Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_RayAgostini]

In defense of my friend, Dan. Most here will know that I’ve had long running disputes on this board with Dan. However, those who care to analyse those criticisms will see that I never at any time resorted to calling him names (like “fool”, “a-hole”, etc.). Why? Because I have a very high opinion of him as a person, so while I attacked some of his ideas, I never personally attacked him. For that matter, I haven’t attacked Dr. Scratch by “going low”, either. Although I don’t know who Dr. Scratch is, I do respect his intellect, if not his “on-going campaign”.

Dan does at times come across, or can come across as being “cold” and “aloof” on message boards. I know this from experience, but I also know his real life persona, and those who viewed his Mormon Stories interview will have had a glimpse into his real life persona. The length of those interviews is about the same time I spent with him when he visited Australia in 2006, and paid a visit to my “blue collar working-class” flat in an obscure suburb 50 miles south of Sydney. My daughter helped with the preparations for this visit, and she insisted that I go out and buy new dinner plates and glasses, because he’s “an important person”. Dan and his wife were very informal, and his wife is one of the most down to earth Mormons I’ve ever met.

“Gregarious”, “intelligent” and “very interesting conversation” are some words I’d use to describe that brief encounter, apart from his gobbling up a dozen donuts before the main meal even commenced :). Yes, he’s “straight”, a straight and true blue believer in Mormonism, but yet is also remarkably tolerant and understanding of divergent beliefs, including mine. I feel I sort of betrayed that friendship when I later attacked him here, but I was attacking, I suppose, his “message board persona”, not the man himself. So I can understand the angst of many. You cannot judge an entire person by their “message board persona”. Sure, it does reflect their personality to some degree, but you cannot know the whole person just by what they write on message boards. The thing that most strikes me about Dan is his consistency, years and years of it. Like the North Star, he’s unwavering in his Mormon beliefs, and ten years later still shows no sign of “liberalising” any of those beliefs, and that may be why he comes across as “cold” to those of us who hold different opinions. Do not ask him to compromise, or you’re certain to feel his “coldness”, or in other words, his testimony, which to many may seem “Boyd K. Packer-Like”. He simply won’t budge, and that’s what many interpret as “coldness”, and that’s what really offends many, because it almost doesn’t seem “human” to be so stoic in one’s beliefs, and he places his highest values in those beliefs, I would say, even above friendship. In this regard, I’m reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

[_Chap]

In defense of my friend, Dan. Most here will know that I’ve had long running disputes on this board with Dan. However, those who care to analyse those criticisms will see that I never at any time resorted to calling him names (like “fool”, “a-hole”, etc.). Why? Because I have a very high opinion of him as a person, so while I attacked some of his ideas, I never personally attacked him. For that matter, I haven’t attacked Dr. Scratch by “going low”, either. Although I don’t know who Dr. Scratch is, I do respect his intellect, if not his “on-going campaign”.

Dan does at times come across, or can come across as being “cold” and “aloof” on message boards. I know this from experience, but I also know his real life persona, and those who viewed his Mormon Stories interview will have had a glimpse into his real life persona. The length of those interviews is about the same time I spent with him when he visited Australia in 2006, and paid a visit to my “blue collar working-class” flat in an obscure suburb 50 miles south of Sydney. My daughter helped with the preparations for this visit, and she insisted that I go out and buy new dinner plates and glasses, because he’s “an important person”. Dan and his wife were very informal, and his wife is one of the most down to earth Mormons I’ve ever met.

“Gregarious”, “intelligent” and “very interesting conversation” are some words I’d use to describe that brief encounter, apart from his gobbling up a dozen donuts before the main meal even commenced :). Yes, he’s “straight”, a straight and true blue believer in Mormonism, but yet is also remarkably tolerant and understanding of divergent beliefs, including mine. I feel I sort of betrayed that friendship when I later attacked him here, but I was attacking, I suppose, his “message board persona”, not the man himself. So I can understand the angst of many. You cannot judge an entire person by their “message board persona”. Sure, it does reflect their personality to some degree, but you cannot know the whole person just by what they write on message boards. The thing that most strikes me about Dan is his consistency, years and years of it. Like the North Star, he’s unwavering in his Mormon beliefs, and ten years later still shows no sign of “liberalising” any of those beliefs, and that may be why he comes across as “cold” to those of us who hold different opinions. Do not ask him to compromise, or you’re certain to feel his “coldness”, or in other words, his testimony, which to many may seem “Boyd K. Packer-Like”. He simply won’t budge, and that’s what many interpret as “coldness”, and that’s what really offends many, because it almost doesn’t seem “human” to be so stoic in one’s beliefs, and he places his highest values in those beliefs, I would say, even above friendship. In this regard, I’m reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

I suspect that he may well be just like that in person, since there are some indications that are evident even to anonymous cowardly anti-mormons like me.

