture is layered with strategy." "Leaving the Saints" is a complex, difficult book, particularly as one wonders why Beck chose to write the book at all. Yes, there are the obvious answers. She believed that her only road to healing would involve a public airing of her past. It would also involve confronting her alleged abuser, not to further condemn him, but to try to bring healing and reconciliation to all parties. If this had been her only goal, then she should have refrained from her mocking views of the religion her father held so dear. I think the book would have been more effective had she toned down her sarcasm.
"Leaving the Saints" is well written, nicely paced, the product of a creative mind steeped, from childhood, in not just the Classics, but in the methods of discourse that enable her to present her case so compellingly. It will not be enjoyed, nor will it likely be read, by true believing Mormons. It will be read, and savored, by the anti-Mormon crowd. Somewhere in the middle is a vast soup of non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, and others interested in the subject of abuse and recovered memories.
I cannot either recommend, or not recommend, this book. I can only say that the reader will see in the book what he or she chooses to see. I am no exception. In a sense, she invites skepticism. She leaves the door open for individuals to either accept or reject her claims. It is to her credit that she is such a good writer that she can produce a book that, like a prism, reflects light in every direction. One only has to pierce the darkness, and this is a real challenge.
I wish her, and her family, well.
I may be posting on this topic from time to time. Especially as controversies pop up. Although to be honest, now that some time has passed since I've read it, the controversy of it all seems much less that I thought it would. It truly seems like a woman with mental problems that perhaps a publisher has taken a bit of advantage of so as to earn some money through the controversy. The more I think about it, the sadder I am for Beck. In any case I've put up a single page that'll include links to all the stories I do on the book.
I think this is a good review that is as unbiased-sounding as any review of Martha Beck's book could possibly be. I'm glad that Jeff Needle put so much effort into staying objective, it makes it easier for people of all sorts of opinions to seriously consider what he is saying--not just people with set religious opinions, but also people with definite opinions on psychology, recovered memories, abuse, and whether or not private hurts of any sort should be aired publicly. This is a review for everybody who is tired of reading all the biased reviews that are little more than either praise or accusation of Beck personally. It's not a review of Martha. It is a review of the book.
Good review Jeff. Probably the most fair and balanced review I have seen yet on the web. Good job.
I enjoyed your review. I especially enjoyed the quotations from Beck's book. She sounds intelligent and genuinely funny. As a non-believer and a Utahn, I will be free to fully enjoy the book without being so concerned with mocking tones or the PR implications on the Mormon church.
A non-Mormon perspective...
I am a non-Mormon Utah native with my own share of antipathy towards the Mormon church and its pervasive culture. I must confess I was drawn to this book for that reason. I found it had all of the elements of a great story, and a great read. Hey, I read it in two days! I was deeply bothered, however, by the clinical descriptions of child abuse that were portrayed in the book. I know many survivors of child molestation, and I am one myself and her description just didn't fit the bill (not that all cases are identical). I had a nagging feeling from the way the memory was recovered, right down to the way it was described that it simply did not happen. I never felt for even a minute that she did not believe it happened, because I truly believe she does. No one can truly know but her and her father. Regardless of the truth, the accusations has obviously had devastating effects on her family.
Now on the Provo culture....all true! Everyone is bringing you pies and homemade bread until they find that you are unconvertable. After that, you rarely get a wave of the hand. Then there are still those parents who do not let their children play with the "gentiles". I thought that in my generation I would see that go away, but alas, it has not.
Jeff..
I am not a "writer" as you will soon see. But then it isn't about "me" anyway is it?
Your review was unbiased and I appreciate that because I too have been considered "lost and mad" for leaving the Mormon Church 10 years ago. People need to understand that each one of us does the best we can with our own life's experiences. Especially when we feel to share them with other's. I feel Martha has handled her experiences the only way she knows how. If she didn't get closure with her father and her family then who else can she turn to for valadation? Yep, her other brother and sisters, us.
You see, to me, all she is really saying is.."here me everyone, this is my story..is there anyone out there who has had a similar experience and can help me understand and heal?"
