Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Buffalo]

Or he is using critics to manage his anxiety.

1. P, on some level, understands that Mormonism is essentially false. The evidence is lacking or contradictory.
2. P needs to create a situation where Mormonism can be bolstered.
3. P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally. All posts by him must eventually become about him, and the more unsettled the critic the better. But P cannot initiate the hostilities, the critic must take the bait. Why?
4. The critic attacks P "unfairly, showing P that they have nothing to say worth hearing, that exmoism produces bitter people, that Mormonism must have something to it, otherwise why make it personal instead of talking issues?

If true we would expect:

1. P will especially seek out the most unbalanced critics to interact with.
2. P will avoid calm critics who only talk issues.
3. All interactions with P will either end in him going somewhere else and leaving the conversation, or the critic will attack him, whereupon P will reinvest MORE time encouraging more attacks. (This would be limited to interaction concerning Mormonism. Anyone can talk to him about politics, the Jazz, or the weather.)
4. P will find it very, very hard to stay away from disrespectful critics, and will be bored (disturbed?)by respectful ones.

How close am I?

Very close indeed, I would say.

As I recall, DCP left this board when he was put in a position of having to defend several of his own statements and past actions with regard to issues, and not because of any personal attacks.

Absolutely. Dr. Peterson had all the time in the world to respond to insults, but no time for substance.

[_angsty]

His pathological defensiveness makes him seem unhinged.

The funny thing is that in real life Dr. Peterson is the most normal man you would ever want to meet. He has many, many friends, and he is generally regarded as a pillar of his community. It seems to me that the long practice of defending the LDS faith against critics, which was very emotionally rewarding in the past, has been accelerated to a furious pace because of the technology.

Dr. Peterson, a man of great intelligence and energy, gets his cup of Joe by fighting the dragons of anti-Mormonism. It is very exhilarating, but the internet gives it an accessibility to the broader public that makes it more perilous, I think. It was one thing for Daniel to exchange blows with the Tanners in the days of print--that remained largely an inside-community affair, but when you hit TIME's blog, then you have leaked out into the wider world, where, as Brother Otterson well knows, public scrutiny awaits... and it can be very unkind.

I'm a little surprised, although I believe you. All I know about him is from his participation on forums and there's just so much baloney, so much snark, so much rhetoric, so much "woe is me, I am persecuted", so many vague, unfounded assertions ... it's hard to look at that and think it's compatible with a mild-mannered friend of many. I mean his actual comments about the photos were utter bullpucky-- from the statements about the subjects being reminiscent of "the rural poor of Appalachia" to his overall vague and unqualified evaluation of the photographer's skill.

I like to argue myself, so I understand the bloodlust of argument and debate. But, I also like a worthy opponent and a legitimate issue, and I like to be right and have sound reasoning from premises to conclusion. I also like to make sure that I'm not bullpuckying to get there-- that's a hollow victory if you don't get caught, but in the open internet, you're going to get caught. People actually know stuff. There are real photographers and art aficionados looking at those photos, evaluating them with a trained eye, and they know he's full of crap. So I don't argue about stuff I don't know anything about-- and I don't understand people that do.

He complains about online persecution that follows him, while being perfectly able to solve that problem himself. But instead, he starts battles with his enemies in forums where they don't belong (the TIME photo essay), and disrespects other posters who are not involved in the personal dramas he conducts for whatever reason. He makes himself appear to be a jerk and a fool and it is continually surprising to me that he doesn't have the good sense to think better of much of what he posts.

I understand the urge to defend what he believes in, and I understand the fun of argumentation. I just don't understand the internet drama queen angle, or how an otherwise-intelligent person can shamelessly spout baloney publicly as if there aren't qualified people around who know he's full of crap.

[_sock puppet]

Never mind that this whole theme (that the photographer made his family look "poor") is entirely manufactured. I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could look at those photos and come to those conclusions. Whatever one thinks of the posing, scenes, general aesthetic or captions, the people in the photos look like pretty "average Americans" to me.

My only explanation is that this reflects what has long been a part of Peterson & Co.'s rhetoric about their "enemies:" you see it not just in the long running "trailer park" motif, but also in heavy handed gestures toward their own supposedly refined cultural tastes. It's something more than just run of the mill American classism, too, especially when you consider that taking pride in the early pioneer's hard scrabble lives of desert deprivation and struggle has always been widespread in Mormon culture.

Do you suppose it is a kind of Prosperity Gospel thing? I mean, it is OK for the pioneers to sacrifice because they were robbed, persecuted, and forced to flee to the West. But now that God has blessed the Mormon people for their righteousness and past sacrifices (look at Romney, the Marriotts, et al.) those who remain poor must have something wrong with them, i.e., they must be sinful people.

Imagine, then, how wicked the Church and its membership and its prophet, JSJr, must have been in Kirtland days. Considering the bank failure an all. Wicked, I tell you, wicked. It must have been all that shagging of the extra ladies by JSJr that caused the bank failure.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think DCP wishes for the days when the critics of the Church were cult ministries who preyed on people’s ignorance to make their own religious ranks swell. I think all of Dan’s over emphasis on his own literacy and writing skill harken back to the days when being able to read a biblical text in Greek or Hebrew alone would put you head and shoulders above your standard ministry leader.

But those days are gone; the cult ministries have become increasingly unpopular and have been replaced by more professional apologetic organizations, Mormon studies as a discipline is starting to come into its own and that maturity is attracting a wide array of people from various disciplines who simply don’t care if what they find and publish makes the collective MD&D and Mormon Apologist henhouse cluck furiously.

