Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Kishkumen]

We are proud to announce to you the Evil Trio of Hamblin, Parker, and Peterson and their Trailer Park Side-kick William Schryver's next target.......

This post should go down in the annals of MDB history as one of pure genius. Nothing more really needs to be said, although we will undoubtedly continue to chat about it. The apologists may as well have attacked all of these folks participating in a Church-sponsored PR campaign. Hilarious.

[_RayAgostini]

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.

Well I looked at the "best rating" post (you'll have to go to the site itself as it's not linking for me), and yes, I do think there's some timely advice there.

Let's keep some perspective, though, that there are "willing provocateurs and participants" on both sides.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_Buffalo]

We are proud to announce to you the Evil Trio of Hamblin, Parker, and Peterson and their Trailer Park Side-kick William Schryver's next target.......

Mormon.org and the "I'm a Mormon" Campaign......
.....
otherwise known as "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)"

Hi, I'm Charity!
I'm an artist, a musician, a performer, a survivor, a sister, a daughter, a writer, an intellectual, a liberal and I'm a Mormon.

My mom was in the first class of Yale women and after arriving, went on a spiritual quest that left her in a most unexpected place -- she became a Mormon. Soon after, she became aware of her ancestry. She met my dad in school, he joined the Church and they were married in the Washington DC temple. I grew up with this kind of religious and cultural hybrid: We celebrated all of the Jewish holidays, learned the prayers and kept the traditions but we were practicing Mormons. We went to church, went on missions, we didn't swear, we tithed. We were this band of liberal, home schooling, vegetarian, Jewish Mormons

http://Mormon.org/me/587Q/

"My experience with Mormonism... doesn't include ...I would respectually submit that your vegan, Jewish-Mormon.... family is outside the mainstream of Mormon experience."

Hi, I'm Jerry Brink
I was born and raised in Colorado. I am a husband,father and a basketball official and I am a Mormon

We don't allow conflict in our home. We pray every day. On Sundays we don't watch television.

http://Mormon.org/me/59QM/JerryBrink/

he got it wrong, but that's okay because ... 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?"

The Tabernacle Choir has had a regular Sunday morning television program for many decades. General conference has been televised for four hours each on two Sundays per year, for many decades. (And typically, there are two hours of Mormon-related television programs between those two two-hour sessions.) And many LDS families, including quite faithful and committed ones, watch other programs on Sunday, as well (e.g., "The Wonderful World of Disney," as one critic here who, oddly, still defends the claim that Mormons can't watch television on Sundays, relates of his own parental family). It's simply factually untrue that Mormons aren't permitted to watch television on Sunday.

The general Mormon rule about doing "sabbathy" things on the Sabbath, for example, which might entail -- as it does in my house -- minimizing or eliminating frivolous television (but maybe still allowing a worthwhile film or a serious news program or documentary or something of that sort, and certainly permitting general conference and Tabernacle Choir broadcasts and programs about Church history and the like) and not doing sports or parties or perhaps, as a kid, playing with friends, becomes, in the captions, a blanket ban on even VISITING friends (evidently even if they're in the hospital or are your assigned "home teaching family" or, as in my case, in your monthly Sunday-night reading group) and a flat Verbot against watching any television whatsoever.

Hi, I'm Rich
I grew up in the England and moved to California in 2003 where my wife & I home-school our 4 children. I'm a Mormon.

I have always made a priority of keeping the Sabbath day holy by abstaining from work, avoiding every-day activities (such as watching television and exercise), taking time to serve others, and to feed my spirit.

http://Mormon.org/me/1NN5/Rich/

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?.... What???

Nonsense.

Hi, I'm Autumn
I'm an artist, a mother, a writer and I'm Mormon.

Raising a teen is a time full of angst! Like rooting for the home team when the opposing team is bigger and faster and the field is drenched and the score is too close to call! Will he dig in his cleats and make the winning goal when we are down to the last seconds on the clock? I think he will.

Mediocre photography and unrequited teen angst. Not too interesting.

I apologize for being so late to this new discussion—which is merely a change of venue for an old discussion that has been going on for many years now on more traditional online Mormon discussion forums. Same cast of characters; same modi operandi; same.... Mormon propaganda techniques played out under a different URL.

Hi, I'm Katherine
I'm a travel enthusiast, an amateur photographer, a volunteer, a high school Spanish teacher, and I'm a Mormon.

http://Mormon.org/me/62G4/Katherine/

This is lame. I .... am an amateur photographer. Real life kept me from "briefly attending" an academy of art but I've taken and sold enough photographs to know these photos are not good. [She] seems to be going out of [her] way to paint [her] family as nut job white trash. These photos and [the] descriptions are not consistent with my personal experience with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..... Really? This is what [Mormon.org] holds up as art? And [her] credentials are...?

Hi, I'm Paris
I've been homeless. I'm amazing at ping pong and I'm a Mormon.
http://Mormon.org/me/1RY0/Paris/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tdrPn_RiiA

Apparently he grew up on the "wrong side of the tracks". Alas, many did. Almost every county in America has neighborhoods on the "wrong side of the tracks". [He] would have us believe his particular experience was typical of Mormon culture in general, and consequent to the (presumed) oppression of Mormon teachings. He would have us believe that the "slice of life" he pretends to spontaneously document in these photos is Mormonism. Of course, it's not. It's merely ... just as every poorly educated, culturally backward family in every bad neighborhood in every state is part of America.

The biggest problem with [the I'm a Mormon commercials], however, is that they scream out disingenuousness, as though an audio track accompanied each one and you can hear [the LDS PR guy] whispering, right before the shutter click: "Now remember, look as sad and depressed as you possibly can …[as you tell your story before you were Mormon]" To me, disingenuous art is no art at all—it's merely propaganda.

Hi, I'm Joe Quinn
I like to have fun, I'm crazy, I like to pretend I'm a cowboy and I'm a Mormon.

My experience with Mormonism has kids who do more than just "pretend" to [be cowboys]

Hi, I'm Ben
I've lived in 9 states, 3 countries and 2 continents. I'm a researcher and a family man. I'm a Mormon.

I would make a great agnostic.

I majored in philosophy. I devour books and ideas. I've wrestled with the ideas of the doubters, from Nietzche to Voltaire. I recognize and appreciate the explanatory power of science and rationalism. I have friends without a fleck of religious belief who are wonderful people.

I suppose the mediocrity of [his] photograph 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)...? So did I. In California. And now I'm a believing Mormon academic.

And the short essay accompanying the photos savored very strongly, in my judgment, of a certain smug superiority. The photographer, it tells us, read .... Nietzsche when he was ... and so, of course -- this is the way the insinuation seems to go -- [his friends] couldn't be contained within the intellectually impoverished, provincial, and narrow world of Mormonism that is depicted in the photos. (Coincidentally, I myself read Nietzsche and Fromm -- who was quite in vogue then --and, to a lesser degree, Sartre when I was sixteen, too. I may have been even slightly younger. And yet I didn't leave the Church. To the contrary, that was, in fact, the very period when I was becoming an actively engaged Mormon. So it doesn't seem that reading Fromm, Nietzsche, and Sartre necessarily takes one out of Mormonism, notwithstanding the essayist's suggestion.)

And as for the essay, which I've been reliably and superfluously informed [was greatly moderated by someone from the LDS PR department], surely the point of its mentioning that [he] read Nietzsche ... was to illustrate the independence of mind that allowed him, indeed virtually obliged him, to transcend the lifeless, restrictive, uninteresting religion of the rather bovine -- and certainly non-Nietzsche-reading .... who look out, glum, dull, and unsmiling, from his photographs. But the insinuation seems a bit problematic, since I myself, a believing Mormon, also read Nietzsche (and Fromm and Sartre) as a sixteen-year-old.

I would never have guessed -- how could I? -- that, in order for you to desire [the LDS Church], I need to express public enthusiasm for [the I'm a Mormon Ad campaign], to be awestruck at the idea of reading Nietzsche ... and to agree that Mormons are forbidden to watch television or visit friends on Sunday . I do hope you'll reconsider.

I don't actually have any strong feelings about the [I'm a Mormon campaign], 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?)