But why does he succeed so thoroughly in giving such a deeply unattractive and self-obsessed impression on the internet? Does he not have a trusted friend who can explain to him what the online DCP looks like and get him to stop?

[_beastie]

In defense of my friend, Dan. Most here will know that I’ve had long running disputes on this board with Dan. However, those who care to analyse those criticisms will see that I never at any time resorted to calling him names (like “fool”, “a-hole”, etc.). Why? Because I have a very high opinion of him as a person, so while I attacked some of his ideas, I never personally attacked him. For that matter, I haven’t attacked Dr. Scratch by “going low”, either. Although I don’t know who Dr. Scratch is, I do respect his intellect, if not his “on-going campaign”.

Dan does at times come across, or can come across as being “cold” and “aloof” on message boards. I know this from experience, but I also know his real life persona, and those who viewed his Mormon Stories interview will have had a glimpse into his real life persona. The length of those interviews is about the same time I spent with him when he visited Australia in 2006, and paid a visit to my “blue collar working-class” flat in an obscure suburb 50 miles south of Sydney. My daughter helped with the preparations for this visit, and she insisted that I go out and buy new dinner plates and glasses, because he’s “an important person”. Dan and his wife were very informal, and his wife is one of the most down to earth Mormons I’ve ever met.

“Gregarious”, “intelligent” and “very interesting conversation” are some words I’d use to describe that brief encounter, apart from his gobbling up a dozen donuts before the main meal even commenced :). Yes, he’s “straight”, a straight and true blue believer in Mormonism, but yet is also remarkably tolerant and understanding of divergent beliefs, including mine. I feel I sort of betrayed that friendship when I later attacked him here, but I was attacking, I suppose, his “message board persona”, not the man himself. So I can understand the angst of many. You cannot judge an entire person by their “message board persona”. Sure, it does reflect their personality to some degree, but you cannot know the whole person just by what they write on message boards. The thing that most strikes me about Dan is his consistency, years and years of it. Like the North Star, he’s unwavering in his Mormon beliefs, and ten years later still shows no sign of “liberalising” any of those beliefs, and that may be why he comes across as “cold” to those of us who hold different opinions. Do not ask him to compromise, or you’re certain to feel his “coldness”, or in other words, his testimony, which to many may seem “Boyd K. Packer-Like”. He simply won’t budge, and that’s what many interpret as “coldness”, and that’s what really offends many, because it almost doesn’t seem “human” to be so stoic in one’s beliefs, and he places his highest values in those beliefs, I would say, even above friendship. In this regard, I’m reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

Ray,

I understand what you're saying. I feel confident that many of us would give a different impression in real life than we do online. I don't assume DCP's real life personality is like the one online at all. I've heard before that he is a kind and generous person, and even online, I've gotten the sense he is able to be tolerant of more diversity than many LDS would be.

But that doesn't change the fact that DCP's pattern of posting is as I described, at least in my view, and I think others would agree with me: he tends to come across as superior, condescending, and disdainful. I do not believe it's deliberate. I think it's part of the "armor" he's built over the years. And what bothers me about this isn't really his posting style, because lots of us have negative traits in our posting styles. It's part of the internet risk. What bothers me is that DCP really doesn't seem willing or maybe able to recognize his own part in this little dance. His comments comparing the tempest he stirs up on the internet to antisemitism is a good demonstration of that. Seriously, it's not prejudice against Mormons that causes DCP his problems. It's his posting style. It's irritating that he refuses to admit that and instead, to use an analogy already in use on this thread, prefers to climb up on the cross.

[_Kishkumen]

“Gregarious”, “intelligent” and “very interesting conversation” are some words I’d use to describe that brief encounter, apart from his gobbling up a dozen donuts before the main meal even commenced :). Yes, he’s “straight”, a straight and true blue believer in Mormonism, but yet is also remarkably tolerant and understanding of divergent beliefs, including mine. I feel I sort of betrayed that friendship when I later attacked him here, but I was attacking, I suppose, his “message board persona”, not the man himself. So I can understand the angst of many. You cannot judge an entire person by their “message board persona”. Sure, it does reflect their personality to some degree, but you cannot know the whole person just by what they write on message boards. The thing that most strikes me about Dan is his consistency, years and years of it. Like the North Star, he’s unwavering in his Mormon beliefs, and ten years later still shows no sign of “liberalising” any of those beliefs, and that may be why he comes across as “cold” to those of us who hold different opinions. Do not ask him to compromise, or you’re certain to feel his “coldness”, or in other words, his testimony, which to many may seem “Boyd K. Packer-Like”. He simply won’t budge, and that’s what many interpret as “coldness”, and that’s what really offends many, because it almost doesn’t seem “human” to be so stoic in one’s beliefs, and he places his highest values in those beliefs, I would say, even above friendship.