The attitude Dan has today worked really well back in 1997, but now the posturing isn’t impressive to anyone but his own fans.

[_RockSlider]

This morning the post had been removed by Minos with a warning not to bring "online scuffles" over to MDD. So, it would appear that the moderators at MDD are not all that happy with DCP's performance when it comes to his Time LightBox comments.

Poor Dan has lost his kingdom on MAD, ruined his "feel sorry for me" podium at the Cafeteria, and now has found a new home on a Time blog, where, like the energizer bunny, or the old Timex watch, he continues to "take a licking and keep on ticking", with his theme song of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srpwqf2MWAw

[_malkie]

Several posters have remarked on how Dr Peterson's posts on lightbox look to outsiders.

However, I wonder:

1. Are "we" objective enough to be sure that he is not taken seriously and regarded sympathetically by disinterested viewers?
2. Can we be sure that those commenting negatively on Dr P's posts are actually neutral observers - that is, those who have not identified themselves as critics of Mormonism/NAMIRS/MST?

I admit that I have not read all of the lightbox posts, but it seems to me that many of the posters with negative things to say about Dr P already had a "relationship" with him.

3. What on earth do the lightbox admins etc. think of what is going on?

4. Has nobody from the church called Dr P off because:
a. they don't know what's happening?
or
b. they think that the church is benefiting from the proceedings?

[_RockSlider]

Dr. Peterson, a man of great intelligence and energy, gets his cup of Joe by fighting the dragons of anti-Mormonism. It is very exhilarating, but the internet gives it an accessibility to the broader public that makes it more perilous, I think. It was one thing for Daniel to exchange blows with the Tanners in the days of print--that remained largely an inside-community affair, but when you hit TIME's blog, then you have leaked out into the wider world, where, as Brother Otterson well knows, public scrutiny awaits... and it can be very unkind.

There is one dynamic that should not be overlooked or ever underestimated - the BYU Honor Code contract.

History has shown, time and time again, this is a contract to be feared.

Maintaining ones status, career and livelihood is typically a good thing. But I'm sure, in the case of BYU employment, often a very conflicted place to be.

I would not take any public figure, at face value on LDS topics, who was under this contract.

[_RayAgostini]

Several posters have remarked on how Dr Peterson's posts on lightbox look to outsiders.

However, I wonder:

1. Are "we" objective enough to be sure that he is not taken seriously and regarded sympathetically by disinterested viewers?
2. Can we be sure that those commenting negatively on Dr P's posts are actually neutral observers - that is, those who have not identified themselves as critics of Mormonism/NAMIRS/MST?

I admit that I have not read all of the lightbox posts, but it seems to me that many of the posters with negative things to say about Dr P already had a "relationship" with him.

Good questions, and very observant. This is what I would call "being fair". We could all do with some deep introspection, and let he/she who is of perfect character cast the first stone. We don't need "pseudo-psychology".

[_angsty]

Several posters have remarked on how Dr Peterson's posts on lightbox look to outsiders.

However, I wonder:

1. Are "we" objective enough to be sure that he is not taken seriously and regarded sympathetically by disinterested viewers?
2. Can we be sure that those commenting negatively on Dr P's posts are actually neutral observers - that is, those who have not identified themselves as critics of Mormonism/NAMIRS/MST?

I admit that I have not read all of the lightbox posts, but it seems to me that many of the posters with negative things to say about Dr P already had a "relationship" with him.

3. What on earth do the lightbox admins etc. think of what is going on?

4. Has nobody from the church called Dr P off because:
a. they don't know what's happening?
or
b. they think that the church is benefiting from the proceedings?

Good questions.

1. I don't even know most of the context of whatever is going on over there. I can't imagine what a true outsider thinks of it. I doubt that someone who wasn't previously interested would go to the trouble of trying to understand who Peterson is or what all the drama is about. However, that he persisted in cluttering up the comments with his drama-- even while answering comments that had nothing to do with the drama-- that's just poor form anyway you slice it. Whether you have context or not, it's annoying when people conduct off-topic personal warfare in a comment forum. And, anyone who knows anything about photography, knows that aside from being half-assed and vague, his criticisms were uninformed-- so if any previously-uninterested party bothered to read his evaluation, he does look like an idiot there.

2. Of course not, but I don't think it matters much. I think the actual content of the criticisms is more important. Especially for a neutral observer-- if any would even bother to wade through the comments. Anyone interested in the photos themselves, whether they have a history with Peterson or not, would have a legitimate gripe against him for using the forum for his off-topic antics. That much is clear, and requires very little insider knowledge, if any.

3. I wonder how closely the comments are monitored at all. I'm thinking not much. I wonder if any of it makes sense without substantial background. I tried to explain the world of Mormon Apologetics to my boss once (Phil professor). I sent him to the old MA&D board. He was overwhelmed with the lack of substance and uninterested in the soap opera. When I attempted to put some of the issues in context, he said he didn't think it was worth investing that much effort in. He's one of the most intelligent and clear-headed thinkers I've ever met and I admit to feeling some shame at having invested too much attention in understanding Mormon Apologetics myself.

4. I wonder about that too. I'm inclined to think that he's of little consequence in the broad scheme, or that they just don't see the problem (if anyone is looking). His unreflective posts that are accessible to outsiders have a certain annoying unqualified air of authority that people associate with Mormon men anyway, and while that bothers people outside of LDS patriarchal culture, it often seems invisible to the people within it.

[Guest]

-