Perhaps this book will elicit other members of the mormon church who have experienced abuse and would feel a "little safer" in coming forward. There is a saying among mormons, although jokingly, "Incest is best, as long as it stays in the family." Some joke, huh?
My own children were molested by their Dad who was a bishop in the mormon church at time. Yes, I DIDN'T even know till they became adults. Horrified by their stories of abuse I now have to deal with the pain and rage I feel towards him.
The Bigger Picture?
It is still only a "story" and certainly something to learn from.
May we all experience the peace and joy which comes from forgivness. Martha Beck is not alone. Our job isn't to judge her but only to listen that we may take a greater look at ourselves, for when we are in someone else's business we are only out of our own.
No offense, but I've never heard that saying and saying it is a saying "among Mormons" is a bit offensive. Every Mormon I've known or talked to finds child abuse abhorrent and feels everything possible ought be done to deal with the perpetrators. If there is a sin among Mormons it is probably wanting too much revenge for such a heinous crime.
With regards to judging, while I understand what you are saying, I think you have to realize that if Beck's charges are false, then she is causing tremendous harm to her family who are themselves innocent. If Beck's condition is the result of actual child abuse by their neighbor (as many people acknowledge) then she is victimizing the very people who were trying to love her.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I certainly understand those who look at Beck, see in her claims something similar to their own feelings of anger or hurt, and thus empathize with her. But, if the charges are false, is that appropriate?
I just finished Leaving The Saints. Ouch!
I read some reviews on Amazon. Mostly the positive ones get five stars. Then I found this site.
If I ramble please forgive. I'm not a professional writer and have no editor to check my work.
Just exactly what was Martha's dad supposed to have done circa 35 years ago? Martha has a vivid recovered memory of this, or so she claims. She does not present the content of this vivid memory to the reader. What I get is: innuendos and implications designed to lead the reader to the belief that she was ritualistically raped.
Martha didn't charge him in her court with any marked degree of specificity that I can see. So I guess we can all just burn his bones by judging him guilty of too many implications?
I am disturbed to learn that there is no evidence against this man. Martha purports to have evidence of vaginal scarring so many times over, the reader thinks there is evidence. Not so. There is only evidence of Martha affirming she has evidence. In order for vaginal scarring to be considered evidence, it would have to be evaluated by a qualified medical forensic examiner. The examiner's report would need to be published in the book.
Her sisters say she added the vaginal scaring to the story later. Her ex-husband gives his account which contradicts Martha's account. So what is the truth? Whatever it is - it is surely in dispute.
If Martha wants to pay a small sum of money to have the medical records evaluated and forensic examinations made - fine! Due to the fact of the disputes involved around the vaginal scarring, I think it more than fair to say: Get the medical records professionally evaluated along with forensic opinion, and as a juror in the pool of public opinion, I'll be willing to read the reports. In the meantime there is no evidence whatsoever - just claims of evidence.
On reading this book, I feel as if I've just stepped into the mind of a borderline witch. Is this lady for real? So sensitive and extreme in her emotions. So utterly disregarding of the feelings of others. The characters are so black and white.
The Being of Light - sure Martha, why not? But in what dimension? Does it even matter at all? She experienced it and it is all so marvelous. Thank goodness the Being of Light didn't do anything bad to her or we'd have to try and determine its guilt also.
It is okay! The Being of Light is fine with me. Really it is fine. But two days later we suddenly have an inexplicable something else come into awareness? Oh, my dear John, "Nobody will ever believe me."
I guess she believed it. Why not? It was vivid! All so Vivid! So real!
The Being of Light was so real also wasn't it? Quite an experience to be sure!
I guess thus begins the process of Martha getting external validation! Can you authoritatively validate that her recovered memory is accurate facsimile of reality? I can't!
But then there is the evidence - well actually not. What we have is Martha's words saying there is evidence, but Martha did not let the doctor tell us what it meant if anything. You can be she never will either.
