I wrote:
>Thanks for the faint praise Thom. Just so you know, I support
>every assertion I make in my review of Martha's book with
>evidence from her book, and each piece of evidence comes with
>a handy footnote. I also give the names of any other sources
>I use. For example, I name the librarians I spoke with, the
>leaders of the BYU Women's Conference who commented on
>Martha's claims, the Utah doctor and former counselor in the
>General Primary Presidency who dispute Martha's claims about a
>Women's Conference session that figures prominently in
>Martha's narrative. Would that Martha had been so kind to her readers.
And Thom responded:
I wish she could have provided more proof of her claims.
And I respond:
She didn't provide *any* proof for her claims. None.
I wrote:
>If
>a bishop really didn't want to listen to her complaints, say
>so. Don't ask us to believe that he stuck his fingers in his
>ears.
And Thom responded:
For that, I don't need as much evidence, because I've seen similar "Hear no
Evil: Bishops in my life.
And I respond:
Nobody is, certainly I'm not, saying that there aren't "hear no evil"
bishops in the church. But Martha's cute little attack on the church
featured a bishop who literally stuck his fingers in his ears and chanted,
"I can't hear you. I can't hear you." You've never run into one of those
have you? Neither have I.
I wrote:
>If she had done those things, the reader could then
>check to see how legitimate her critique really is, and we
>could have a fact-based discussion about what's allegedly
>wrong with Mormon culture rather than one that's buried safely
>in the "wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean"
>anonymity of pseudonyms and the passive voice.
And Thom responded:
A lot of what she alleged, I did "know." Someday, I may write a memoir about
my experience in the Ward from Hell in which I lived for 12 years upon first
moving back from California. Some of the stuff Martha suggests, I'm going,
"Right on! Yeah, I saw that, too.!"
And I respond:
One problem with Martha's memoir, as I point out in my review, is that
everything weird or bad that you or I or anyone on this list has experienced
in this church happened to her. It's like she reached into the grab bag of
our culture's odd and weird and said, "hey, this is great. I'm going to
pretend it happened to me." Wait, that's exactly what she did.
Of course, another problem with Martha's memoir is that many things she
describes as commonplace in the church never happened to you or me or anyone
else. Makes for good copy though.
I wrote:
>Finally, funny that you let my tone and not Martha's disrupt
>your reading.
And Thom responded:
It's the same reason I can slog through most Mormon literature but I can't
finish most of FARMS rebuttals. I EXPECT disenfranchised Mormons to take the
easy way. From LDS academics, whom I assume take their religion seriously, I
expect them to take the hire road. The only work of Nibley's I've never been
able to finish for that same reason is "No, Ma'am." And why I can't stomach
O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and their ilk. I am bothered when otherwise
intelligent people stoop to the level of their opponents. I kinda like the
way the Church officially handles its opponents. They either offer an
even-tempered explanation for something or they ignore the criticism
altogether.
And I respond:
Sorry that my tone interfered with your reading. Nevertheless, I disagree
that a book review or even an academic paper must toe the "just the facts
ma'am" line. Where I do agree, however, is that no matter the tone a book
review of the type I wrote or an academic paper must present evidence to
support the author's assertions. Mine, in fact, did that--footnoted a la
Nibley rather than a la Beck. And so do the vast majority, if not all, of
the FARMS reviews I've read.
Greg Taggart
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006
