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

[california boy]

It's comments like that- and the persistent inability to distinguish between contradiction and persecution- that keep you from being taken seriously, California Boy.

Nobody has "freaked out". We were asked our opinion and gave it.

No rioting in the streets.

No campaign of intimidation and terror.

No acts of vandalism.

No acts of public defecation.

No drug use.

No assaults, no rapes, no STDs.

No boycotts, no sit-ins, no marches, no turning public parks into private land-fills.

Just thoughtful and reasoned disagreement with the presentation as offered- and as requested in the OP..

On the contrary- that has been the entire point of the criticisms offered.

We cheerfully acknowledge that the there was a reason why Time chose those images and captions- and we acknowledge their right to do so.

We have simply pointed out that these photos- contrary to the author's assertions- are not representative of the Mormon faith or culture.

And that is no sin. It is contradiction, not persecution.

It is criticism, not censorship.

We do thank you, however, for admitting that the article and photos were intended to advance a particular agenda, rather than to offer an unbiased look at the Mormon faith.

I never implyed any rioting in the streets, etc. Perhaps you can explain why you thought I did. I simply said that everyone seems to be freaking out. Not an uncommon reaction from some Mormons when they see something in the press that doesn't conform to the well manicured image the church is constantly pushing on the media. But hey exageration by you is always entertaining.

Perhaps you can relate to me what you think the particular agenda is being advanced? Because I certainly don't see one. And those who see an agenda behind every article that doesn't have the party photos might just be a bit hyper sensitive.

[Deborah]

I think Time is showing a Mormon family that is different from the smiley faces so often pushed by the Church's PR department. Mormon families have just as many quirks and challenges behind closed doors that the public does not always see.

You keep saying this as if the smiley faces aren't genuine. Of course Mormon families have their quirks and challenges, as do all families. But that doesn't make the smiling images false. They are certainly more true than the image portrayed in these pictures.

[california boy]

You keep saying this as if the smiley faces aren't genuine. Of course Mormon families have their quirks and challenges, as do all families. But that doesn't make the smiling images false. They are certainly more true than the image portrayed in these pictures.

I would agree with you. If I was selecting photos of my family to represent, I would include smiley faces. He didn't. Or perhaps he did and Time tossed those out for the article. I don't know. I just don't think a lack of smiley faces is a criteria for all the negative comments.

[california boy]

I find your reaction amussing given that not more than a year ago, when, as a part of a Prop 8 thread, I posted several unflattering pictures of gays taken at a gay pride parade (pictures obviously not approved by the gay propaganda ministry), and you and Daniel went ballistic. Yet, now that you share the bile of the photographer in question and the negative bent of the editors and publisher, you wax self-righteous, looking down your nose at those expressing objections. A polite word for this is "ironic." Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Obvoiusly you like to take things personal. Doesn't really bother me.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm a professional historian. It is my overriding goal in writing history to construct narratives which I feel reasonably confident the people whose stories they are would find at least somewhat familiar. The series of photographs in question are completely alien to me. If it weren't for the mentions of the Church in the captions, I would have no clue that these images were purporting to represent in any way my experiences as a Latter-day Saint. The content of the captions themselves, if anything, is even more alien.

It's entirely possible, of course, that what we have here is an accurate representation of the photographer's personal experiences in his specific family, but to offer the impression--either overtly or just by suggestion--that this photo essay somehow offers a glimpse into shared 'Mormon' existence is, to me, disingenuous.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[wenglund]

Obvoiusly you like to take things personal. Doesn't really bother me.

Like I said, the polite word for this is "ironic." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

I don't know. I just don't think a lack of smiley faces is a criteria for all the negative comments.

Interesting given that you refer to the "Mormon smiley faces" as being pushed by the PR department. The presence of smiley faces isn't evidence of anything being contrived by the PR department but that is your take, but we can't refer to a negative layout as not representing the church. Most people I know are pretty happy, even when going through hard times.

[Mariner]

California Boy said:

Now the one question I have for you. What do you find to be the most false view being presented in this photo essay? What doctrine is a complete fabrication?