Here is what Boyd Peterson reports on what John Beck, Martha's husband in the story has to say about Martha's purported evidence of vaginal scarring:
Two of the central points of the book are also disputed by Martha's now ex-husband, John Beck. Martha describes in quite explicit detail scars that she maintains confirm her having been abused. However, John Beck states that at the time of her Harvard premarital exam, "Martha never claimed the doctor saw scars. He just asked what kind of contraception she'd been using up to that point. When she said she wasn't having sex, he gave her a disbelieving look." This could be simply because he couldn't believe that she was not sexually active since she was college age and engaged to be married. And in a later exam, a Provo doctor not only did not notice scars, but he warned Martha to start "loosening up" so that sexual intercourse would not be uncomfortable. If the Harvard doctor saw anything to indicate previous sexual experience, John suggests it may have been caused by a neighbor boy who molested her when she was a young girl. This incident in itself could very well be the source of the memories that Martha has come to embellish with strange details and to associate with her father. While several of her sisters knew about the molestation from the time it happened, John never learned about it until the early 1990s, when Martha began having memories of abuse. "After she told me about the neighbor incident, she never doubted that memory," states John. "But she often expressed doubt about her memories of her father abusing her." He stresses Martha's reluctance to believe herself, "She literally said to me on many occasions: 'I'm such a bad person to have made up those terrible memories about my father.'" John characterizes the fact that she does not mention this incident of sexual molestation by the neighbor in the book as "a huge 'oversight.'"
Does this mean anything to anyone? If I could I would demand: Stop letting this hostile witness evaluate and present evidence! She has zero qualifications to do this!
It seems so many people don't care. Just swallow the story - hook, line and sinker.
Yes, but then Martha has witnesses. Or does she? A careful examination will indicate that Martha presents witnesses in her novel as she sees fit - has them make gestures and offer words according to Martha's whims.
To date no person has stepped forward and stated that they were accurately portrayed - on the contrary!
There are no witnesses in Martha's court at all - only the illusion of witnesses. It is always Martha creating the witnesses and speaking for them.
It is only Martha doing the talking for everyone. And there are many discrepancies between the novel and the real world. Facts are in dispute.
I've read some good books on criminal Mormons. The Lafferty brothers, Mark Hoffman, and stories on Gary Gilmore. Tough subject matter, but at least I knew they had been charged, tried and convicted prior to the books being published.
Leaving the Saints is so different! This purported crime was never even reported to the police. Martha wants judgments made in her favor. It is hard for me do. There are no witnesses, no evidence, no opportunity for the defense to speak or present its side.
I feel like saying: Martha this is very unfair and prejudiced on your part. Try again - some other time. It is too one sided, too much hyperbole, too many people in the real world who know you dispute your portrayal of reality. You even portrayed yourself as a heterosexual woman in a happy and balanced marriage with a heterosexual man. John reports you both were gay and there was an affair. Why the misportrayal?
I really don't like the idea of people being accused, tried and convicted of serious crime, by story in the public opinion. The best story teller gets the most convictions, people not so talented might not do so well.
Thanks for letting me post! Thanks for reading!
"Leaving the Saints" was very entertaining and I did like this review. I think people underestimate who will read this book. I had (still have) nothing against the Mormon religion. I read it because I was a fan of first book. I suspect that might be why others read it too.
My brother, being "born again" and living in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, despises Mormons. I could not understand his anger, being that he was raised Catholic and our church has gone through extraordinary efforts to reach out to other faiths. Why did he feel this way? After reading "Leaving the Saints" I could understand his distrust of the Mormon church. I did not know many of the issues, way of life and how their religion was founded until reading Beck's book. Do I take her word for everything about Mormonism? No. I have since done extensive internet research at the LDS and FARMS websites. Pretty crazy stuff. But it seems to Mormons strive to live a good life, be kind, follow God. Not a bad thing.
You have to feel bad for everyone involved - believers, non-believers and Martha Beck herself. She has more physical problems than anyone I know. And as a mother myself of 3 children, I can hardly remember having a personal thought when my children were young. There wasn't time to think about myself in anyway. Let alone fill a book. How can so many of those pages not involve words about her children? What were they doing all of that time? Gotta wonder. Think they might someday write a book about being the children of Martha Beck?