Here's a question, then, Ray: Is it at all appropriate to criticize a person's online behavior, even if that behavior is somewhat at odds with the whole person?

I, too, have had some off-board dealings with Daniel Peterson, and, although they were probably not as warm as yours, I get the same positive impression of the whole person. At the same time, when I witness this business about not "outing" this woman he knows who posts on MDB as written on the blog of a national American publication, I really have to wonder what is up. Am I allowed to do that? Or am I just restricted to clucking my tongue in private?

I have spoken of the virtues of Daniel Peterson, the whole person, but I have to say that I do take issue with the persona presented on the boards and on that blog. The reference to not "outing" a poster here, as published on a forum completely unrelated to this place, seems odd. Can I say that? Am I out of line to write here about that seeming somewhat strange and questionable in my opinion?

That woman to whom he has referred is LDS too. So am I, for that matter. Is it for Daniel to decide whether we are LDS enough to take issue with some of the public statements that are made on behalf of the Church we are still listed as members of? Why can we not disagree with these things? Or do you think we can, Ray? Are apologists sacrosanct because of their self-elected calling to defend the Church? It seems to me that this would be a great thing to take advantage of (not suggesting Daniel is): I can make any silly statement I want, insult whomever I will, behave like a total jerk, and because I defend Mormonism, voila! Don't you dare criticize me or you are a Mormon hater. I am actually thinking of Will Schryver here, one of the biggest abusers of the leeway being an apologist seems to provide.

And this is really one of my core issues. It has, in fact, been one of my core issues since the time I was a TBM at BYU. Am I allowed to say "TBM"? Or does using the wrong language make this open season on Kishkumen because he violated the believers' proper use of language? I find it odd that apologists seem to be able to attack others, make fun of them, gang up on authors with multiple snarky reviews, etc., and yet being here on this message board--this SINGLE, SOLITARY message board--is such a violation of the apologists' freedom to relative impunity when on their self-appointed errand that we get lectures about this and even threats, sometimes from people who are otherwise very dear to us.

And that is my opinion. That is how I see things. I believe I am entitled to that opinion, and I can share that opinion with others. In itself, this opinion does not constitute an attack on Mormonism. Rather, it is a fairly reasonable, from my point of view, complaint about some super-zealous fellow members who have taken it upon themselves to police every message about Mormonism they see and inveigh against anything they happen not to like as though it were hateful and a deliberate putdown. I apologize in advance if my heartfelt personal opinion based on my own observations is offensive, but tough crap.

[_consiglieri]

I agree with Ray that Daniel C. Peterson is much different when being encountetred up close and personal. Though I have never met him, I have had some e-mail exchanges with him, and I know some who have met him, and I have all his videos (I'm a DCP fanboy), and he unfailingly presents as kind, gentle, self-effacing, tolerant and open-minded.

This is why I too scratch my head at how he sometimes presents on message boards, and can't help but be reminded of the old Disney cartoon with Goofy's alter-ego once he gets behind the wheel of a car.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_RayAgostini]

Here's a question, then, Ray: Is it at all appropriate to criticize a person's online behavior, even if that behavior is somewhat at odds with the whole person?

I don't see anything wrong with that, Kish. But I wouldn't, for example, go as far as saying: "Daniel Peterson is no stranger to preaching the politics of hate."

I think statements like that are a bit over the top.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't see anything wrong with that, Kish. But I wouldn't, for example, go as far as saying: "Daniel Peterson is no stranger to preaching the politics of hate."

I think statements like that are a bit over the top.

I am pretty damned disappointed in you, Ray. You probably thought that was a real zinger.

Problem is: I did not write that.

[_RayAgostini]

I am pretty damned disappointed in you, Ray. You probably thought that was a real zinger.

Problem is: I did not write that.

I didn't say you did. I used it as an example. And who ever wrote it referred readers to this board, for examples of DCP's "politics of hate".

[_Kishkumen]

I didn't say you did. I used it as an example. And who ever wrote it referred readers to this board, for examples of DCP's "politics of hate".

So the name attached to that post had nothing to do with you throwing that comment at me?

Really?

[_RayAgostini]

So the name attached to that post had nothing to do with you throwing that comment at me?

Really?

I wasn't 100% sure, which is why I didn't attach you specifically to the comment. Your recent commentary is not far off that, either. But feel free to correct me. You pledged to cease overly and intemperately criticising DCP, but I haven't seen any let up in it.