[AML] RE: Beck, Leaving the Saints

I have tried to resist commenting on this thread--this topic has already
cost me a great deal and I really do not want to revisit it--but I do want
to make two points that have not yet been mentioned.

First, I do believe there is a distinct and very real difference, both in
terms of the author's rhetoric and purpose--between anti-Mormon literature
and cultural criticism. I know there are some who see any criticism of
Mormonism or Mormon culture as anti-Mormon. I am not that type of Mormon.
There are others who don't believe there is anything that can be labeled
anti-Mormon. I definitely do not agree with that. The difference, I believe,
is that cultural criticism speaks the truth with the purpose of effecting
change. It does not mince words, but it also recognizes that in order for
change to happen, the message must reach its audience and be heard.
Anti-Mormon writings, on the other hand, employ stereotypes, stock
characters, clichés, unrecognizable overstatement, and seek to ridicule or
foster hate. Hugh Nibley was a very strong voice of cultural criticism. His
words were hard-hitting, cutting, but they also sought to change real Mormon
actions. He cited scripture and prophets as evidence. Martha Beck is an
example of anti-Mormon literature. Any one who has read from the piles of
anti-Mormon literature can recognize the same stock themes, the same
clichés, the same overstatement. And what purpose does her book serve? Is
she really trying to get Mormon culture to change? I really don't think so.

None of us tolerates anti-Semitic or bigoted or misogynistic literature. Why
are we going to tolerate anti-Mormon literature? Cultural criticism is one
thing, but anti-Mormon literature is designed to do one thing and one thing
only: breed hatred.

Second, I have read enough postmodern theory that I understand where all the
talk about "it's her version of reality" comes from. I've also been in
situations where my version of events differs from someone else's. I fully
understand the subjective nature of our own point of view. But there are
limits, aren't there? If my recollection of our family vacation differs from
my wife's in minor ways, I don't get too stressed out. But if my version
involves a trip to Florida where we saw Mickey Mouse and dolphins and her
version of that same vacation involves a trip to Southern France where we
saw the town of Arles and a windmill amid fields of lavender, I would start
to think there is a significant problem. Both trips could not have taken
place simultaneously unless we went separately.

If I walk into a room and there's glass on the floor and a baseball and my
two younger sons, I don't want my sons to tell me that the baseball threw
itself. There are some "versions of reality" that we really can reject.

There is, as several people have noted, no way to definitively prove that
Martha's claims about her father are either true or false, so if one is to
question her claims we have to look at the claims that are provable. That is
why people have focused on details like the BYU library excising Sonja
Johnson from the newspapers. It's not that these details are that important,
but if our witness cannot be trusted in the small things, why should we
trust her in the larger things?

Finally, I hope you will all understand that I simply cannot be either
disinterested or unemotional about this issue, and I challenge all of those
who want to give Martha's book a chance, who think it should not be
dismissed, to consider what it would be like to be in her family. To watch
as her "memories" grew, modified, and transformed over ten years. To see
them presented in book form as very different from the way they were when
they started or as they were the last time you heard them. To have to watch
as Martha's claims get major press (NYT, Wash Post, London Times, Good
morning America, etc.), while the family's opinions are given little
coverage. To have to explain to your children, too young to even know about
words like "incest," what Martha is claiming their grandfather did and why
she is wrong. To have this issue take over your life at the very same time
you're spending the last moments with your dying father. To have the press
about Martha's book come out the very day before he dies. To have every
major obituary mention Martha's book and her claims. To have BYU act like
one of their most dedicated employees didn't exist because they don't want
anyone to get the wrong idea.

Don't get me wrong, there was also an outpouring of support and love from
members of this community and four general authorities attended Hugh's
funeral. But that year that Martha's book came out was a nightmare we never
asked for and none of us deserved. So when people preach to me that I should
not dismiss Martha's book, I have a hard time not wishing this nightmare on
them.

Boyd Petersen