I think the reasons why some evangelicals hate Mormons are complex - largely due to different metaphysical beliefs about God as well as our belief in continuing revelation. Others might disagree, but I think the evangelical view of sola scripture and inerrancy makes our notion of further scriptural texts blasphemous even more than some of our doctrinal differences. But clearly not all evangelicals are like this. There are several who post regularly here. I think one big benefit of the last two decades of outreach by Mormons is that Mormons and evangelicals can talk so much more - even if there is deep distrust still on both sides.
With regard to Beck, she does discuss her children a lot. I think to be fair one must realize that this book is primarily about a limited set of topics and periods. Her prior book is much more concerned about her son. In her interview she talks about her children a great deal. I think it unfair to assume Beck too much there. However clearly the events in her life have been rather disruptive for children. Attacks on extended family, divorce of her husband, the effects of both parents being homosexual and hiding that initially and then each moving into a more outward expression of that lifestyle. But while divorce and instabilities in family life make life harder for children, love and a focus on them always helps. While I don't know Beck, from her interview it does seem she cares about her family a great deal. Assuming she is able to provide a stable family life then I think they'll turn out OK.
Clark, I think we are reading things different. If we are referring to Leaving The Saints, I don't think, as you stated that Martha discusses her children a great deal. I think she discusses herself a great deal.
We don't really know anything about her children other than basics which could be covered in a paragraph. If you think I'm wrong, please state with some specificty what you learned about the children from her "discussing them a great deal."
Clark, I think we are reading things different. If we are referring to Leaving The Saints, I don't think, as you stated that Martha discusses her children a great deal. I think she discusses herself a great deal.
We don't really know anything about her children other than basics which could be covered in a paragraph. If you think I'm wrong, please state with some specificty what you learned about the children from her "discussing them a great deal."
I was talking about many of her interviews, where a significant amount of the time is spent discussing her kids. Her prior book, Expecting Adam, covers some of the same events as Leaving the Saints but is primarily about her Downs Syndrom child. I've not read it, but those who have said it was quite good, although a little deceptive at times. (She portrays herself as a skeptic rationalist atheist at Harvard who discovers God, leaving out all her religious history including her authoring books on how God can cure homosexuality and other social problems -- kind of a glaring oversight)
Anyway, my point is that she talks about her kids a lot elsewhere, so I don't think it fair to judge her for that simply because it isn't the theme of Leaving the Saints.
There's an other review out and this seemed as good a place to mention it as any. The Jewish World Review has their review up and it is quite harsh - even harsher than the New York Times article.
Just to add, I think that review more than a little unfair. For instance, while it is a distinct minority and the church leadership have condemned it, some parents have told their kids not to be with non-Mormons. I think it a horrible thing to do. I think the idea is that they worry about their kids getting involved in a "bad crowd." The only problem is that most non-Mormons aren't the "bad crowd" and there are plenty of Mormon kids who are. (After all being brought up Mormon doesn't mean you were brought up well or that you do what you are told) It's unfortunate the reviewer would say this is so unbelievable, as it does definitely happen and I think many non-Mormons have experienced it in Utah, even if it is a minority who does it. (And, as I said, it has frequently been condemned by LDS leaders like Pres. Hinkley)
In other Beck news, since I mentioned the above, the Phoenix New Times (I believe an alternative paper akin to the Salt Lake Weekly) has an interview with Beck. She says more than a few odd things, like bringing up the I believe false idea that all Mormons will be polygamous in the hereafter. She also does finally bring up the neighbor incident, but tells it quite a bit different from how I've heard the family tell it. We'll see if we get some response on the issue.
Jeff Needle's review is well-balanced, and I appreciate it. Martha Beck is a bright woman who really can tell a tell.
As a non-Mormon, I have no idea if her story is true. I suspect much of it is. I'd like to know more about the incident of what happened between Martha and the neighbor boy, which was a terrible thing to happen.
My son and I read the book and it led to very interesting discussions about how we remember things and truth telling. In fact, truth is what holds the fabric of trust together in society.
