Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_sock puppet]

why don't you explain your hypocrisy in giving DCP, your Team LDS leader a bye on his negativity speak?

I haven't seen evidence that he's all that negative. At least not more negative than any other normal person.

Oh, Belmont, say it isn't so. Certainly your level of blind devotion does not extend so far that you cannot see the evidence of DCP's negativity.

I suppose the mediocrity of Mr. Shumway's photographs would be easier to forgive if it weren't for the intellectual pretentiousness of the accompanying article. I mean, Wow. Like, umm, he read Friedrich Nietzsche (note the correct spelling) and Jean-Paul Sartre and Erich Fromm at sixteen? So did I. In California. And now I'm a believing Mormon academic.

And Mormons can't watch television on Sundays? What's with those Tabernacle Choir broadcasts on Sunday mornings, then? And those other Church-produced Sunday television programs on Church history and the like? And we shouldn't visit friends on Sundays? What???

Nonsense.

None of that negativity you crusade against there, right?

Let's see, Simon, would you find it negative if I applied DCP's approach to Shumway instead to JSJr:

"I suppose the mediocrity of JSJr's Book of Mormon would be easier to forgive if it weren't for the intellectual pretentiousness of the accompanying Book of Abraham. I mean, Wow. Like, umm, he saw an angel (note he corrected that to be God, only later to be God and Jesus) and elohim and Jesus at fourteen?"

I am thrilled to know that such is not considered by you as offensive or negative. Right?

In other words, he got it wrong, but that's okay because, having left many years ago, he doesn't know much. Well, fine. We can be charitable, but he's still wrong.

And no, I have never encountered a Mormon family that thought or taught that it was sinful to watch television on Sunday -- "Eeek! Turn the Tabernacle Choir off! Turn general conference off! Don't you know it's the Sabbath?" -- let alone a family that held it a sin to visit others on Sunday.

It would be one thing for DCP to have said that his experience differs from Shumway's, and describe his (DCP's) own experience. But no, in all his Mormon tolerance, DCP pronounced Shumway as "wrong" attempting to invalidate Shumway's personal experience of Mormonism. by the way, Simon, show me an example from the scriptures where Jesus used sarcasm and snarky quips to put others down like DCP, that model of a Christian disciple, does incessantly online? Maybe you, Simon, should try to emulate Jesus more than you try to emulate DCP.

There were other errors, too, but I thought that mentioning them would be overkill. As it is, I pretty mildly pointed out a couple of errors in the article and expressed my honest reaction to the photographs

We certainly wouldn't think DCP overkills in his defense of Mormonism, especially when it was not under attack, right?

Curiously, under the guise of defending the right of everyone to experience Mormonism in various ways, you seem to be denying that others here have the right to have experienced it differently than you (and, evidently, Mr. Shumway) have and to value Mr. Shumway's photographs differently than you do.

And DCP demonstrated that tolerance by repeatedly declaring Mr Shumway's Mormon experience "wrong". If your view of Mormonism isn't shared by DCP your "wrong". Does that pass for tolerance by Mormons of other views and others' experiences? In the real world, outside the Mormon bubble, that type of attitude is properly labeled as negative.

I'm struck by the fact that you (reflexively?) assume that my reaction to the photographs was merely "reflexive" (as if, unlike you, I'm equipped with little more than a spinal column), that I disdain "anything that isn't relentlessly positive about the LDS church," that not finding the photographs very impressive is ipso facto "petulant" and "condescending," and that "non-Mormons" constitute some sort of robotic univocal monolith by virtue of the sheer negative fact that they're not Mormons.

A very curious response. And, ironically, distinctly condescending.

Funny, DCP no longer has enough spine to come here and lob his molotov cocktails at those who have the audacity to express views about Mormonism that do not meet his stylized mental image of it.

I don't actually have any strong feelings about the photographs, one way or the other. They don't offend me, but they don't seem particularly remarkable in any other way, either. (Am I permitted to respond to them that way?) I thought the little essay somewhat pretentious, and not overly accurate. (Is it permissible to say that?)

DCP said, in his initial comment, that the mediocre photos were not as easy for DCP to forgive, due to the accompanying article was 'intellectually pretentious'. Imagine what he might say if he had 'strong feelings'. I wonder what DCP's photography critiquing background is. Maybe he thinks the typical LDS missionary's photos of the inside of a shabby apartment or a fairly common sunset are profound and moving and artistic.

I haven't been angry at all -- what's there to be angry about? mediocre photography is scarcely cause for indignation -- and not even remotely as condemnatory as the people who have criticized me here.

Cause enough for DCP to have taken a swipe at Shumway's photography--though found worthy of publication by a national weekly magazin--as merely mediocre and Shumway's article 'intellectually pretentious', posting it on Time online right below Shumway's photos and article.

I commented pretty straightforwardly that I didn’t find Brian Shumway’s photographs very memorable, but that I did find the little accompanying essay somewhat pretentious: Mr. Shumway’s independence of mind, it implies – demonstrated by what he was reading at sixteen – led him to transcend the provincial religiosity of “Happy Valley.”

But DCP read the same authors, at the same age, and was so full of his own LDS hubris he was unaffected by some of the greatest thinkers in recent history. Yet according to DCP, it is Shumway that doesn't have the independence of mind. Another example of how out of touch DCP is and how deeply he has his head planted in the LDS sand.

You and your allies here have been far harsher toward me than I was toward Brian Shumway and the author of the accompanying essay, and, in your demand that I validate and not criticize someone else's experience (which I never actually did), have effectively insisted that I deny mine. And you, of all people -- we both know your history -- should be careful about claiming that I mock others. You routinely mock my beliefs and my friends in ways that I have never done and would never do.

And, once again, the Maxwell Institute has absolutely nothing to do with this. I wasn't "coming from" the Maxwell Institute. (I have my own interests in photography and art, and, if I'm not mistaken, I'm permitted to have and express opinions on those topics.) That was a venture in well-poisoning and irrelevance. Mike Parker doesn't work for the Maxwell Institute; he lives hundreds of miles from it. And Bill Hamblin doesn't work for the Maxwell Institute, either. Your (successful) attempt to drag the Maxwell Institute into this was both a red herring and an ad hominem.

In my opinion, there was and is condescension here, but it's in the essay and, very arguably, in the photographs. It's precisely that condescension to which I objected.

And DCP did so in his own, all too familiar condescending way, pronouncing Shumway's experience "wrong". I suppose perspective is DCP's short suit.

And not coming from NAMIRS? The hypersensitivity center for defending Mormonism, from which DCP pontificates his vindictive BS? Of course it is 'coming from' NAMIRS. It was a swarm that came from NAMIRS: DCP, Hamblin and Parker. Completely unbelievable that such was not orchestrated by those three stooges from their offices at NAMIRS. But DCP will deny that the sky is blue if he thought it would advance the interest of "the Church".

Quit the diversions. Answer my simple question. Do it.

But, your question is not relevant. I'd rather focus on whether Scratch can actually find a "nuclear-grade meltdown" or "vicious gang attack" post by DCP in that article.

He's all but admitted it doesn't exist, and therefore lied. How long has this been going on? His whole DCP smear-campaign is about to crumble.

It's clear what you'd rather focus on, Simon. My question is very relevant to your hypocrisy, which you just continue to dodge than answer directly. Simon, if you are not being hypocritical, just give us the short, plain direct explanation of why your giving DCP a pass on his negativity is not hypocritical coming from you, the avenging angel against negativity.

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh, Belmont, say it isn't so. Certainly your level of blind devotion does not extend so far that you cannot see the evidence of DCP's negativity.

I suppose the mediocrity of Mr. Shumway's photographs would be easier to forgive if it weren't for the intellectual pretentiousness of the accompanying article. I mean, Wow. Like, umm, he read Friedrich Nietzsche (note the correct spelling) and Jean-Paul Sartre and Erich Fromm at sixteen? So did I. In California. And now I'm a believing Mormon academic.

And Mormons can't watch television on Sundays? What's with those Tabernacle Choir broadcasts on Sunday mornings, then? And those other Church-produced Sunday television programs on Church history and the like? And we shouldn't visit friends on Sundays? What???

Nonsense.

None of that negativity you crusade against there, right?

Not more negative than anyone else in the comments area of that article, and far less negative than a lot of people here. We cannot expect DCP to be perfect-- he's human, just like you and me. I'm negative sometimes, too.

Note, though, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

I am thrilled to know that such is not considered by you as offensive or negative. Right?

Offensive is one thing. Calling it a "nuclear-grade meltdown" and a "vicious gang attack" is quite another.

In other words, he got it wrong, but that's okay because, having left many years ago, he doesn't know much. Well, fine. We can be charitable, but he's still wrong.

And no, I have never encountered a Mormon family that thought or taught that it was sinful to watch television on Sunday -- "Eeek! Turn the Tabernacle Choir off! Turn general conference off! Don't you know it's the Sabbath?" -- let alone a family that held it a sin to visit others on Sunday.

It would be one thing for DCP to have said that his experience differs from Shumway's, and describe his (DCP's) own experience. But no, in all his Mormon tolerance, DCP pronounced Shumway as "wrong" attempting to invalidate Shumway's personal experience of Mormonism. by the way, Simon, show me an example from the scriptures where Jesus used sarcasm and snarky quips to put others down like DCP, that model of a Christian disciple, does incessantly online? Maybe you, Simon, should try to emulate Jesus more than you try to emulate DCP.

There were other errors, too, but I thought that mentioning them would be overkill. As it is, I pretty mildly pointed out a couple of errors in the article and expressed my honest reaction to the photographs

We certainly wouldn't think DCP overkills in his defense of Mormonism, especially when it was not under attack, right?

Note, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

Curiously, under the guise of defending the right of everyone to experience Mormonism in various ways, you seem to be denying that others here have the right to have experienced it differently than you (and, evidently, Mr. Shumway) have and to value Mr. Shumway's photographs differently than you do.

And DCP demonstrated that tolerance by repeatedly declaring Mr Shumway's Mormon experience "wrong". If your view of Mormonism isn't shared by DCP your "wrong". Does that pass for tolerance by Mormons of other views and others' experiences? In the real world, outside the Mormon bubble, that type of attitude is properly labeled as negative.

He didn't declare that Shumway's experience was "wrong." Also, note the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

I'm struck by the fact that you (reflexively?) assume that my reaction to the photographs was merely "reflexive" (as if, unlike you, I'm equipped with little more than a spinal column), that I disdain "anything that isn't relentlessly positive about the LDS church," that not finding the photographs very impressive is ipso facto "petulant" and "condescending," and that "non-Mormons" constitute some sort of robotic univocal monolith by virtue of the sheer negative fact that they're not Mormons.

A very curious response. And, ironically, distinctly condescending.

Funny, DCP no longer has enough spine to come here and lob his molotov cocktails at those who have the audacity to express views about Mormonism that do not meet his stylized mental image of it.

Note, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

I don't actually have any strong feelings about the photographs, one way or the other. They don't offend me, but they don't seem particularly remarkable in any other way, either. (Am I permitted to respond to them that way?) I thought the little essay somewhat pretentious, and not overly accurate. (Is it permissible to say that?)

DCP said, in his initial comment, that the mediocre photos were not as easy for DCP to forgive, due to the accompanying article was 'intellectually pretentious'. Imagine what he might say if he had 'strong feelings'. I wonder what DCP's photography critiquing background is. Maybe he thinks the typical LDS missionary's photos of the inside of a shabby apartment or a fairly common sunset are profound and moving and artistic.

Maybe, but who cares? Also of note: the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

I haven't been angry at all -- what's there to be angry about? mediocre photography is scarcely cause for indignation -- and not even remotely as condemnatory as the people who have criticized me here.

