Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_RayAgostini]

1. I don't even know most of the context of whatever is going on over there.

I only read through the comments section once, but I've decided to go through them again, to get some context. If I have the right first page, it was not DCP, but a couple of others posters who started the "fireworks". The first objection, from an active Mormon, was, in my view, quite petty. Then there were some back and forth exchanges, with this comment:

Mormon culture is filled with paranoia about being persecuted when no one is doing any such thing

Great way to get the acerbic ball rolling. This was followed by a negative assessment of Shumway's photography, by another amateur photographer, not DCP, who offered the same assessment after.

If I have the right first page (selected by "oldest first"), this was Dan's first comment;

That's right. Art is subjective. So one would think that it might be permissible for somebody not to like Mr. Shumway's art very much, and even, in a comments section dedicated to Mr. Shumway's art, to express that opinion.

But some here seem to think doing so illegitimate and inflammatory.

Incidentally, I agree with Shumway's view regarding this:

Shumway began having doubts about his family’s faith as a teenager. “Most people may not know or realize, but Mormonism, if lived as it’s supposed to be lived, is an orthodox religion,“ the photographer said. “As an orthodox religion, anything that waivers from the orthodoxy set by Mormon authorities isn’t tolerated.” Seemingly harmless acts, such as not wanting to go to church, not paying tithe or teenage petting resulted in punishment. “These were serious turn offs, and I did feel oppressed, but they didn’t in themselves drive me away,” Shumway said. “However, experiencing this did make me realize that there must be another way, that this can’t be the end-all be-all of life, thought and action. It’s not the absolute truth, as Mormons believe.”

But in any case it got quite messy, just like threads here sometimes get messy, and yes, there is always a "history" behind things like this.

[_angsty]

1. I don't even know most of the context of whatever is going on over there.

I only read through the comments section once, but I've decided to go through them again, to get some context. If I have the right first page, it was not DCP, but a couple of others posters who started the "fireworks". The first objection, from an active Mormon, was, in my view, quite petty. Then there were some back and forth exchanges, with this comment:

Mormon culture is filled with paranoia about being persecuted when no one is doing any such thing

Great way to get the acerbic ball rolling. This was followed by a negative assessment of Shumway's photography, by another amateur photographer, not DCP, who offered the same assessment after.

If I have the right first page (selected by "oldest first"), this was Dan's first comment;

That's right. Art is subjective. So one would think that it might be permissible for somebody not to like Mr. Shumway's art very much, and even, in a comments section dedicated to Mr. Shumway's art, to express that opinion.

But some here seem to think doing so illegitimate and inflammatory.

Incidentally, I agree with Shumway's view regarding this:

Shumway began having doubts about his family’s faith as a teenager. “Most people may not know or realize, but Mormonism, if lived as it’s supposed to be lived, is an orthodox religion,“ the photographer said. “As an orthodox religion, anything that waivers from the orthodoxy set by Mormon authorities isn’t tolerated.” Seemingly harmless acts, such as not wanting to go to church, not paying tithe or teenage petting resulted in punishment. “These were serious turn offs, and I did feel oppressed, but they didn’t in themselves drive me away,” Shumway said. “However, experiencing this did make me realize that there must be another way, that this can’t be the end-all be-all of life, thought and action. It’s not the absolute truth, as Mormons believe.”

But in any case it got quite messy, just like threads here sometimes get messy, and yes, there is always a "history" behind things like this.

I'm not saying people don't target him, or that there aren't unfair shots taken at him. But, he has it within his power to put an end to it by disengagement. He may not start it, but he keeps it going, and going. And, all he has to do to keep it from starting in the first place, is adopt an internet handle and allow people to judge his comments by the merits of content, rather than personal history. He refuses to do this as a matter of principle, but I question his principles. I think it's childish, and very rude when it means that the merits of serious photography (or any other serious subject) take a backseat to his personal drama.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm not saying people don't target him, or that there aren't unfair shots taken at him. But, he has it within his power to put an end to it by disengagement. He may not start it, but he keeps it going, and going. And, all he has to do to keep it from starting in the first place, is adopt an internet handle and allow people to judge his comments by the merits of content, rather than personal history. He refuses to do this as a matter of principle, but I question his principles. I think it's childish, and very rude when it means that the merits of serious photography (or any other serious subject) take a backseat to his personal drama.

How do you tame a grizzly bear? There are "grizzly bears" on both sides, with very strong opinions and beliefs. Has anyone asked Steve Benson to be more tactful? Less anti-Mormon? In fact, yes, a few even on RFM have, and more than a few don't like him. But that's Steve Benson. Does he discredit all critics? No one here goes "on and on and on" about Mormonism and Mormon apologetics? Why not just make one or two comments, then shut up? Why not just "disengage"? We know that's not going to happen when Mormons and critics are posting in the same venue.

[_Simon Belmont]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never been LDS, and have no experience with LDS outside of this message board. How is it possible for you to look back wistfully at "the days when..." when you haven't ever been a part of Mormonism?

[_angsty]

I'm not saying people don't target him, or that there aren't unfair shots taken at him. But, he has it within his power to put an end to it by disengagement. He may not start it, but he keeps it going, and going. And, all he has to do to keep it from starting in the first place, is adopt an internet handle and allow people to judge his comments by the merits of content, rather than personal history. He refuses to do this as a matter of principle, but I question his principles. I think it's childish, and very rude when it means that the merits of serious photography (or any other serious subject) take a backseat to his personal drama.

