Mariner Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Photographs by an LDS Church member reflecting on his upbringing as a Mormon have been selected by the photo editors of Time magazine to be posted on their Time LightBox web page. One would think this a great honor (the spread appeared on the same page as the headline for the Top 10 Photos of 2011).However, it seems that some members are less than thrilled about these images as representing the Mormon experience in Utah to a national and international audience.Dr. Peterson apparently did not care much for the images and said as much in the comments section. Others who commented thought they were great. Personally, I was not particularly moved by the images one way or the other.What do you think? With the increased attention being focused on the LDS Church during the current presidential campaign, can members reasonably expect that all media coverage will be to their liking, or be consistent with what they see as representative of Mormon life?Is it better to speak out about perceived inaccuracies at the risk of seeming overly sensitive, or should the public be trusted to make up its own mind based on the information available?
bluebell Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well....The pictures were a bit weird. He must come from one very grumpy family as no one is ever really smiling in the pictures. I really didn't get the naked photo of the grown man from behind, especially. Mormons are such prudes that they barely allow physical contact before marriage but we're fine with being photographed naked?? Very strange.Mostly though i think the captions were the bad part. It's fine to document your own mormon upbringing in photos but when you try to correlate your upbringing into doctrines of the church, it creates problems. People need to recognize that the issues they have with the church might be because of the family they have and not because of their church membership. Mormons believe that you can't go visiting on sundays?? That's not a teaching of the church, but he declares it like it is, which is annoying. Neither is serving your husband his lunch a doctrine of the church, but he was fine letting people believe that's taught. Seems a little underhanded.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well....The pictures were a bit weird. He must come from one very grumpy family as no one is ever really smiling in the pictures. I really didn't get the naked photo of the grown man from behind, especially. Mormons are such prudes that they barely allow physical contact before marriage but we're fine with being photographed naked?? Very strange.Mostly though i think the captions were the bad part. It's fine to document your own mormon upbringing in photos but when you try to correlate your upbringing into doctrines of the church, it creates problems. People need to recognize that the issues they have with the church might be because of the family they have and not because of their church membership.Mormons believe that you can't go visiting on sundays?? That's not a teaching of the church, but he declares it like it is, which is annoying. Neither is serving your husband his lunch a doctrine of the church, but he was fine letting people believe that's taught. Seems a little underhanded.Is the answer to have no standards…many have a couple of ceremonies? Some Jews (many) wanted to kill Peter or Paul (sorry off the top of my head) because they thought they had brought Non-Jews into the Temple. The Temple in every age (once dedicated) has had restrictions for a number of reasons. There, ritual cleansings performed so that the Temple would not be defiled. In OT times you could not even have any sort of bathroom in the Temple; one had to meet certain requirements such as animal sacrifice to rid them of sin. My daughter and son sat outside during my oldest daughters wedding because they were too young (although they were in the Temple. The altar at the Temple where young and old are married, will not even allow the giving (or exchange) of wedding rings. I do not think for a moment that it is easy. My extended family had problems with it when my daughter was married, then later my son. One even told me if they didn’t see it did not happen…I have never understood that statement.Times have changed very much since I was young. The Baptist Preacher who performed the weeding for my wife and I wanted to know if either of us had been married before; he said he could not do the service if we were. There even standards of conduct in almost every church on earth. With Muslims you cannot even enter the City of Mecca if I am not mistaken. Membership is not even enough to get into the Temple once dedicated. There is a much larger story behind the photograph in the article.
Senator Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well....The pictures were a bit weird. He must come from one very grumpy family as no one is ever really smiling in the pictures. I really didn't get the naked photo of the grown man from behind, especially. Mormons are such prudes that they barely allow physical contact before marriage but we're fine with being photographed naked?? Very strange.Mostly though i think the captions were the bad part. It's fine to document your own mormon upbringing in photos but when you try to correlate your upbringing into doctrines of the church, it creates problems. People need to recognize that the issues they have with the church might be because of the family they have and not because of their church membership.Mormons believe that you can't go visiting on sundays?? That's not a teaching of the church, but he declares it like it is, which is annoying. Neither is serving your husband his lunch a doctrine of the church, but he was fine letting people believe that's taught. Seems a little underhanded.I echo much of what you've said here.I found the photos rather uninteresting. But the captions were what made transparent his posture and attitudes towards the church and mormon culture.
Palerider Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I think a photographer can select the times when subjects appear happier or when they are less so. There are some very stark images here that reflect certain truths about the LDS faith and it's families, but I think there are also those joyful times that haven't been recorded.Probably what bothers people the most about these photos is their unblinking honesty.If only these photos would have been of one of those well-to-do successful families that are perpetually smiling......Would that have been a more accurate representation of LDS life?
Doctor Steuss Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Just finished looking at the photos. The main feeling/adjective that I walked away with was “somber.”
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well....The pictures were a bit weird. He must come from one very grumpy family as no one is ever really smiling in the pictures. I really didn't get the naked photo of the grown man from behind, especially. Mormons are such prudes that they barely allow physical contact before marriage but we're fine with being photographed naked?? Very strange.The interesting thing about the picture is that the guest could not even muster a smile for the Bride or Groom for which they must have loved to be there. I can hardly believe that did not know they were being photographed, if they did it would seem that they wanted to express their anger to be inserted into a photo album representing one of the happiest days in the life of the couple.
Sky Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I wasn’t particularly thrilled with these photos. The impression that I was left with is that Mormons are rather insulated, eccentric, white-bread, and a slightly cultish bunch. And they are Utah-centric and all have large families. While some of this may be partly true, it is also not a completely accurate portrayal of contemporary Mormonism. But the photos certainly help to reinforce the stereotypes that people have of Mormons. The particular photo that I didn’t care for was of the naked butt man and the little blurb about not wearing his garments. I also didn’t really care for the pictures of the man dressed up as Jesus Christ. 1
Deborah Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Awful pictures. If they had put up pictures of my son's family they would see happy smiles and joyful expressions. It is disturbing if this is the image of Mormons because it certainly doesn't fit most families I know. Edited December 14, 2011 by Deborah 1
Senator Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 There are some very stark images here that reflect certain truths about the LDS faith and it's families.Really? Do I dare ask that you elaborate?If it wasn't for the captions I would be hard pressed to have known that the photos had anything to do with Mormon life! These scences could have represented a large swath of christian America in general.
Deborah Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 What is really amazing are the comments of those attacking the few Mormons who have expressed negative opinions of these photos. I see that Dan Peterson's critics have made their presence known. 1
bluebell Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Probably what bothers people the most about these photos is their unblinking honesty.I think what bothers me most is their aparent dishonesty. As you said, the photographer can choose the time and the caption and ignore those moments or explanations which don't go along with his or her agenda.It's the photographer's right but that doesn't mean it allows for an accurate or honest treatment of a whole culture. It's the fact that those photos have no bearing on the mormon culture that i have experienced-that they 'lie' about it from my perspective-that i don't like.If only these photos would have been of one of those well-to-do successful families that are perpetually smiling......Would that have been a more accurate representation of LDS life?A mixture of the good and bad, happy and sad, sacred and silly, would have been an accurate portrayal. Showing only one side and claiming it represents all sides is just a dishonest man's 'truth'.
Senator Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Showing only one side and claiming it represents all sides is just a dishonest man's 'truth'.Well, at the very least it is a disenchanted man's 'truth'
bluebell Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well, at the very least it is a disenchanted man's 'truth'My perspective on it was that since all adults should be able to recognize that their own personal experience could never completely define a group comprised of millions of people, that any attempt to do so is obviously dishonest. However, i like your take on it as well. Your choice of words explains the real issue, which seems to be that someone is taking personal negative feelings and using them to paint with a really broad brush.
bluebell Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 What is really amazing are the comments of those attacking the few Mormons who have expressed negative opinions of these photos. I see that Dan Peterson's critics have made their presence known.Since many (obviously not all) people who comment on those things seem to be about as emotionally and mentally perceptive as a turnip, it's not very amazing at all.
thesometimesaint Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 One sided, distorted, biased, and dishonest. 1
frankenstein Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 So the photos represent one persons experience. That experience does not jive with the experience of other LDS, so the natural course I should take is to criticize fellow Saint - whose life experience is different from my own and when that is not sufficient criticize others with whom I disagree. Just trying to figure out what the appropriate conduct is for posting about the photos.