It's been very interesting to read the big divergence in the reviews of current Mormons and ex-Mormons.
I do think Martha is pretty self-absorbed, although certifiably brilliant. I suspect she would be fun to have dinner but I'm not sure if I'd like to work with her day-in-day out.
I'm an ex-Mormon and believe that all religious doctrines (all religions, not just Mormonism) stem from human psychology and nothing more.
Despite my utter lack of "testimony" today, I was once a totally devoted believer (and missionary), and my Utah (and Provo) roots are as deep as Martha's.
I'll have to say that what she describes bears little resemblance to what Mormons really believe. There are central beliefs that matter and, outside of those, there are all sorts of things that are considered unknown by the vast majority of members. From time to time, someone will speculate on some unknown point, or dig up some old speculation, and the speculation will sometimes get spread around as a rumor.
Like all rumors, some people will gullibly believe that since the Church leaders aren't talking about it it MUST be some sort of "secret knowledge" reserved for those with "insider information". These are the same sorts who believe in alien abductions and X-file-type conspiracies.
Most members of the church ignore these silly rumors, but Martha Beck seems to have compiled a huge collection and is claiming that they constitute Mormon doctrine.
This collection of strange rumors may serve Beck in making Mormons sound like nut cases, but I assure you that it is the equivalent of a French newspaper printing excerpts from American supermarket tabloids and proclaiming haughtily to a gullible French audience, "Look! This is what ALL Americans believe!"
Even though I no longer believe in Mormon doctrine at all, real Mormon doctrine is not the bizarre caricature Beck describes.
Nor, for that matter, was BYU, where I spent some time as a part time instructor. There is MUCH more openness about controversial issues than she implied, and if she thinks BYU is unique in its pressures to conform to political orthodoxy, she ought to consider how quickly a Harvard career might be ended by work that ran counter to Politically Correct orthodoxies. Look at how much trouble the President of Harvard got himself in recently by merely questioning liberal "gospel"....
Without wishing to engage in charge and counter-charge, it does seem to me that my review posted on Amazon.com speaks to some of the issues raised by "Just a visitor." I mean this, in all sincerety, for simple consideration.
As a non-Mormon but devout Christian, I read Martha's Beck's book with fascination.
Many posters have said that Martha's views/writings about the beliefs of Mormons is very strict, and that they've never seen such behavior (such as shunning the Catholic classmate) themselves.
Perhaps precisely *because* Martha is the daughter of Hugh Nibley, she was treated and expected to act much more "Mormon" than "regular" LDS. If people were coming to her childhood home to sit at the feet of her father in adoration, of course she was encouraged ... expected ... to be "perfect."
A fascinating book. If half of what Martha Beck wrote about the LDS church is true ... well, let's just say I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
I think if there is one thing everyone is sure about (including Beck) it was that the Nibley home was anything but the typical LDS. Certainly not more Mormon. This is a family where Nibley got a call from the school asking why Martha wasn't enrolled in seminary (sort of a release time religion class in the west). Nibley said words to the effect that it was worthless and he wouldn't want Martha enrolled. Nibley was a strong personality with, in many ways idiosyncratic views of Mormon theology. I've no doubt it was an unusual upbringing. But being expected to be more Mormon? I just don't see it.
I've pretty well let this thread drop and haven't posted any of the recent news or articles relevant to it. (And by now many of the links in the posts are somewhat out of date) However for anyone interested Christianity Today posted a review by Robert Millet. Given Millet is former head of the BYU religion department, the disagreement is expected. What is unexpected is its place in a very well respected Christian journal.
I was interested to note the following comment posted by "Just A Visitor" regarding Martha Beck as "borderline":
--On reading this book, I feel as if I've just stepped into the mind of a borderline witch. Is this lady for real? So sensitive and extreme in her emotions. So utterly disregarding of the feelings of others. The characters are so black and white.--
While I cannot comment on Martha Beck's borderline status without a full diagnostic interview, I would like to point out that borderline personality is strongly correlated with early childhood sexual abuse (e.g. Diamond et al., 199; McWilliams, 1994). Thus if Martha Beck is borderline or has a history of borderline personality, this would provide corroboration for her claims of sexual abuse.