Cause enough for DCP to have taken a swipe at Shumway's photography--though found worthy of publication by a national weekly magazin--as merely mediocre and Shumway's article 'intellectually pretentious', posting it on Time online right below Shumway's photos and article.

Okay? Note, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

I commented pretty straightforwardly that I didn’t find Brian Shumway’s photographs very memorable, but that I did find the little accompanying essay somewhat pretentious: Mr. Shumway’s independence of mind, it implies – demonstrated by what he was reading at sixteen – led him to transcend the provincial religiosity of “Happy Valley.”

But DCP read the same authors, at the same age, and was so full of his own LDS hubris he was unaffected by some of the greatest thinkers in recent history. Yet according to DCP, it is Shumway that doesn't have the independence of mind. Another example of how out of touch DCP is and how deeply he has his head planted in the LDS sand.

I was unaware that this thread was about how "out of touch" DCP was. Note, also, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

You and your allies here have been far harsher toward me than I was toward Brian Shumway and the author of the accompanying essay, and, in your demand that I validate and not criticize someone else's experience (which I never actually did), have effectively insisted that I deny mine. And you, of all people -- we both know your history -- should be careful about claiming that I mock others. You routinely mock my beliefs and my friends in ways that I have never done and would never do.

And, once again, the Maxwell Institute has absolutely nothing to do with this. I wasn't "coming from" the Maxwell Institute. (I have my own interests in photography and art, and, if I'm not mistaken, I'm permitted to have and express opinions on those topics.) That was a venture in well-poisoning and irrelevance. Mike Parker doesn't work for the Maxwell Institute; he lives hundreds of miles from it. And Bill Hamblin doesn't work for the Maxwell Institute, either. Your (successful) attempt to drag the Maxwell Institute into this was both a red herring and an ad hominem.

In my opinion, there was and is condescension here, but it's in the essay and, very arguably, in the photographs. It's precisely that condescension to which I objected.

And DCP did so in his own, all too familiar condescending way, pronouncing Shumway's experience "wrong". I suppose perspective is DCP's short suit.

Note, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

And not coming from NAMIRS? The hypersensitivity center for defending Mormonism, from which DCP pontificates his vindictive BS? Of course it is 'coming from' NAMIRS. It was a swarm that came from NAMIRS: DCP, Hamblin and Parker. Completely unbelievable that such was not orchestrated by those three stooges from their offices at NAMIRS. But DCP will deny that the sky is blue if he thought it would advance the interest of "the Church".

I wonder if Scratch would describe your comments as a "nuclear-grade meltdown?"

It's clear what you'd rather focus on, Simon. My question is very relevant to your hypocrisy, which you just continue to dodge than answer directly. Simon, if you are not being hypocritical, just give us the short, plain direct explanation of why your giving DCP a pass on his negativity is not hypocritical coming from you, the avenging angel against negativity.

I am not the avenging angel of negativity. I, personally, would like to see everyone here treat each other better -- that was and is my opinion. That doesn't mean I am good at following that opinion, but I am trying.

Why can you not see that Scratch is simply making stuff up to make DCP look bad? And for what?

[_cinepro]

I'm a little underwhelmed by the photo essay, although some of the pictures were pretty decent.

And I typically prefer my photo essays to be 100% guy-ass free; this one is no exception.

[_sock puppet]

Simon, you missed one, so here's helping you respond to it:

Let's see, Simon, would you find it negative if I applied DCP's approach to Shumway instead to JSJr:

"I suppose the mediocrity of JSJr's Book of Mormon would be easier to forgive if it weren't for the intellectual pretentiousness of the accompanying Book of Abraham. I mean, Wow. Like, umm, he saw an angel (note he corrected that to be God, only later to be God and Jesus) and elohim and Jesus at fourteen?"

I am thrilled to know that such is not considered by you as offensive or negative. Right?

Simon: Note, the lack of a nuclear-grade meltdown in this comment. Also note the severe lack of a vicious gang attack, in whole or in part, in this comment.

