Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Jersey Girl]

The woman was eating a flippin' vegan burger, not exactly a top choice fo poh white trash. No one looks poor in that photo essay, they looked human.

Gee, do you really think so, Mr. Stak? I had always been under the impression that the "rural poor of Appalachia" were totally hooked on Tofurkey, soy lattes, and tempeh. I mean, what is a squirrel gun for, if not for hunting semi-firm tofu and wheat germ?

LOL, oh geez!

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think we can all identify with these words:

I am unabashedly proud of the Review. The late University of Utah professor and former assistant church historian Davis Bitton once told me that, in his opinion, the best writing in the church was being published in its pages. (I agree.) And another former president of the Mormon History Association took me aside many years ago at an MHA meeting to complain about the Review: whenever the newest issue arrived, he lamented, he had to put everything else down and read it from cover to cover, which absolutely destroyed his work schedule and his plans for the day.

I feel a similar swelling of pride in my chest when I think of all that I have accomplished in The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies.

Indeed. Though I don't understand why he didn't name the second MHA president. Unless, of course, he was citing Davis Bitton twice.

[_angsty]

Gee, do you really think so, Mr. Stak? I had always been under the impression that the "rural poor of Appalachia" were totally hooked on Tofurkey, soy lattes, and tempeh. I mean, what is a squirrel gun for, if not for hunting semi-firm tofu and wheat germ?

I think we can forgive Dr. Peterson for not recognizing that the Shumways are a clan of hipsters.

Truth is Shumway deserves credit for making Mormons look so "edgy" and "happening."

No kidding.

I find it very amusing that Peterson thinks he knows what the "rural poor of Appalachia" look like these days. That's my scene-- he displays his profound ignorance and arrogance. Also, he must live in a world of unbelievable privilege if he looks at those photos and believes that they reflect the oppression of real rural poverty. He is so out of touch.

Also, I skimmed through the comments and I'm thinking he must have some kind of personality disorder. As I understand it, it's generally bad form to continue off-topic discussions in a comment thread dedicated to a particular subject but he facilitated an overwhelming derailment of discussion. He could very easily eliminate the drama that follows him around on the internet, and yet he just milks every episode to the last drop.

When he actually addressed the photo essay, he posts arrogant, offensive, ill-informed bullpucky. When he gets called on it, he resorts to middle-school level snark, for example, "Whatever." When someone points out that he is conducting a rude sideshow, he makes excuses and has to explain about how he's not at fault, it's everyone else, that he has stalkers... One poster called him out for responding to his or her post with an off-topic rant about his drama, saying something like "stop making this about you" and his clever response was something like, "No, you stop making it about me". How ridiculously juvenile.

His pathological defensiveness makes him seem unhinged. For someone who goes to a great deal of bother to get the word out about smart Mormons, he's not a good advertisement himself. As a critic of the church's recent PR contrivances, I welcome his more honest portrayal. Somehow I don't think he would make a very appealing subject for one of those "...and I'm a Mormon" ads.

Don't ever change Dan. As long as you're obsessively derailing comment threads with your personal drama, anti-Mormons everywhere can take a long nap while you do their work for them.

[_Dr. Shades]

But still, you think that the fact that the LDS Church has in the recent past counseled against premarital intimacy and in favor of traditional gender roles paints the members with too broad a brush?

It wasn't those particular comments per se.

Seems to me that it is just an accurate representation of what the LDS Church actually teaches.

Those were, yes. But the parts that I felt were misleading were these, paraphrasing from memory:

• "The church forbids most forms of premarital contact between the sexes." No, it only forbids three: Sexual intercourse, petting, and necking. Some Nazi Mormons assume that French kissing is also verboten, but that's only found in The Miracle of Forgiveness to my knowledge. The casual reader may have gotten the false impression that co-ed dancing is forbidden, like what we saw in Footloose.
• "On Sunday, all such activities must cease." No, they don't "must cease;" they're simply advised against, with frequent exceptions made for exigent circumstances. Other such activities, like visiting the sick, are actually encouraged. When it comes to day-to-day activities, even on Sunday, the church isn't nearly that cultish.
• The part about the brother-in-law rushing from the shower to the closet to quickly don his garments. A casual non-LDS reader might assume that some sort of cultish punishment might befall him, like group shaming, for being out of his garments for more than 30 seconds.
• The part about a vegan burger. The unknowing reader might assume that Mormons have to be vegetarians, sort of like the Jehovah's Witnesses can't give or receive blood. Since the essay was about Mormons, it would've been preferable to add in an appropriate disclaimer.
• The part about the sister melding Mormon and Native American religion. A disclaimer that such a thing is not, uh, native to Mormonism could've served the casual reader well.

Stuff like that.

[_sock puppet]

the parts that I felt were misleading were these, paraphrasing from memory:

• "The church forbids most forms of premarital contact between the sexes." No, it only forbids three: Sexual intercourse, petting, and necking.

Wow, I missed the memo where pre-marital oral sex was okay. I guess when I was 14 I should have 'taken a closer look', as our apologist friends would say. My teenage years would have been much more enjoyable.

[_Kishkumen]

Those were, yes. But the parts that I felt were misleading were these, paraphrasing from memory:

• "The church forbids most forms of premarital contact between the sexes." No, it only forbids three: Sexual intercourse, petting, and necking. Some Nazi Mormons assume that French kissing is also verboten, but that's only found in The Miracle of Forgiveness to my knowledge. The casual reader may have gotten the false impression that co-ed dancing is forbidden, like what we saw in Footloose.
• "On Sunday, all such activities must cease." No, they don't "must cease;" they're simply advised against, with frequent exceptions made for exigent circumstances. Other such activities, like visiting the sick, are actually encouraged. When it comes to day-to-day activities, even on Sunday, the church isn't nearly that cultish.
• The part about the brother-in-law rushing from the shower to the closet to quickly don his garments. A casual non-LDS reader might assume that some sort of cultish punishment might befall him, like group shaming, for being out of his garments for more than 30 seconds.
• The part about a vegan burger. The unknowing reader might assume that Mormons have to be vegetarians, sort of like the Jehovah's Witnesses can't give or receive blood. Since the essay was about Mormons, it would've been preferable to add in an appropriate disclaimer.
• The part about the sister melding Mormon and Native American religion. A disclaimer that such a thing is not, uh, native to Mormonism could've served the casual reader well.

Stuff like that.

Methinks that, like a few other people, you are taking this blog entry a little too seriously. Sure, someone might imagine all kinds of goofy things given the casual and brief nature of the piece. I doubt, however, that they will take it as an assault on Mormonism. And frankly, if you think this makes Mormonism look strange by being imprecise, there are many other plain facts about it that are more strange to outsiders. So, I really don't get all the fuss.

[_Kishkumen]

Indeed. Though I don't understand why he didn't name the second MHA president. Unless, of course, he was citing Davis Bitton twice.

Maybe the person was from another Restoration church.

[_Kishkumen]

Dan Peterson makes comments on Shumway's post, which he argued was his right (it was Time, wasn't it? Opinions allowed?). Thread confirming Dan Peterson as an "evil Mopologist", has now reached 18 pages.

Fly and sledgehammer, anyone?

I believe that the blog entry itself is also a point of discussion, as well as Simon's traditional crusade, not to mention a healthy admixture of levity.

[_Kishkumen]

Wow, I missed the memo where pre-marital oral sex was okay. I guess when I was 14 I should have 'taken a closer look', as our apologist friends would say. My teenage years would have been much more enjoyable.

Remember the old BYU saying, "oral is moral." That would tend to support Shades in his literalism.

[_Blixa]

No kidding.

I find it very amusing that Peterson thinks he knows what the "rural poor of Appalachia" look like these days. That's my scene-- he displays his profound ignorance and arrogance. Also, he must live in a world of unbelievable privilege if he looks at those photos and believes that they reflect the oppression of real rural poverty. He is so out of touch.

It's hard to pick out the most offensive ingredient from such a rich stew, but this struck me as really low. 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.