In response to the "visiting psychologist",
I don't think there is any dispute that Martha Beck was abused, the only thing disputed is whether it was really her father or not.
I honestly can't believe that I'm still getting 10 people a day visiting over the Beck book. But yes, to second Craig's comments, all acknowledge that Beck was attacked and abused by a neighborhood boy when she was 9. Beck doesn't mention this in the book although did started mentioning it when the New York Times review of her book called her on it.
That's what makes this case so sad. Her family recognizes that Beck has suffered emotional trauma and has mentioned various hospitalizations and the like. Further reading the book one can't help but acknowledge that Beck has some pretty severe issues. The problem is that the book is also filled with pretty distorted assertions that typically those familiar with the events dispute happened the way she says they did.
Clark,
Actually I read this thread for the first time today. I haven't really followed the whole Martha Beck fiasco, but I really like Hugh Nibley and found Jeff's review comforting. I would hate to think that someone I admire as much as I admire Hugh Nibley could do something so evil.
I'm a late-comer to this thread of discussion, but have decided to post for the possible benefit of others who, like me, wander in at a later date and try to make sense of the controversy surrounding Martha's book and Hugh Nibley's life.
This evening, after herding my children off to bed, I resumed the lingering project of organizing my bookshelves after a recent move. I came across a collection of essays by Hugh Nibley, an acquisition from my maiden days living in Provo, Utah from the time I was 15 until I was 21. Martha Nibley is my age, but was a year ahead in school grade-wise. We both attended Provo High School.
I haven't read Leaving the Saints yet, mainly because I have a long list of higher priority books to read. A few years ago, I read Expecting Adam, at the time expecting something entirely different from an acquaintance whose intelligence I respected and whose humour I enjoyed. Reading Expecting Adam, the story of Martha's pregnancy with her Down's Syndrome son, was an exercise in confusion...all those brains (she and her husband were at Harvard working on their bevy of degrees), all those singular spiritual experiences, all that gut-wrenching life experience, and she chooses to punctuate the tale with diatribes about her parents' choice to paint their brick home swimming-pool blue? Or her mother straining weevils out of flour? Or the subversive influence of her religious upbringing on her worldview, which was now honest to the point of tactless and liberal to the point of morally untouchable? As I read, I was unimpressed by her use of indisputable writing talent. I was sickened by her disdain and disrepect for her family and home.
As I've perused the posts, quotes and reviews this evening, I revisited those reactions. I didn't know Dr. Nibley personally, but I attended presentations he gave (which were invigorating to a young adult coming from a working class home)and I encountered him at BYU, a modest, unassuming figure in jogging shoes, pleated dress pants and a cardigan, striding along a campus path, decidedly preoccupied within his thoughts.
I didn't know Martha more than to say hello and listen intently to her wit and exotic stories and broad knowledge in the handful of classes (including LDS seminary) we attended together. (She was, back then, a consummate storyteller.) I did know that she was well-liked, had numerous close friends whose fathers also taught at BYU, and was a sort of comfortable celebrity...not unlike the football stars, the academic whizzes (her husband John Beck was one...our student-body president his senior year), or the cheerleaders. The currency of her celebrity was just a little more cerebral than most high school idols. Her sister Zina, a year younger than we were, appeared to be one of her closest confidantes. I recall them animatedly telling a group of eager listeners about their flight home from Yugoslavia or Hungary or somewhere they'd accompanied their dad. They had cut and pasted the inflight magazine to make hilarious collages of teenage girl life.
During my first year of university, Martha--on a break from her studies at Harvard--invited me "to lunch." We sat in BYU's Cougareat cafeteria, sharing stories about our Swedish mothers who insisted we eat when really we were desperate enough to be thin that we both struggled with bulimia. It was an odd, strangely bonding conversation. Still,I never saw Martha after that.