California Boy,

Fair enough. To me (and probably to many others) the picture of the naked backside was the most gratuitous, inappropriate and disrespectful (to both Mormons and the general audience). If the folks who put the photo collection together wanted to make maintain their credibility while making a statement, they should have left that one out (IMHO).

As far as any mentioned doctrine that were false or inaccurately represented, I would agree with you. I noticed none. Some might say, however, that I am the wrong person to ask.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Mariner

[Deborah]

As far as any mentioned doctrine that were false or inaccurately represented, I would agree with you. I noticed none. Some might say, however, that I am the wrong person to ask.

Context. The problem is often how something is presented and without proper context the whole meaning can be skewed.

[volgadon]

Not all photos are ment to be slick, composed, even in focus photos. Some stories are told better in bad light, and grainy film. It creates a different kind of image mood and tension.

A shame, then, that he didn't take such shots, as I rather enjoy those.

The composition was insipid, lackluster and unmemorable. He didn't succeed in evoking much from me beyond a sense of tediousness.

[KevinG]

I tried to google/bing/yahoo other Mormon photographers. I was treated to cartoons made from cutting and pasting Mitt Romneys head on a pair of Garments.

Nice cesspool this interwebz thing can be...

For those arguing that these photos show a more "real" slice of Mormon life than the Church PR department remember that white inter mountain Westerners are a minority in the LDS Church. Heck United States Citizens are a minority.

If you want to see a real Mormon family do an expose in Mexico or Chile. Maybe even West Africa or Polynesia.

[KevinG]

On the other hand I would not invite a photographer inside my home without a week of serious house cleaning. 9 people make lots of messes in quick time.

[Mariner]

Post removed. Do not try to bring online scuffles over here. Go there yourself.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Minos

[saemo]

The photos brought back some memories of growing up Mormon is SLC. Not the somberness, but the things people were doing, especially the kids.

The necked butt guy....the tan lines...too funny,in a way, I mean snapping a pic of your brother in law. Something I could see one of my brothers doing, just to cause trouble. What gets me in that photo is the woman. Just sitting there. What the??

The couple kissing reminds me of a coursin who married in the SLC temple, and planned time in between the wedding and lunch to go to a hotel.

Pa pa, re: can't see a marriage or not didn't happen....traditionally marriages are performed with, and in front of, an entire community. I don't know of any culture except Mormonism that hides their marriage ceremony. Culturally, wedding guests are there as members of the wedding party, which has many facets to it. In a sense they are participants in the wedding, acting as both witnesses and members of a community who are joined by the marriage. Two families are, in essence, joined, and so all present are involved. It is why the wedding party is asked if anyone has any objections to the marriage, because it's a communal event, not just something happening between the bride and groom.

A Mormon wedding seems very individualistic, having nothing to do with anyone else, especially having nothing to do with non-Mormon family and friends. Having many family members who have been married, and never having seen those weddings, I can agree, it doesn't seem that anything happened. One day they say they aren't married, the next they say they are. If you say so, but if anyone asked me if I knew for sure they were married, I couldn't say they are because I wasn't there. You'd have to ask someone who was.

The communal witness is lost from a Mormon wedding, so it can feel, in a psychological sort of way, that it didn't happen.

[california boy]

Interesting given that you refer to the "Mormon smiley faces" as being pushed by the PR department. The presence of smiley faces isn't evidence of anything being contrived by the PR department but that is your take, but we can't refer to a negative layout as not representing the church. Most people I know are pretty happy, even when going through hard times.

Look, I have nothing against smiling Mormons. I think that is an accurate portrayal of some Mormon families. And I doubt that anyone would disagree with my statement that the PR department of the church always puts forth the best possible image of what they want the public to view as an ideal Mormon family. I have NO problem with that. That is the job of the PR department of the church. It is what they do.

Is all I am trying to point out is the number of people who seem so concerned that there are not enough smiley faces by this particular photographer. He is not working for the PR department of the church. His job is to portray how he sees his family and possibly how he views Mormonism. I think we can also all agree that not everyone has a positive experience with the church. He stated that he was one of those people. It is a legitimate point of view.

I also think that often there is this facade that some members of the church have that everything in their family has to be perfect or else it will reflect badly on the church. I think we can also agree that often what is going on behind closed doors is not always apparent to those on the outside. Many comments on this thread illustrate that a lot of Mormons only want the church portrayed in an idealized way. If someone portrays the church in something other than ideal, then it deserves the scorn of all good Mormons and they must be out to destroy the church.

Is all I am saying is that not every portrayal of the church has to be, or should be all smiles and perfect. It is ok. People already suspect that Mormons are just human. This is his personal view of his families life in the church. It doesn't mean there is some conspiracy to make the church look bad.

[california boy]

California Boy, Fair enough. To me (and probably to many others) the picture of the naked backside was the most gratuitous, inappropriate and disrespectful (to both Mormons and the general audience). If the folks who put the photo collection together wanted to make maintain their credibility while making a statement, they should have left that one out (IMHO). As far as any mentioned doctrine that were false or inaccurately represented, I would agree with you. I noticed none. Some might say, however, that I am the wrong person to ask.

I know that if I try and explain this shot, it will be viewed by the "faithful" as me trying to make an excuse for the photo. I am not. I would not have put that photo in the essay if I was doing the picking. But I do have an idea why it was included.

POSSIBLY the photographer was trying to show that the garment is an important part of the Mormon religion. Do you think that is an inaccurate statement?

Perhaps he included that photo to present the importance of the garment in a way that shows that underneath it all, Mormons are just like everyone else. They just have different beliefs about what they wear underneath their clothing. It is a pretty unique belief of Mormonism. While other churches have clothing that they deem as holy or even representative of a covenant, it is only Mormons who believe their underwear is sacred. The candid shot of the brother in law running from the shower to get dressed with an urgency to put on his garment further explains the importance it holds to Mormons. For the photographer, this important aspect of Mormonism was worth one photo. Personally I am glad he showed it this way rather than his brother in law standing in front of him in his garments for all the world to see. Does that help?

[volgadon]

While other churches have clothing that they deem as holy or even representative of a covenant, it is only Mormons who believe their underwear is sacred.

One word- kashera.

[MorningStar]

I know that if I try and explain this shot, it will be viewed by the "faithful" as me trying to make an excuse for the photo. I am not. I would not have put that photo in the essay if I was doing the picking. But I do have an idea why it was included.

POSSIBLY the photographer was trying to show that the garment is an important part of the Mormon religion. Do you think that is an inaccurate statement?

Perhaps he included that photo to present the importance of the garment in a way that shows that underneath it all, Mormons are just like everyone else. They just have different beliefs about what they wear underneath their clothing. It is a pretty unique belief of Mormonism. While other churches have clothing that they deem as holy or even representative of a covenant, it is only Mormons who believe their underwear is sacred. The candid shot of the brother in law running from the shower to get dressed with an urgency to put on his garment further explains the importance it holds to Mormons. For the photographer, this important aspect of Mormonism was worth one photo. Personally I am glad he showed it this way rather than his brother in law standing in front of him in his garments for all the world to see. Does that help?

I don't see how taking a picture of his naked brother-in-law running from the bathroom to the closet shows the importance of garments. Silly, as if he's trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual for a Mormon to be naked.

[Sine Saw Square]

My main beef with this photo collection is not so much the photographer's work (though I have something to say about that as well). It is Time's editorial decision to feature this work and thereby make it more important than it should be and accessible to a national audience unfamiliar with Mormons or Utah. Try and imagine them doing the reverse- featuring the work of a believing Mormon who's photographs depicted his/her family sitting around eating a sunday meal and laughing or walking to church hand in hand or playing basketball in the church gym or having a squirt gun fight on a hot summer day, or >gasp!< kneeling in family prayer. Nope. Never would happen. Would be (perhaps justly) poo-poo'ed by the sophisticates working at Time as too amateur, to pedestrian. It's telling that when they want to showcase "Mormon Life" in Utah, they turn to an ex-member who lives in Brooklyn. Ok.. on to the show:

I'm an artist (though not a photographer). Conceptually, I think I get what he's trying to do.

