Time Light Box Images Of Growing Up Mormon: Cause For Angst?

[frankenstein]

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.

You and Deborha have stated that the person and/or article claim that the pictures represent the whole of LDS life that is represents the life of every member of the LDS Church. Yours and her assessment are flatly wrong.

As I have shown from the article and from the photographers own words, he is trying to capture and represent his personal experience.

Perhaps you or others can show where the article or Photographer claim/assert/insinuate or any synonym thereof that the photos represents the life of every single 14 million LDS person on the planet.

His life experience does not jive with others, but at least acknowledge that he is presenting his life experience and is not claiming it represents the life experience of all 14 million mormons.

Edited December 14, 2011 by frankenstein

[bluebell]

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.

Some of the pictures have simple explanations but others expound on the "doctrine" behind the scene.

Like the one of the naked man which also has a blurb about garments, or the one of the newlyweds sneaky a kiss infront of a 'FLDS-ish' privacy fence which also relates that mormons don't allow sex before marriage or most other kinds of physical contact, or the one of the little girl in the dress and top hat which teaches that according to mormon theology, visitng friends on the sabbath isn't allowed.

[bluebell]

You and Deborha have stated that the person and/or article claim that the pictures represent the whole of LDS life that is represents the life of every member of the LDS Church. Yours and her assessment are flatly wrong.

What's wrong is your comprehension of what i said.

I said that i thought the pictures were obviously a reflection of own familial issues rather than the church and that it seemed disingenous to cite them as a 'mormon experience' but the part that you missed-the only part that has any bearing on your criticism of me-is where I claimed that it was the captions, which attempt to state LDS theology, that I have real issue with. His misrepresentation of mormon belief is what i am critical of.

As I have shown from the article and from the photographers own words, he is trying to capture and represent his personal experience.

When he says 'the lds church teaches' he has crossed over from his own personal experience into every mormon's experiences. Doing so validly and logically opens him up to criticism.

His life experience does not jive with others, but at least acknowledge that he is presenting his life experience and is not claiming it represents the life experience of all 14 million mormons.

I won't do that, because when he links his photos to LDS doctrine, no matter what he claims, he IS presenting his life experiences as representative of the life experience of all mormons.

[Senator]

One sided, distorted, biased, and dishonest.

It's art. He had a message to tell. He got it done. He was not trying to provide a unbiased sketch of Mormon life. He state's in the essay of an "uneasy tension underlying all the smiling faces" (paraphrasing). That was the point. That was what he was honing in on. That's not necessarily dishonest.

It was his family (which are the ones that aught to be upset), his life, his attitude, his perspective. The whole photo essay says more about him, then it does about Mormonism.

[Sky]

You and Deborha have stated that the person and/or article claim that the pictures represent the whole of LDS life that is represents the life of every member of the LDS Church. Yours and her assessment are flatly wrong.

As I have shown from the article and from the photographers own words, he is trying to capture and represent his personal experience.

Perhaps you or others can show where the article or Photographer claim/assert/insinuate or any synonym thereof that the photos represents the life of every single 14 million LDS person on the planet.

His life experience does not jive with others, but at least acknowledge that he is presenting his life experience and is not claiming it represents the life experience of all 14 million mormons.

He wants to paint a certain picture in the minds of his audience. Yes it is his personal experience, but his less informed audience could very easily associate it with all of Mormonism.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Technically true he is photograhing his experience. But it is his captions combined with the photographs that he chose, to make referrence to Mormon beliefs that skew the reality of the Mormon experience into a caricature.

[frankenstein]

What's wrong is your comprehension of what i said.

personal insults aside, I appreciate your time to comment.

------------------------------------

I said that i thought the pictures were obviously a reflection of own familial issues rather than the church and that it seemed disingenous to cite them as a 'mormon experience' but the part that you missed-the only part that has any bearing on your criticism of me-is where I claimed that it was the captions, which attempt to state LDS theology, that I have real issue with. His misrepresentation of mormon belief is what i am critical of.

When he says 'the lds church teaches' he has crossed over from his own personal experience into every mormon's experiences. Doing so validly and logically opens him up to criticism.

I won't do that, because when he links his photos to LDS doctrine, no matter what he claims, he IS presenting his life experiences as representative of the life experience of all mormons.

Frankenstein:

Technically true he is photograhing his experience. But it is his captions combined with the photographs that he chose, to make referrence to Mormon beliefs that skew the reality of the Mormon experience into a caricature.

Was his statement of what the LDS teaches incorrect? That is, are his claims/statements about the teachings incorrect? If so, how are his claims incorrect?

Does the LDS Church teach against premarital sex?

Does the LDS Church have standards for when garments are to be worn?

Does the LDS Church only allow certain individuals in to Temple ceremonies, such entrance being premised on personal worthiness?

"On the Sabbath, all "worldly" activities, such as buying things, watching TV, playing video games, or even visiting friends, must cease. June 2011"

I know more than one LDS family who follow such on Sundays. My cousins were forbidden from changing from "Church Cloths" upon returning home from Church, there was even a recent (past 2 -3 years) talk from the Pulpit (Conference Center) wherein the speaker alluded though did not command that person should remain in their Church clothes all day long.

But even with his caption of the Sunday dress, he does not claim "The LDS Church". He seem very particular to state "LDS CHurch teaches" and to also make a general statement to be read in the premise that capturing his life and his family. That another person can not make that distinction is no reason to critize the author; it is a failing in the reader, not the photographer/author.

Edited December 14, 2011 by frankenstein

[Analytics]

Most of the photos aren't very good, and it seems that many of them were chosen just so the photographer could slam the church in the captions. "Here's my brother-in-law's nacked butt as he jumps out of the shower. Let me tell you about garments!" Classy.

[Saints Alive]

Most of the photos aren't very good, and it seems that many of them were chosen just so the photographer could slam the church in the captions. "Here's my brother-in-law's nacked butt as he jumps out of the shower. Let me tell you about garments!" Classy.

I agree, what's sad is most people who read that article wont understand our religion in context. Perhaps to those steeped in Mormon culture it might not be such a slam. It will go over the heads of most readers.

[TAO]

To be quite honest, these photos don't really portray what I see as Mormon culture =P. In Mormon culture... there is a ton more smiling people... and relatives, especially the elderly ones, love hanging out and doing things together. And no picture of the family sitting together during sacrament meeting on the pews, either (perhaps nursing a baby). These pictures don't really say much about culture... I think they say stuff about his life, rather.

If I had time to do pictures, they'd be rather different, I think =P.

Edited December 14, 2011 by TAO

[MorningStar]

What I gathered from it is, "Now that I left the church, I take naked pictures of my brother-in-law and submit them to the public."

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Yes. However the implication is that Mormons are nonsexual beings until marriage nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes. However showing a naked guys butt does nothing to help a nonmember understand the significance of the Garments. Would showing a naked Nun or naked Man of the Cloth help you understand the meaning of Catholic/Protestant rituals, or clothing?

No. It is not a wholly a matter of personal worthiness. Though that is a factor. The second you were baptized, and confirmed a member of the Church you are personally worthy to attend the Temple. However it takes at least another year before you can attend. I suggest you review the Temple Recommend Questions for a better idea of what is required to attend the Temple

Edited December 14, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

But even with his caption of the Sunday dress, he does not claim "The LDS Church". He seem very particular to state "LDS CHurch teaches" and to also make a general statement to be read in the premise that capturing his life and his family. That another person can not make that distinction is no reason to critize the author; it is a failing in the reader, not the photographer/author.

In most cases, failure to communicate is not the hearer/reader's fault, but that of the author/speaker.

Further, I'd strongly contend that this photographer/writer in this case had a bias through which he wanted people to view his work. That's the reason he chose the photos, captions, and text in the article as he did.

William Blake wrote,

A truth that's told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

He was 100% correct, and I believe this photographer/writer told his "truth" with as much bad intent as he could muster.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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).

I yawned. Boring pictures, boring article. No wonder the Times loves it.

What I thought was funny was all the yuppies up voting the haters.

As long as you write a snide post directed to DCP or William you are loved.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The problem is the article is promulgating this as typical of Mormon life.

From the outside looking it. It would seem.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Some of the pictures have simple explanations but others expound on the "doctrine" behind the scene.

Like the one of the naked man which also has a blurb about garments, or the one of the newlyweds sneaky a kiss infront of a 'FLDS-ish' privacy fence which also relates that mormons don't allow sex before marriage or most other kinds of physical contact, or the one of the little girl in the dress and top hat which teaches that according to mormon theology, visitng friends on the sabbath isn't allowed.

Ah, I see it now. The slide show didn't work for me the first time. Thank you.

I do not agree with the overall "feel" of the work. My family was very TBM as I grew up in "Happy Valley". On Sunday's we went to church AND visited friends or watched our favorite sports teams and programs on television. Although I, and most of my friends did not engage in pre-marital sex, there was a whole lot of physical contact going on - as it should be - through our teenage years. My wife and I wear our garments "religiously", but there are definitely times when they come off, and "gasp" sometimes with the lights on! But certainly not when someone else is in the room with a camera - that's just weird.

If you were to take a look at our family albums of pictures, mostly taken in "Happy Valley", you would see a whole bunch of smiling, happy and even goofy acting people having a good time, loving each other and enjoying life. And except for the overtly Mormon situations –in front of a temple, baptisms, Missionary pictures etc. - you would be hard pressed to see a difference between ours and any other middle class American family.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Rock_N_Roll

[frankenstein]

In most cases, failure to communicate is not the hearer/reader's fault, but that of the author/speaker.

Lehi

Except with the photos from the article, we know without doubt, because the photographer stated so himself, are pictures that capture his perception of his experience, the captions reflect his perception of his experience. For someone to not understand that is a failing on their own part and not that of the photographer.