I'm sharing this not as a travelog of my relationship with a household name, but as a witness to the normalcy of some of Martha's life. She wasn't persecuted in high school or into college for being from a very unique family; on the contrary, it gave her status. I'm not aware of the undoubted maelstrom surrounding her "outing" as a lesbian; this happened long after she'd left Utah Valley. I do know that as an adult, married woman, Martha was a popular presenter at church functions, bearing a strong witness of the power of faith, integrity with self and God, and the healing that comes with prayer and with spirituality. She had me convinced.
Martha's hometown was quirky, in ways, as mentioned in the above commentary and as detailed in her book, but having lived in a dozen other locales--some majority LDS, some with no real LDS presence to speak of--I can say ALL localities have distinguishing characteristics, undoubtedly quirky to someone. When I moved to Provo in 1977 from a town where my family and my aunt's family were the only LDS church members, I thought it was a wonderful place to be, regardless of the cultural ideosyncrasies I encountered. The disdain and outright hatred Martha claims for her upbringing, childhood residence, and religious background are a no-brainer. They represent an attitude adopted in adulthood when her life choices deviated sharply from those of her youth. Where's the shock in that? Human nature leads us to reject things that make us feel uncomfortable, most often when the discomfort arises from our adoption of new habits and mores, including--and maybe especially--self-destructive ones.
Incidentally, I chose to leave Utah Valley, not because it wasn't a great place to cocoon for a time, but because I thought the strength I gained from living in a wholesome, supportive environment would help me make a difference for good in places where substance abuse, mindless promiscuity, disintegrating families, and general disregard for the quality of individual human lives were the norm. I was glad to live, for a time, in a place that supported not simple conformity, but considered compliance to some kind of standard of sane living. I believe Martha flourished there, too. Pity she doesn't remember those details.
That she executed a complete about-face is, again, simply human. Can you imagine the heat she would experience carrying Smalltown Mormondom around as a bumper sticker on the Harvard Expressway? I suggest she did, and has continued to do, what every archetypical bumpkin has done, time immemorial; she decided to leave the farm for good. To her discredit, she opted to conduct a thorough slash-and-burn on the farm while she was at it. That'd show the don what she was really about! That would earn her credibility as a life coach to the wandering! That would give her the cosmopolitan elan she needed to be a star in the BIG world! 'Look,' she could advertise, 'I've left behind everything that bugged me on my careening course toward self-actualization, and you can, too!'
My more salient memories of Martha are of her as an actress, as much as a classroom clown as in any actual role. She commanded plenty of attention--she deserved it--and I imagine there are many others besides me who knew her and who shake their heads in disbelief at the extreme performance she's been giving in the past number of years. I feel nothing but genuine sadness for her family, odd as they may have been in some ways. (Whose wasn't, for goodness sake?)
I think Jeff's review says well that none of us can judge the accuracy of her claims against her father. She's left a witness against him, and against her religion-of-birth. It will serve as an indictment, one way or the other--against her father or against her. Both outcomes are tragic; both would be despicable. If we care to reach conclusions, we'll need to exercise due diligence in either case before passing sentence.
A word to not-LDS readers: Like Martha, I was raised in an LDS home. Unlike Martha, I have stayed in the faith, and thank God every day for it. If what she says about Mormon doctrine appears ludicrous, you might consider cross-referencing your read with some primary sources. Questions are great. Answers are better. It takes work, and guts, to find them.
i just finished reading this book. a thoughtful and fascinating account of a troubled journey.
i was born "in the covenant" and find myself strangely interested in Mormonism despite not believing any of its cult-like doctrine - but with great respect and love for the members of my extended family (all of us descendants of hand-cart pushing, Brigham Young accompanying, pioneers) who have chosen to stay in the fold.
i am disturbed, and writing, because i think that the elephant in the room is misogyny - don't quit reading - i was raised by loving, non-abusive parents (married in the Salt Lake Temple by an Elder who became an Apostle) - now divorced, but stuck together for-time-and-all-eternity in the hereafter. fortunately, for their happiness, neither of them believe this.
