A Chapel Mormon's Observation of DCP and William Schryver

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson may be trying to do some "rehab" work on his image. Recently, he posted on his blog that he has joined the editorial board for "Salt Press":

http://saltpress.org/

Based on his blog posting, it seems that someone quickly steered him towards this venture immediately in the wake of his departure from the Review. Of course, it would look good--for any Mormon Studies person--to be seen alongside names like Bushman, Givens, and Hardy, but Dan sticks out like a sore thumb amongst this group. They ought to boot him out before he damages their reputation by association. After all, you know that he's going to try to throw his weight around in order to turn this into a Mopologetics factory. That's all that he knows how to do, unfortunately.

Dan has responded to Scratch's claim (calling him one of his "crazier critics"):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/07/my-boundless-dishonesty.html

Thanks for posting this link, Cicero. It's real interesting that Dan has only now (as far as I know) begun to mention "Salt Press," despite being on the board for over a year (?). Why did someone need to tell him--again, only just recently--that Salt Press is the kind of thing that the MI should be supporting? Kind of a weird remark, no?

Regardless: someone should post in the comments requesting DCP to provide a link, so that all his readers can join in his laughter at these "crazy critics."

[_Kevin Graham]

Don't give up that pseudonym Nevo, I wouldn't want people knowing my real name either.

You blindly defended DCP over his Ritner lies and now you're treating William Schryver like he actually has something of spiritual value to offer people.

Geez, you're an embarrassment to Mormonism. Just today a buddy of mine called to tell me what a jackass Schryver is, and felt the need to apologize for his behavior. I can't think of a single Mormon, aside from a few die-hard internet apologists, say anything good about this dickhead. The way you and Dan prostrate yourselves before to this despicable moron with reckless abandon, is nothing short of stunning. The apologetic enterprise has clearly allowed the nuts to take over the asylum.

[_Analytics]

Thanks for posting this link, Cicero. It's real interesting that Dan has only now (as far as I know) begun to mention "Salt Press," despite being on the board for over a year (?). Why did someone need to tell him--again, only just recently--that Salt Press is the kind of thing that the MI should be supporting? Kind of a weird remark, no?

I thought his point was, “Jerry Bradford et. al. think the MI ought to be publishing the type of serious stuff that Salt Press publishes, but they fired me because they think I’m too much of an ‘obstacle and opponent’ of mature scholarship to function there. Ironically, he said that not realizing I’m on the board of Salt--what a maroon!”

[_angsty]

In the Time/Life photo essay comments...well, I just can't see what it is Chung and Chung's brother and (I assume) many others here are so bothered about. Seriously. What is it folks?

I personally was bothered by a few things related to Schryver/Peterson and the Shumway Photo Essay:

Primarily, I thought it was in poor taste for the Peterson/Schryver lunacy hour to hijack what should have been a discussion of Shumway's photos, using it as a temporary venue for their absurd ongoing internet freak show. The sheer number of off-topic posts on Peterson's part should be embarrassing. He even responded to posters who were commenting solely on the photos (and not to him) with off-topic comments about his side-show and critics. That is poor behavior, and surely worthy of censure.

Additionally, when commenting on-topic, Schryver, rather stupidly, suggested that Shumway intended these photos to present his family and Mormons as "culturally backward and oppressed." When Shumway responded, Schryver, stupidly, dug his heels in and laid blame solely at the feet of Shumway and his artistic vision. Relatedly, Peterson attempted to draw analogy between Shumway's images of normal, middle-class American living and portrayals of the rural poor in Appalachia.

If those images illustrate "culturally backward and oppressed" Schryver must live a very privileged life in an extraordinarily atypical American environment (Perhaps he is Mitt & Ann's neighbor?). If that's what "culturally backward and oppressed" looks like...geez...we're all in trouble, except in whatever magical part of Utah Schryver hails from (Or maybe the glistening perfection follows him around like a bubble wherever he goes?).

Peterson's ethnocentric objection to Utahans being portrayed in ways similar to how he imagines the "rural poor of Appalachia" to appear is both ignorant and deeply insulting.

As to the ignorance: I am gainfully employed, full-time, as the manager of a large archive of audio-visual material of historic importance to the Cumberland Plateau area of Appalachia. I know what images of the "rural poor of Appalachia" look like. They don't look like Brian Shumway's Time Lightbox photo essay of people in Utah, aesthetically, in character, attitude, or otherwise. Whatever those photos had in common with the "rural poor of Appalachia" are the universal things that they have in common with any analogous (clearly middle-class) environment across America.

As to the insult: To criticize Shumway for portraying his Mormon family in a negative light, as backward and oppressed, and then to describe that negative portrayal as resembling portrayals of a certain other people, "the rural poor of Appalachia"-- well, if you have to have that explained to you, then you probably wonder why people are constantly offended by you. Here's an analogy: A former Southern Baptist moves to New York and becomes a successful photographer. He publishes a photo-essay about his family and upbringing. Southern Baptists are up in arms, complaining that the photos are staged to portray them negatively-- in ways that resemble portrayals of Utah Mormons!! The horror!! The disservice!! The insult!!

Seriously. The whole episode was shameful and should embarrass any Mormon with sense who might temporarily abandon it to familiarize themselves with the conversation.

[_cafe crema]

In the Time/Life photo essay comments...well, I just can't see what it is Chung and Chung's brother and (I assume) many others here are so bothered about. Seriously. What is it folks?

I personally was bothered by a few things related to Schryver/Peterson and the Shumway Photo Essay:

Primarily, I thought it was in poor taste for the Peterson/Schryver lunacy hour to hijack what should have been a discussion of Shumway's photos, using it as a temporary venue for their absurd ongoing internet freak show. The sheer number of off-topic posts on Peterson's part should be embarrassing. He even responded to posters who were commenting solely on the photos (and not to him) with off-topic comments about his side-show and critics. That is poor behavior, and surely worthy of censure.

Additionally, when commenting on-topic, Schryver, rather stupidly, suggested that Shumway intended these photos to present his family and Mormons as "culturally backward and oppressed." When Shumway responded, Schryver, stupidly, dug his heels in and laid blame solely at the feet of Shumway and his artistic vision. Relatedly, Peterson attempted to draw analogy between Shumway's images of normal, middle-class American living and portrayals of the rural poor in Appalachia.

If those images illustrate "culturally backward and oppressed" Schryver must live a very privileged life in an extraordinarily atypical American environment (Perhaps he is Mitt & Ann's neighbor?). If that's what "culturally backward and oppressed" looks like...geez...we're all in trouble, except in whatever magical part of Utah Schryver hails from (Or maybe the glistening perfection follows him around like a bubble wherever he goes?).

Peterson's ethnocentric objection to Utahans being portrayed in ways similar to how he imagines the "rural poor of Appalachia" to appear is both ignorant and deeply insulting.

As to the ignorance: I am gainfully employed, full-time, as the manager of a large archive of audio-visual material of historic importance to the Cumberland Plateau area of Appalachia. I know what images of the "rural poor of Appalachia" look like. They don't look like Brian Shumway's Time Lightbox photo essay of people in Utah, aesthetically, in character, attitude, or otherwise. Whatever those photos had in common with the "rural poor of Appalachia" are the universal things that they have in common with any analogous (clearly middle-class) environment across America.

As to the insult: To criticize Shumway for portraying his Mormon family in a negative light, as backward and oppressed, and then to describe that negative portrayal as resembling portrayals of a certain other people, "the rural poor of Appalachia"-- well, if you have to have that explained to you, then you probably wonder why people are constantly offended by you. Here's an analogy: A former Southern Baptist moves to New York and becomes a successful photographer. He publishes a photo-essay about his family and upbringing. Southern Baptists are up in arms, complaining that the photos are staged to portray them negatively-- in ways that resemble portrayals of Utah Mormons!! The horror!! The disservice!! The insult!!

Seriously. The whole episode was shameful and should embarrass any Mormon with sense who might temporarily abandon it to familiarize themselves with the conversation.

+1000

[_Cicero]

Regardless: someone should post in the comments requesting DCP to provide a link, so that all his readers can join in his laughter at these "crazy critics."

I noted that he very consciously avoided doing that. He obviously doesn't think you need any more publicity.

[_Nevo]

Don't give up that pseudonym Nevo, I wouldn't want people knowing my real name either.

My name is Stephen Clarke. It's not a state secret.

You blindly defended DCP over his Ritner lies...

I don't remember that, but I'm sorry it still rankles. In any case, you do not have clean hands when it comes to indulging in online gossip and whisper campaigns against Robert Ritner. I don't like to see anyone unfairly smeared by online character assassins.

Geez, you're an embarrassment to Mormonism...

I probably am in some ways, but I don't think so in this instance. You seem to think that all right-thinking Mormons should revile Will Schryver the way Chung frère does. Well, I don't feel so inclined. If that makes me a bootlicking toady in your eyes, then so be it.

[_Blixa]

I personally was bothered by a few things related to Schryver/Peterson and the Shumway Photo Essay:

Primarily, I thought it was in poor taste for the Peterson/Schryver lunacy hour to hijack what should have been a discussion of Shumway's photos, using it as a temporary venue for their absurd ongoing internet freak show. The sheer number of off-topic posts on Peterson's part should be embarrassing. He even responded to posters who were commenting solely on the photos (and not to him) with off-topic comments about his side-show and critics. That is poor behavior, and surely worthy of censure.

Additionally, when commenting on-topic, Schryver, rather stupidly, suggested that Shumway intended these photos to present his family and Mormons as "culturally backward and oppressed." When Shumway responded, Schryver, stupidly, dug his heels in and laid blame solely at the feet of Shumway and his artistic vision. Relatedly, Peterson attempted to draw analogy between Shumway's images of normal, middle-class American living and portrayals of the rural poor in Appalachia.

