Boyd,
Can I send this message to "NYT, Wash Post, London Times, Good morning
America, etc." as well as Oprah Magazine? I am impressed with your eloquence
and restraint, while being so honest. I think your explanation of the
difference between cultural criticism and anti-literature is dead on.
Best, Ronda
Ronda Walker Weaver
Folklorist
Utah Valley State College
I wake up every morning determined both to change the world and to have
one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning the day
difficult. -E.B. White
----- Original Message -----
From: "Boyd Petersen" <boyd.petersen@???>
To: <aml-list@???>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:49 PM
Subject: [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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You can subscribe or unsubscribe at
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
>
> AML-List a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature
> <http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html>
> AML-List@???
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
>
>