Am I offended by the photographs, the captions, and/or the essay? No. Threatened by them? No. Am I irritated that they don't idealize Mormons? No. Am I upset because they're not pro-Mormon propaganda? No. Do I think that, perhaps especially in a season where Mormonism is more than commonly in the news, they tend to make Mormons look more foreign and strange than Mormons actually are? Yes. Very much so.

[For a much better site than that Mormon.org one why not visit my more intellectual site, where elitist (and sometimes dead) people who are LDS and believe post their testimonies, here:]

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

[_angsty]

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.

The "rural poor in Appalachia" is what really gets me-- it's an offensive and ethnocentric comparison. He clearly doesn't know what poverty looks like (or what the middle-class looks like). It's a testament to the legitimacy of the common criticism that Mormons are preoccupied with image and appearing like neat, shiny, happy, blessed, wealthy people to all the world.

Then, he edits to focus on the intention of the artist toward his family, and that I really think is a stretch. This is not a wealthy, sophisticated outsider photographing a foreign culture. This is a man who grew up in this culture and the purpose of this photo essay is to reflect on that upbringing.

His evaluation says more about his "permanent defensive crouch" than the photographer's intentions. When I look at those photos, I see normal America, nostalgia, the frustrations of boredom and waiting to grow up...they don't even look rural, they look suburban-- cul de sacs, vinyl siding, parks. I don't see condescension, nor do I see a lack of dignity in the way these people are portrayed. It really bothers me that Peterson judges these people's way of life to have the appearance of indignity. I don't see that. I see appreciation for the beauty of a place he only partly belongs to.

There are different ways of living, even in Utah, among Mormons. Peterson sees this as "The Other" and I'm wondering why it surprises him that he doesn't relate strongly to images of people who aren't like him. I'm surprised that he thinks they have been portrayed with a condescending attitude. I, for one, had an upbringing with a far lower standard-of-living portrayed here and I never thought to be ashamed of it, or that it needed to be defended. For those of us who have an upbringing more like this, and aren't so privileged that it appears undignified in relation to our experience, his comments are just bizarre, and insulting.

[_angsty]

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.

Well I looked at the "best rating" post (you'll have to go to the site itself as it's not linking for me), and yes, I do think there's some timely advice there.

Let's keep some perspective, though, that there are "willing provocateurs and participants" on both sides.

I definitely loved (and liked) that post.

I certainly don't place blame entirely on Peterson, but you have to admit that since the drama revolves around him, he can easily end the rude distraction by modifying his behavior (not posting inflammatory baloney he pulled out of his ass, staying on-topic, posting under an anonymous handle). Or at the very least, have the balls to stop pretending that he's an innocent victim who doesn't enjoy this shameless display of pettiness.

I mean, if I'm an adrenaline junkie and I stand on a dark street corner announcing that I have $1000 dollars in my pocket and inviting people to mug me for it, if someone takes me up on that, does it makes sense for me to go complaining "woe is me, I got mugged" to all who will listen? It's so disingenuous to play the victim when you have provoked the situation yourself to get your jollies.

I don't see any of the other participants pretending to be victimized, or wronged-- unless you count me, and I've limited my complaints to a thread dedicated to the subject-- which seems appropriate. Peterson can stop it and that he doesn't is a mark of disrespect toward people interested in the topics under which he posts.

[_Kishkumen]

I mean, if I'm an adrenaline junkie and I stand on a dark street corner announcing that I have $1000 dollars in my pocket and inviting people to mug me for it, if someone takes me up on that, does it makes sense for me to go complaining "woe is me, I got mugged" to all who will listen? It's so disingenuous to play the victim when you have provoked the situation yourself to get your jollies.

Wow! I never pictured Daniel Peterson as Tyler Durden before.

[_angsty]

I mean, if I'm an adrenaline junkie and I stand on a dark street corner announcing that I have $1000 dollars in my pocket and inviting people to mug me for it, if someone takes me up on that, does it makes sense for me to go complaining "woe is me, I got mugged" to all who will listen? It's so disingenuous to play the victim when you have provoked the situation yourself to get your jollies.

Wow! I never pictured Daniel Peterson as Tyler Durden before.

I just snorted coffee through my nose. Excellent and bizarre.

Tyler D. wouldn't go crying that he was a victim though. :-)

[_RayAgostini]

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.

[_stemelbow]

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.

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