It's clear what you'd rather focus on, Simon. My question is very relevant to your hypocrisy, which you just continue to dodge than answer directly. Simon, if you are not being hypocritical, just give us the short, plain direct explanation of why your giving DCP a pass on his negativity is not hypocritical coming from you, the avenging angel against negativity.

I am not the avenging angel of negativity.

Avenging angel AGAINST negativity, not OF negativity.

Why can you not see that Scratch is simply making stuff up to make DCP look bad? And for what?

Why can you not see the paradox of Mormon apologetics, particularly the way it is practiced by the NAMIRS gang? They have torn down more of the pillars of the Church than they've ever helped prop up.

Simon, prove you are not a hypocrite. Call DCP out for his negativity, seriously call him to repentance, here in the open, just as you do critics. Otherwise, Simon, wear the badge of hypocrisy with pride.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, prove you are not a hypocrite. Call DCP out for his negativity, seriously call him to repentance, here in the open, just as you do critics. Otherwise, Simon, wear the badge of hypocrisy with pride.

For mild sarcasm? I don't call people out for that. For outright slander, sure, I'll hold a person's feet to the fire for that.

[_sock puppet]

Simon, prove you are not a hypocrite. Call DCP out for his negativity, seriously call him to repentance, here in the open, just as you do critics. Otherwise, Simon, wear the badge of hypocrisy with pride.

For mild sarcasm? I don't call people out for that. For outright slander, sure, I'll hold a person's feet to the fire for that.

Given how many times I've called on you to do the right thing, and your repeated refusal to do so (just as your failure to apologize to Blixa), it is clear that you would rather bear the label 'hypocrite' than to call your mopologetic brother, DCP, out for his bad, negative comments. Wear that label well, Simon. Hold your head high, high above your lapel pin that reads "hypocrite".

[_Simon Belmont]

Given how many times I've called on you to do the right thing, and your repeated refusal to do so (just as your failure to apologize to Blixa), it is clear that you would rather bear the label 'hypocrite' than to call your mopologetic brother, DCP, out for his bad, negative comments. Wear that label well, Simon. Hold your head high, high above your lapel pin that reads "hypocrite".

You are entitled to label me however you wish, Sock Puppet. I know I am not a hypocrite.

[_sock puppet]

Given how many times I've called on you to do the right thing, and your repeated refusal to do so (just as your failure to apologize to Blixa), it is clear that you would rather bear the label 'hypocrite' than to call your mopologetic brother, DCP, out for his bad, negative comments. Wear that label well, Simon. Hold your head high, high above your lapel pin that reads "hypocrite".

You are entitled to label me however you wish, Sock Puppet. I know I am not a hypocrite.

Simon Belmont, Mormon Hypocrite 'for God'

[_Simon Belmont]

Anyway, back on topic:

Since Scratch is unable to provide just one example of "nuclear-grade meltdown" or "vicious gang attack" in the comments section of the Happy Valley Photo Essay, perhaps someone else would like to help him out?

Or, he could do the honorable thing and retract the statements.

[_sock puppet]

Anyway, back on topic:

Since Scratch is unable to provide just one example of "nuclear-grade meltdown" or "vicious gang attack" in the comments section of the Happy Valley Photo Essay, perhaps someone else would like to help him out?

Or, he could do the honorable thing and retract the statements.

The way DCP, Hamblin and Parker swarmed in and posted their disparaging, sneering and snarling comments to Shumway's photos and article, I think 'vicious gang attack' is quite apt as a description of what the NAMIRS unholy trio did.

As for nuclear-grade meltdown, that's a meltdown, Simon, not as your photo depicts, a nuclear warhead being detonated. Remember last March in Japan, that was a nuclear-grade meltdown. It involved the loss of usable form and leaking of toxic substance. Using that as an analogy, DCP clearly leaked his ongoing phychosis and quixotic quest from the confines of the bloggernacle and into the mainstream 'net, i.e., Time magazine's site. Did he lose form? Maybe not the form that those of us from ZLMB, MAD, MDB, and the Cafeteria know, but the form that DCP tries to project on the rest of the world and mankind certainly lost much of its form. So, a nuclear-grade meltdown, sure.