The set is titled "Happy Valley" but no one smiles in the pictures... Get it? Get it? I don't have a problem with non-smiling portraits, in fact I prefer them. This is NOT 'slice of life' editorial photography. These photos look very staged to me. And staged in an awkward, obvious, sophomorically symbolic way. The whole collection is an attempt to tear down the facade of the 'superficial' Mormon value system and show Mormons as the 'other': a bizarre subtype of white bread hicks that live far off in fly-over-country that we can intellectually lump into one weird, wacky, mindless mass that all believe and live the same crazy way. They really can't live the way they claim. All that "happiness" has to be a show. He spells it out in the article summary:

"

The surrounding environment and people who inhabit it may be beautiful but something slightly unsettling lurks just below the surface."

Are there LDS families that could fit the unsettling "something" his photos suggest? Sure, so do a lot of non-lds families, but the majority don't. I doubt even Shumway's family is really like this. The photos shed no light on what it really means to be member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. No pictures of worship. No service to others. Very little tenderness. The one photo of a complete family is icy cold. But it's just one guy's experience with his own family right?. If that is true why does working through one's personal demons of teenage angst demand a national showcase? But that is not the intent of Time LightBox.

The article states:

"Nearly 600,000 people live in the valley, more than 80 percent of whom belong to the Latter-Day Saints Church (also know as Mormon), making it one of the most homogeneous communities in the United States.

Like the vast majority of residents of Happy Valley, Shumway’s family belongs to the LDS Church."

Read: "This family is typical of a homogenous group. View them all like this." Time is not trying to show this as just one guys family- it's intended to be construed as indicative of a monolithic homogenous community.

I am familiar with a few agenda artists. Their craft is secondary. It is beyond critique. Often I guess that's part of the schtick. Like saying, "What I'm doing is not about being skilled, it's about what I've got to tell the world. Telling the ugly truth- exposing the secrets that no one wants to admit." When they take aim at a group that deemed worthy to mock and marvel at, the media will eat it up.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Sine Saw Square

[LeSellers]

Context. The problem is often how something is presented and without proper context the whole meaning can be skewed.

Auguries of Innocence']A truth that's told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

Bad intent seethed in each caption and throughout the accompanying article.

Lehi

[Senator]

If you want to see a real Mormon family do an expose in Mexico or Chile. Maybe even West Africa or Polynesia.

So, this wasn't a "real" mormon family?

[Senator]

Are there LDS families that could fit the unsettling "something" his photos suggest? Sure, so do a lot of non-lds families, but the majority don't.

Well, the fact is, that the majority of LDS families are not active in the church. So if you want a sampling of the majority, this essay might actually be representative.

The article states:

"Nearly 600,000 people live in the valley, more than 80 percent of whom belong to the Latter-Day Saints Church (also know as Mormon), making it one of the most homogeneous communities in the United States.

Like the vast majority of residents of Happy Valley, Shumway’s family belongs to the LDS Church."

Read: "This family is typical of a homogenous group. View them all like this." Time is not trying to show this as just one guys family- it's intended to be construed as indicative of a monolithic homogenous community.

At least that is what you read into it.

It seems as if many here take this kind of thing personally.

[Senator]

I don't see how taking a picture of his naked brother-in-law running from the bathroom to the closet shows the importance of garments. Silly, as if he's trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual for a Mormon to be naked.

Would you rather him to have taken a picture of him in his garments to show the importance of them?

Frankly, I'd rather see his naked butt.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Senator

[LeSellers]

Would you rather him to have taken a picture of him in his garments to show the importance of them?

If we were to be "treated" to a photo of naked buttocks, I'd rather the question of the Garment not be raised at all. It is not pertinent in any way to anyone's derrière.

All things being equal, even though they never are nor can be, I'd rather never have seen that photo.

Lehi

[Calm]

I wasn't able to access the article...too slow loading. Will try again later.

Am wondering if his family feels it is a good representation of them. Would Time have to have their permission?