How do you tame a grizzly bear? There are "grizzly bears" on both sides, with very strong opinions and beliefs. Has anyone asked Steve Benson to be more tactful? Less anti-Mormon? In fact, yes, a few even on RFM have, and more than a few don't like him. But that's Steve Benson. Does he discredit all critics? No one here goes "on and on and on" about Mormonism and Mormon apologetics? Why not just make one or two comments, then shut up? Why not just "disengage"? We know that's not going to happen when Mormons and critics are posting in the same venue.

Of course. And yet Peterson continues to complain about it in public forums as if he's a victim, when he's a willing participant. Benson, at least, enjoys his drama honestly and doesn't pretend to be a victim. My beef with Peterson is that he took a comment forum about a legitimately interesting subject and turned it into the "this is DCP show," and then complained about it as if someone was doing it to him. Then he offered some half-assed, vague, ill-informed token commentary, and was in turn dismissive toward legit criticisms of his viewpoint.

His constant complaining about these attacks is ridiculous when he is a constant, conscious, and willing provocateur and participant.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Speaking of "revisionist history," it looks like Prof. P. went in and edited the remarks he made last night. Here's the original:

The pictures are, in my opinion, okay as photography. Not terrible. But not particularly distinguished or memorable, either. (Sorry, but this is a comment section, and that's my honest reaction.) Moreover, the people in them are portrayed as very glum, which must represent a decision (for whatever reason) on the part of the photographer, and, whether this was intended or not, the general depiction tends to make them look rather like the rural poor in Appalachia. I would also say that the subjects of the photos come across as somewhat alien, as The Other.

And here is the revision, with the new bits underlined:

The pictures are, in my opinion, okay as photography. Not terrible. But not particularly distinguished or memorable, either. (Sorry, but this is a comment section, and that's my honest reaction.) Moreover, the people in them are portrayed as very glum, which must represent a decision (for whatever reason) on the part of the photographer, and, whether this was intended or not, the general depiction tends to make them look rather like the rural poor in Appalachia as viewed by a compassionate though self-consciously much more urbane interloper (that is, they're sad, depressed, and culturally infra dig): New York City sophistication condescends to visit flyover country. I would also say that the subjects of the photos come across as somewhat alien, as The Other.

Lol. I think I have a pretty good guess as to what prompted this revision.

[_Kishkumen]

It's true that most of the captions are innocuous. But a few are reaching. With the one of his sister holding the burger, he notes that traditional gender roles are still encouraged in the LDS faith.

But how is that not true? I don't see the problem here. Think about it. The photographer is reflecting on his experience growing up Mormon in Utah. At the same time, it is not like these people obviously stand out like, say, the Amish. So, how does one convey the "Mormonness" of the photographs--i.e., look at them more in the way the photographer sees them? The photographer has to draw those connections for the reader. He can't very well have a photo essay about his experience of Mormon life with captions like, "woman holding veggie burger."

So, you see, the captions convey how Shumway sees these things, and I see his view of them as being perfectly within the realm of acceptable and representative of the Mormon experience from the perspective of a former Mormon, who is not terribly antagonistic or unfair, but maybe melancholy.

But the one that kills me is the one of his nephew with the sword. A little boy playing with a toy sword is about as normal as you can get. Unless his nephew specifically was pretending to be Nephi, that caption is a TOTAL stretch. I don't think it's damaging material whatsoever, but a definite eye-roller.

And you know what, it is perfectly possible that the boy was thinking of Nephi or Captain Moroni. Who are you to say he wasn't? And who would know better whether that was the case, you or Shumway? Furthermore, it is altogether pertinent to point out that little Mormon boys playing with swords very well might imagine themselves to be a Biblical or Book of Mormon hero. So, again, what is the problem with this?

Maybe Mormons are just too self-conscious about their own tradition to deal with this maturely. It is because of the shame of being different that people roll their eyes and flip out in comments sections on blogs. I say lighten up. I enjoy the Book of Mormon, even though I don't think it was written in antiquity. It is a decent text and quite interesting in some ways. There is no shame in having kids pretend to be Nephi or Captain Moroni. So, why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over this? Is it objectively less silly to pretend to be Jonah or Samson? Just because some ancient Hebrew spun a strange tale does not make it any more legitimate than Joseph Smith spinning one.

[_Kishkumen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never been LDS, and have no experience with LDS outside of this message board. How is it possible for you to look back wistfully at "the days when..." when you haven't ever been a part of Mormonism?

Because Stak has twice your IQ points and an imagination.

[_Kishkumen]

Lol. I think I have a pretty good guess as to what prompted this revision.

My guess: the need to make Shumway look like the bigot instead of himself. Unfortunately, he was the one who inserted this whole Appalachia thing, not Shumway. As I said, Shumway should not be faulted for coming from a middle-income, rural Utah family. The ones who are characterizing the Shumways as backwards poor white trash are Schryver and Peterson.

[_Kishkumen]

How do you tame a grizzly bear? There are "grizzly bears" on both sides, with very strong opinions and beliefs. Has anyone asked Steve Benson to be more tactful? Less anti-Mormon? In fact, yes, a few even on RFM have, and more than a few don't like him. But that's Steve Benson. Does he discredit all critics? No one here goes "on and on and on" about Mormonism and Mormon apologetics? Why not just make one or two comments, then shut up? Why not just "disengage"? We know that's not going to happen when Mormons and critics are posting in the same venue.

Yes, it isn't. Still both sides continue to be critical of each other. And that is not going to change, as we both agree.