Mormon girls shouldn't have to live happy, whole lives because random acts of birth gave them loving, protective fathers like mine - who valued and encouraged my intellectual, feminist and professional growth even before he left the church - ALL girls (and boys) deserve this.
why isn't it clear that the secondary (tertiary? quaternary?) status of women in Mormonism is the base of these issues?
if women can't attain the highest level in the afterlife (without being sealed to a male-type) - why are they given independent judgment at all? and what about those who are born with a Lesbian brain? (i am a Board Certified, university based endocrinologist- i have a tad of credibility on this)- are they doomed?
until Mormon women are equal in all meaningful aspects of life, (and afterlife), they will continue to be victims of abuse in inordinately large numbers.
we do "hold up half of the sky". we deserve remuneration.
Until the Mormon church can value critical thinking, and independent choice of "testimony" they will remain a cult. as long as OBEDIANCE is the most valued characteristic, with women as subjects, then any individual who THINKS will be ostracized. is this what God - however one defines Her - wants?
i can't believe that the universal Goodness would value anything but unconditional love and acceptance.
i am the medical director of a clinic that cares for the homeless - my patient's "sins" are innumerable - if one uses Mormon definitions; my clients are doomed. i love them all. to me they are more brave, valuable and deserving than the 12 ancient white MEN, who have never really suffered and sit in Salt Lake in judgment of us all, are.
Martha is a brave, somewhat trapped, but a REAL pioneer, woman - courageously exploring her growth - and i appreciate her effort.
Well I agree all women (and men) deserve non-abusive parents. I'm not sure Mormonism entails that not being true.
As to goodness entailing unconditional acceptance I'm not sure I buy that. Love yes. Acceptance no. There simply are things we do that ought not be accepted. I think even the most radical atheist would agree with that. Of course one can debate, as a practical matter what practical unconditional love is versus not accepting bad things. And, since we're all relatively ignorant fallible people with our own burdens to bear, we all fall short.
I simply disagree that the LDS church doesn't value critical thinking and obviously I strongly disagree with cult labels unless one uses it in the technical sense of the term in which all organized religions are cults.
I have read your review. I liked it.
I have read all the comments posted here thoughtfully.
Here is what I have to say:
I sit so far away from all that happened...
Through many years I have been well taught by Hugh Nibley. I have been exhilerated and had my vision expanded by him.
A couple of years ago I started getting the O magazine - my R20 a month mental, and enjoyment, therapy.
I felt like Martha Beck (didn't know then 'who' she was), a columnist in the O magazine, 'got' who, and where, I am and was helpful to me in living my life better in creative and ingenious ways.
I noticed the books mentioned at the end of her articles - didn't think much of them, just really enjoyed the columns.
I browsed through a copy of "Leaving the Saints" in a bookshop. I figured out she was a "Saint" and that "Leaving" was what she did. I didn't feel like spending the price of the book on reading something that I was not sure would be good for me or not.
Then I joined a book club and discovered that "Leaving the Saints" was on their list of books at a more favourable price.
On the strength of her column's influence on me, and my curiosity, I decided to read about her Leaving the Saints.
Wondered if she was Hugh Nibley's daughter as I read. Checked on the internet and discovered she is.
As a child of a local LDS celebrity I identified ruefully with some of her comments. As a Latter-day Saint I identified where she was coming from in the "saintly" sociality.
And now... a year after reading her book: I am glad I read it. I have had some lively discussions with other individuals who have read the book.
I have been well-taught by her father. I have been well-taught by her; both in her book (the only one I have read so far) and her monthly column.
I can hold both individuals in my life, keeping the good (in my opinion) that comes to me from each of them, blowing the chaff (in my opinion) that I see in each, away. I leave the unknowns-to-me-and-to-others to God to judge.
I have no doubt that this is a "jig-saw puzzle", the pieces of which are MANY, that will be worked on by me and others over the years to come.
In the meantime: Thank you Martha Beck for enriching my life each month. I learn a lot, and I learnt a lot from your book.
Hello all. I've just stumbled upon this site. I wasn't aware there was so much comment.
I want to thank all of you who commented on my review. I tried my best to be fair and open-minded. I'm really glad you picked up on it.
Best regards to all.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble