Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_angsty]

angsty,

I'm taking a break as I have other things to do, but I'll leave you with a blog post I wrote in March this year:

The Problem with Mormon Apologists and Their Critics..

I don't think I'm the best writer, certainly not as good as Runtu, and I may have been a bit sharp in some of my descriptions, but make of it what you will.

Ray, I'll read your post and give it some serious thought soon. The weekend calls...

[_MrStakhanovite]

Correct me if I'm wrong

That has been the nature of our relationship since you posted as Oxygendam and claimed that criticism of CoJCLDS was unethical.

but you've never been LDS

Nope.

and have no experience with LDS outside of this message board.

False.

How is it possible for you to look back wistfully at "the days when..." when you haven't ever been a part of Mormonism?

Here is a fun project, go to Shields! Once you get over the shock that the website looks like some kind of aborted Netscape 2.0 project, head on over to the critic's corner and read. The tone is the same :

You are right. Mere disagreement with x does not make you anti-x. I disagree with existentialism. But I lose very little sleep over it, and only give the subject about sixty seconds' thought every year or so. Thus, it would be ludicrous to describe me as an "anti-existentialist." So, likewise, with literally hundreds of possible positions and ideologies. I disagree with -- oh, let's see -- Keynesian economics, poststructuralism, Sikhism, predeterminism, Freudian psychoanalysis, revisionist theories of the Kennedy assassination, and technical analysis of the stock market. But since I do not campaign or crusade against any of these, it would be very implausible to call me, say, an anti-Sikh or an anti-Keynesian.

SAUCE
lol- This is probably why Dan told me Heidegger was a anti-existentialist. Funny how quick he'll become a subject matter expert on something he thinks about only once a year for 60 seconds.

[_angsty]

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.

In my mind, Dr. Peterson is a fiercely loyal friend and very devoted Mormon. He is also a forgiving person. One could easily construct a long list of his virtues, including his generosity in Church service, being a fine parent, witty, intelligent, learned, a good writer, etc., etc., etc. Obviously apologetics is a big part of his life, but to reduce his personality to the one facet we most encounter is a serious injustice to the person. In any other context, I might very well admire the man without reservation. As it is, we have fought many hours online, and that colors my view of who he is. I obviously disagree with much he has written, some of it being very problematic in my view. But, overall, I think of him as a pretty exemplary person.

And there's the rub for Peterson. His online conduct is all most of us have to go with and it's entirely up to him how closely it reflects the whole of his personality. I'll admit I don't know anything else about him, but I don't think knowing more about him would temper my criticisms of his online conduct-- because that's all they are limited to. I take it as given that there's more to him than what I read-- I certainly hope so. I don't think he's evil, or a bad person, not by a stretch. And I don't think he's entirely insincere. I just think he's wrong a good deal of the time, that his online conduct does him no favors, and that he has been complicit in making a disrespectful, off-topic mess of online discussions that would otherwise have been interesting to me. That's all I can have an opinion on and I don't think my current opinion is unreasonable.

And now, for realz, I will have my weekend. This has been an interesting day. :-)

[_Simon Belmont]

In my mind, Dr. Peterson is a fiercely loyal friend and very devoted Mormon. He is also a forgiving person. One could easily construct a long list of his virtues, including his generosity in Church service, being a fine parent, witty, intelligent, learned, a good writer, etc., etc., etc. Obviously apologetics is a big part of his life, but to reduce his personality to the one facet we most encounter is a serious injustice to the person. In any other context, I might very well admire the man without reservation. As it is, we have fought many hours online, and that colors my view of who he is. I obviously disagree with much he has written, some of it being very problematic in my view. But, overall, I think of him as a pretty exemplary person.

Well said!

[_Kishkumen]

His online conduct is all most of us have to go with and it's entirely up to him how closely it reflects the whole of his personality. I'll admit I don't know anything else about him, but I don't think knowing more about him would temper my criticisms of his online conduct-- because that's all they are limited to. I take it as given that there's more to him than what I read-- I certainly hope so. I don't think he's evil, or a bad person, not by a stretch. And I don't think he's entirely insincere. I just think he's wrong a good deal of the time, that his online conduct does him no favors, and that he has been complicit in making a disrespectful, off-topic mess of online discussions that would otherwise have been interesting to me. That's all I can have an opinion on and I don't think my current opinion is unreasonable.

Fair enough. I think we all disagree with each other to one degree or another. Plenty of people think I am a person of dubious morals based on my hobby of being "Kishkumen." I am not saying one has to like how he does things. Certainly I have spent more than my fair share of time poking fun at his online activities. I do give him credit for Mormon Scholars Testify, which I think was a genuinely good idea. Bottom line: it is what it is, and I would never tell you not to have or express your opinion. I'm just doing what I do--sharing my opinion back.

Enjoy your weekend.

[_Kishkumen]

Holy S...word K. Why can't we all be like you?

I wouldn't wish that fate on anybody else. It really ain't so pretty.

[_Simon Belmont]

That has been the nature of our relationship since you posted as Oxygendam and claimed that criticism of CoJCLDS was unethical.

Here's a tip: I don't have a sock puppet. But I guess you'll keep on keepin' on.

but you've never been LDS

Nope.

Which doesn't automatically disqualify you from expressing your point of view on Mormonism; likewise, it wouldn't disqualify me from expressing my point of view on Protestantism.

and have no experience with LDS outside of this message board.

False.

Oh, my mistake. I remember you saying have a girlfriend who has or had LDS parents, right? Also, you once had a passing conversation with Missionaries.

Here is a fun project, go to Shields! Once you get over the shock that the website looks like some kind of aborted Netscape 2.0 project, head on over to the critic's corner and read. The tone is the same :

The website does look very old -- mostly because the style hasn't been updated since the late 90's. I will give you that.

Aside from that, the content of SHIELDS is pretty good. I haven't seen anything remotely like what all the criers here complain about.

You are right. Mere disagreement with x does not make you anti-x. I disagree with existentialism. But I lose very little sleep over it, and only give the subject about sixty seconds' thought every year or so. Thus, it would be ludicrous to describe me as an "anti-existentialist." So, likewise, with literally hundreds of possible positions and ideologies. I disagree with -- oh, let's see -- Keynesian economics, poststructuralism, Sikhism, predeterminism, Freudian psychoanalysis, revisionist theories of the Kennedy assassination, and technical analysis of the stock market. But since I do not campaign or crusade against any of these, it would be very implausible to call me, say, an anti-Sikh or an anti-Keynesian.

I see nothing untrue in that statement, which was obviously said in sarcastic jest.

lol- This is probably why Dan told me Heidegger was a anti-existentialist. Funny how quick he'll become a subject matter expert on something he thinks about only once a year for 60 seconds.

In a way, he was. If you don't think so, you should take some more Philosophy classes. For example, what was Heidigger's position on whether or not Satre interpreted his Being and Time?

Now then, back to my point. What, specifically qualifies you to comment on Mormonism?

[_Kishkumen]

Now then, back to my point. What, specifically qualifies you to comment on Mormonism?

He is an intelligent, thoughtful person, possessing keen powers of observation and wisdom beyond his years.

I think those are better qualifications than most people possess.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm confused about this, Belmont:

First you say, this:

Which doesn't automatically disqualify you from expressing your point of view on Mormonism; likewise, it wouldn't disqualify me from expressing my point of view on Protestantism.

and then you follow up by saying this:

Now then, back to my point. What, specifically qualifies you to comment on Mormonism?

Are you challenging Stak and if so, on what count?

[_Kishkumen]

Are you challenging Stak and if so, on what count?

The count of zero, which is also the amount of credibility that Simon brings to the entire question.