If those images illustrate "culturally backward and oppressed" Schryver must live a very privileged life in an extraordinarily atypical American environment (Perhaps he is Mitt & Ann's neighbor?). If that's what "culturally backward and oppressed" looks like...geez...we're all in trouble, except in whatever magical part of Utah Schryver hails from (Or maybe the glistening perfection follows him around like a bubble wherever he goes?).

Peterson's ethnocentric objection to Utahans being portrayed in ways similar to how he imagines the "rural poor of Appalachia" to appear is both ignorant and deeply insulting.

As to the ignorance: I am gainfully employed, full-time, as the manager of a large archive of audio-visual material of historic importance to the Cumberland Plateau area of Appalachia. I know what images of the "rural poor of Appalachia" look like. They don't look like Brian Shumway's Time Lightbox photo essay of people in Utah, aesthetically, in character, attitude, or otherwise. Whatever those photos had in common with the "rural poor of Appalachia" are the universal things that they have in common with any analogous (clearly middle-class) environment across America.

As to the insult: To criticize Shumway for portraying his Mormon family in a negative light, as backward and oppressed, and then to describe that negative portrayal as resembling portrayals of a certain other people, "the rural poor of Appalachia"-- well, if you have to have that explained to you, then you probably wonder why people are constantly offended by you. Here's an analogy: A former Southern Baptist moves to New York and becomes a successful photographer. He publishes a photo-essay about his family and upbringing. Southern Baptists are up in arms, complaining that the photos are staged to portray them negatively-- in ways that resemble portrayals of Utah Mormons!! The horror!! The disservice!! The insult!!

Seriously. The whole episode was shameful and should embarrass any Mormon with sense who might temporarily abandon it to familiarize themselves with the conversation.

+1000

+ all the numbers

[_Kishkumen]

It's absolutely f*****g amazing how Ludd shows up anytime there's a mention of William Schryver.

- VRDRC

Must be an amazing coincidence, I'm sure.

[_Kishkumen]

I personally was bothered by a few things related to Schryver/Peterson and the Shumway Photo Essay:

Primarily, I thought it was in poor taste for the Peterson/Schryver lunacy hour to hijack what should have been a discussion of Shumway's photos, using it as a temporary venue for their absurd ongoing internet freak show. The sheer number of off-topic posts on Peterson's part should be embarrassing. He even responded to posters who were commenting solely on the photos (and not to him) with off-topic comments about his side-show and critics. That is poor behavior, and surely worthy of censure.

Additionally, when commenting on-topic, Schryver, rather stupidly, suggested that Shumway intended these photos to present his family and Mormons as "culturally backward and oppressed." When Shumway responded, Schryver, stupidly, dug his heels in and laid blame solely at the feet of Shumway and his artistic vision. Relatedly, Peterson attempted to draw analogy between Shumway's images of normal, middle-class American living and portrayals of the rural poor in Appalachia.

If those images illustrate "culturally backward and oppressed" Schryver must live a very privileged life in an extraordinarily atypical American environment (Perhaps he is Mitt & Ann's neighbor?). If that's what "culturally backward and oppressed" looks like...geez...we're all in trouble, except in whatever magical part of Utah Schryver hails from (Or maybe the glistening perfection follows him around like a bubble wherever he goes?).

Peterson's ethnocentric objection to Utahans being portrayed in ways similar to how he imagines the "rural poor of Appalachia" to appear is both ignorant and deeply insulting.

As to the ignorance: I am gainfully employed, full-time, as the manager of a large archive of audio-visual material of historic importance to the Cumberland Plateau area of Appalachia. I know what images of the "rural poor of Appalachia" look like. They don't look like Brian Shumway's Time Lightbox photo essay of people in Utah, aesthetically, in character, attitude, or otherwise. Whatever those photos had in common with the "rural poor of Appalachia" are the universal things that they have in common with any analogous (clearly middle-class) environment across America.

As to the insult: To criticize Shumway for portraying his Mormon family in a negative light, as backward and oppressed, and then to describe that negative portrayal as resembling portrayals of a certain other people, "the rural poor of Appalachia"-- well, if you have to have that explained to you, then you probably wonder why people are constantly offended by you. Here's an analogy: A former Southern Baptist moves to New York and becomes a successful photographer. He publishes a photo-essay about his family and upbringing. Southern Baptists are up in arms, complaining that the photos are staged to portray them negatively-- in ways that resemble portrayals of Utah Mormons!! The horror!! The disservice!! The insult!!

Seriously. The whole episode was shameful and should embarrass any Mormon with sense who might temporarily abandon it to familiarize themselves with the conversation.

Thanks for an informed perspective, angsty. I found the whole episode bizarre and I really felt badly for poor Shumway at the time. The apologists came out of that one looking very odd indeed.