[cinepro]

While I don't expect a personal "photo essay" to reflect the general "Happy Valley" family experience, many of the captions seriously overreach in scope.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

You don't get do you? This photogallery is presented in Time Magazine as a snapshot into what Mormons are like in their daily lives. It is one sided.

I've never seen such a glum goup of people in my life.

I didn't grow up Mormon. . Our family like others had it good times, fun times, happy times, joyfull, silly, somber, quiet, what have you times. It is the same with my own family now. To take a few highly edited photos and claim that they represent a typical Mormon family's experience is like is disingenuous.

[LeSellers]

the photographer stated so himself, are pictures that capture his perception of his experience, the captions reflect his perception of his experience. For someone to not understand that is a failing on their own part and not that of the photographer.

So, you're saying that he has only taken 24 pictures of his "tumultuous" family? That, perhaps, the unclad backside of his brother-in-law has the only purpose in the world of being a springboard into a discussion of the Garment? Or that a young teen's writing "Sh*t" on his hand is sufficient cause to include an otherwise mundane picture of the kid in a national publication? Ain't buying today, thank you.

Among the hundreds or thousands of photos he took, these were the best ones? The most representative of real life in "Happy Valley"? Of his family?

I rather doubt that. He chose the photos that were presented (or at least he provided a culled selection, and the editors did the final cut—a word I use advisedly).

Further, as a now-somewhat-blind, former photographer, I offer it as my opinion that he is not a very good practitioner. The shots are poorly composed, poorly shot, and badly presented. There is no art in them, none at all. While they pretend to be candid, the subjects are boring, the backgrounds prosaic, and the actual photography grainy and flat. Candid shots are great, but there has to be a reason for shooting them. Few of these have a raison d'être—most barely qualify as snapshots, much less photographs.

Even the casual photographers I know would have trashed most of them: they're not worth keeping.

Finally, as others have noted, were I the subject of any of these photographs, I'd be more than a little upset that he would have the temerity to publish them at all, and more so that he chose an internet site. The children and the adults pictured here look ridiculous, and it's his fault.

Lehi

Edited December 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mariner]

Deborah said:

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.

Sky said:

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.

Deborah and Sky,

I would agree with both of you to a great extent. As I looked through pictures of our family over the years after first seeing this set of images, I saw many more smiles and a much greater sense of a cohesive and mutually supportive extended family than was reflected in the LightBox photos.

Although I would admit that while one would have been hard-pressed to come up with such photos using my immediate family as subjects, there are some folks in my extended Mormon family, both living in Utah and outside of Utah, that would probably have identified more than I did with these Light Box images.

Like you, I was not particularly impressed with many of the images, either technically or in terms of composition or content. While they do reflect some aspects of Mormon life, I would not claim that they gave anything near to a balanced view.

The first question then is whether those outside the Church looking at these photos will realize and appreciate that these come from one specific member and were not selected by anyone except a Time photo editor..

I suppose that the second questions is: does it matter?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mariner

[Deborah]

I suppose that the second questions is: does it matter?

Given the exposure of the church now with the candidates I think it does matter. I would hope that those non-LDS who know Mormon families will recognize how out of sync this photo essay is with their experience, but unfortunately I think those not familiar with Mormons will come away with a confirmation of all their negative views of Mormons.

[Mariner]

Given the exposure of the church now with the candidates I think it does matter. I would hope that those non-LDS who know Mormon families will recognize how out of sync this photo essay is with their experience, but unfortunately I think those not familiar with Mormons will come away with a confirmation of all their negative views of Mormons.

Deborah,

Fair enough. Then will ask this question of you, and please don't feel obliged to respond if you don't care to. I am sure that somebody will - and the question is this:

Do you think that somebody, somewhere along the line (the photographer, the Time photo editor, the copy editor, etc.), took it upon themselves to create and / or select the images and text as they did in an attempt to offset or counterbalance the now ubiquitous idealized images of Mormons published by the Church in media campaigns such as I'm a Mormon?

In other words, could this possibly be a way of letting the Church know that folks resent the large amounts of media exposure that the LDS Church can afford and simply purchases?

[Deborah]

Do you think that somebody, somewhere along the line (the photographer, the Time photo editor, the copy editor, etc.), took it upon themselves to create and / or select the images and text as they did in an attempt to offset or counterbalance the now ubiquitous idealized images of Mormons published by the Church in media campaigns such as I'm a Mormon?

I don't find the "I'm a Mormon" campaign to show "idealized" images but real people in all walks of life. This article on the other hand seems to deliberately paint a picture of a dour, rigid people, which the I'm a Mormon does not. So which is true? Certainly not the dour look at Mormon families. Of course there are families like this; I've known some but they are the exception.

[LeSellers]

there are families like this; I've known some but they are the exception.

The second of the two issues I have with the slide show is that he/they make it appear that this is a typical LDS family: that his experience is what all Saint go through. Even though he says it is his family, he does not ever hint that his family is not the norm, but rather lets it hang out there as if his is not an exception.

The first, of course, is that he presented it at all. There is no basis for it in the first place.

Lehi