Deborah Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 So the photos represent one persons experience. That experience does not jive with the experience of other LDS, so the natural course I should take is to criticize fellow Saint - whose life experience is different from my own and when that is not sufficient criticize others with whom I disagree. Just trying to figure out what the appropriate conduct is for posting about the photos.The problem is the article is promulgating this as typical of Mormon life. 2
Sky Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 What is really amazing are the comments of those attacking the few Mormons who have expressed negative opinions of these photos. I see that Dan Peterson's critics have made their presence known.It never ceases to amaze me either, but it’s hardly a surprise. And did you notice that all the negative comments towards Daniel Peterson get more “likes”? And they think Daniel Peterson is the nasty one? Are they blind to their own hypocrisy? It’s yet another example of anti-Mormonism manifesting itself on the internet through mostly anonymous/pseudonym commenting, of which I started a tread about a couple of weeks ago.
thesometimesaint Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 frankenstein:Not even the kids smile. If I wasn't a Mormon and saw those pictures I'd believe the Mormons were the most dour, sourpuss. people possible.
Garden Girl Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I was disappointed in the entire "show" and narrative... it reflects none of what I was used to as I grew up, nor my life as an LDS teenager. Not one smile? Really? What are the actual odds of that?These photos caused me to reflect back to my own family and we were/are nothing like his... our reunions were filled with boisterous, happy youngsters running and playing together... grownups sitting around tables talking, laughing, sharing. Where is any of that in his photos? None? Really?This past summer our ward held a July 24 picnic at a member's home which has several acres and a stream, lots of beautiful shade trees, etc. Several bbq's set up all filled with hot dogs/hamburgers, a pot luck, a huge dessert and beverage table. We all gathered round for the blessing of the food. It was a beautiful moment to stand under the trees with the sound of the stream and give thanks for a beautiful day to join together. We did all the games such as gunny sack races, softball, volleyball, etc etc. Loads of laughter and good natured competition. Tables set up where we sat around just enjoying conversation and being together. Where were any similar images in his photos? Did he selectively/purposely include only those photos where no one smiled or showed any joy in life or family? I loved the line about how the wedding reception was held at the cultural hall because it was free... such events are held at the cultural hall because that is its purpose, and it has plenty of space. I can't even tell you how unlike my experience his was... was my experience perfect? Of course not. Nothing is ever perfect, but his photos lacked any of the love, warmth, and friendship that I grew up with in my family, in my ward, and in my ward today.Well, that's enough... it just kind of saddens me that that is the "face of Mormonism" he chose to put forth.from the beach on a gray morning with rain pending... GG
frankenstein Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) The problem is the article is promulgating this as typical of Mormon life.from the Photographer and article" I was looking for moments and expressions which I felt captured this, and thus resonated with my own experience as a teenager.”"“It is one family’s history and experience in a very unique place in the United States ..." As I queried earlier am I to criticize him because his experience does not jive with mine, and even though he states he was looking for instances that reflected HIS person view and experience I should still criticize him because his experience does not comport with my own? Edited December 14, 2011 by frankenstein
bluebell Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 from the Photographer and article" I was looking for moments and expressions which I felt captured this, and thus resonated with my own experience as a teenager.”"As I queried earlier am I to criticize him because his experience does not jive with mine, and even though he states he was looking for instances that reflected HIS person view and experience I should still criticize him because his experience does not comport with my own?If you don't feel the pictures/captions are worthy of criticism, then don't criticize them.Let the rest of us respond in the manner that we feel is most appropriate. If you feel you must engage our responses, then engage our actual reasons for our dislike of the pictures instead of making them into a caricature that is easier for you to be critical of.
Garden Girl Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Probably what bothers people the most about these photos is their unblinking honesty.I find his photos dishonest... in portraying the face of Mormonism...I A mixture of the good and bad, happy and sad, sacred and silly, would have been an accurate portrayal. Showing only one side and claiming it represents all sides is just a dishonest man's 'truth'.Exactly...GG Edited December 14, 2011 by Garden Girl
Rock_N_Roll Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I must be going blind in my old age. I can’t see the blurbs about each picture. Can someone point them out to me? All I see are the captions such as “My niece Sophie” etc.I found the pictures somewhat boring and somber as well. I currently live in Pleasant Grove (the subject of many of his pictures). I grew up LDS in “Happy Valley”, but I’ve visited many different cities all over the US for business and/or leisure. I’ve yet to find a place I’d rather raise a family.
Recommended Posts