Mariner Posted December 15, 2011 Author Posted December 15, 2011 The one that takes through the photos were there is a nude man.Okay.Thanks.That is what I figured.Unfortunately, I can't help.Sorry.
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Yeah our community is pretty diversified. And perhaps because of the photos you have seen or maybe only heard about from Folsom Street Fair, you think that all gays behave this way. Or even that a lot of gays behave this way. The gay community is probably even more diverse than the Mormon community is. Which is probably why so many on this thread are so unhappy with a slight variation of what they want the Mormon family portrayed in Time. The more narrow of view of what a Mormon should be, the more offensive photos that divert from that narrow definition becomes. I get it.I know lots of gays that don't act like the "in your face" crowd. Don't assume I am not closely affiliated with homosexuals because of my religion. That in and of itself is condescending.My point is that while embarrassing and clandestine pictures of Mormons behaving weirdly are not a parallel to gay pride events where gays are out to be seen and photographed in outrageous situations. In fairness the Folsom crowd has its share of hetero and bi sexuals also.
Sky Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 People in the gay community that like gay pride like gay pride pictures. The majority of gay people in the United States and San Francisco in particular neither participate in the gay pride parade nor do they attend. Many think it is a joke. News to me. I learned something new today. I thought the common thinking among gays was that the parades are fun and carefree. It is freedom of expression and a way for gays to be front and center for a day instead of a frowned upon minority in society. But thanks for correcting me.
katherine the great Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. These look like unremarkable snapshots of a grumpy family living in an untidy house. I always think of Time magazine as publishing good photos. 3
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. These look like unremarkable snapshots of a grumpy family living in an untidy house. I always think of Time magazine as publishing good photos.Spot on. I have the feeling they were only published because of the topical nature of all things Mormon right now given the Presidential race, the musical and the LDS "I'm a Mormon" campaign.The press is bound to treat us to the good, the bad and the just plain weird about Mormons for the next several months (or years if Romney is elected).
california boy Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 News to me. I learned something new today. I thought the common thinking among gays was that the parades are fun and carefree. It is freedom of expression and a way for gays to be front and center for a day instead of a frowned upon minority in society. But thanks for correcting me.You are welcome. And at this point, I think I will bow out of this discussion. I only was making the point that while this series of photos may not show a Mormon family in the best possible light, ti does show a Mormon family. Not all portrayals of Mormons are going to be the kind that the PR department of the Mormon church wants to present. I don't however think it was an attack on the Mormon church nor do I think it was some kind of agenda. If you look at the other work of this photographer, it is consistent with his protrayal of other communities. He likes to expose what is underneath the smile if you will. I can understand why some of you are upset by his portrayal of his particular family. You want smiley clean all american patriotic, normal happy Mormons shown. Anything less than that makes some of you a bit uncomfortable.If I haven't made that point by now, then I am not going to be able to.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) The family actually looks like one that would be a lot of fun to hang out with from the pictures of other family members.Considering how he states they've accepted him, etc. it seems a dirty trick to turn around and present such a one sided view of the family that turns them into something they are not. The kids look normal, happy, loving and well cared for with the usual minor chaos that surrounds a large family. Edited December 15, 2011 by calmoriah 1
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) You want smiley clean all american patriotic, normal happy Mormons shown. Anything less than that makes some of you a bit uncomfortable.You aren't reading my mind very well. I would like a more diverse portrayal of Mormons shown without the sensationalist press and Broadway being so eager to find weird, fringe, condescending or downright insulting views. In fact I'd like more presentations of Saints in other countries. I think it would be very healthy for people to understand we're not just some Utah centric, white bred, isolated people. We are far from that.Yeah... and this. We're never gonna not look like this: Edited December 15, 2011 by DaddyG
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 , ti does show a Mormon family.No, it doesn't. It shows pictures of a Mormon family. Not only that but the pictures are so chosen that they present a distorted image, not a different one.Include those pictures in a larger array that shows the family in a variety of attitudes and experiences (as is done for the most part on their personal blogs) and they are not a problem. Pull them out and present them as if they stand on their own and it's not the lds here that are presenting a "narrow definition".
Sky Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) You are welcome. And at this point, I think I will bow out of this discussion. I only was making the point that while this series of photos may not show a Mormon family in the best possible light, ti does show a Mormon family. Not all portrayals of Mormons are going to be the kind that the PR department of the Mormon church wants to present. I don't however think it was an attack on the Mormon church nor do I think it was some kind of agenda. If you look at the other work of this photographer, it is consistent with his protrayal of other communities. He likes to expose what is underneath the smile if you will. I can understand why some of you are upset by his portrayal of his particular family. You want smiley clean all american patriotic, normal happy Mormons shown. Anything less than that makes some of you a bit uncomfortable.If I haven't made that point by now, then I am not going to be able to.I think I understand your point. I just have a different take on it. And if I haven't been able to get my point across to you by now, then I don't think I will able to either. But thanks for playing. Edited December 15, 2011 by Sky
frankenstein Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 daddyg, I think he was going for a "grapes of wrath" type photo as well, but such does not translate into color.What is amusing about this is how adamant many are about these photos not representing mormon culture, except they do. As bluebell pointed out in her first post (which I missed).These photos have more to do with the photographers family and how they lived/live "LDS" than about the LDS Church in general.My mother told all my friends that riding "atv's" was against the LDS religion and as such I was forbidden from riding atv's. My cousins were forbidden from playing outside on Sundays (their Dad was Branch President). I know one gal who was told that "soul kissing" was strictly forbidden among LDS. Not to mention the spat in LDS history concerning what marital activities required the wearing of garments. Many a LDS family have kooky interpretations of how to live LDS, these photos are meant to represent just one of the many kooky families. And if anything the photos show that the LDS look like normal people and thank the Heaven that the act of rebelion a kid does is write a four letter word on his (the act of rebelion could have been much much worse)Just think of all the kookiness that has made its place known on this board, and how divergent the opinions are what one is doing is sin or not, or a violation of a Commandment; where on gets married is one example and ones position of what the Church has deemed a moral issue another.
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) I agree that the photographers focus was his family rather than the Church in general. It is the choice of a national magazine editor to use this arguably average photo essay to portray Mormons that I take issue with (although not too strongly).If I get started on dysfunctional family quirks being weaved into folk doctrines in order to control family behavior I will never get stopped. In my opinion that is a serious case of unrighteous dominion and the cause of most youthful or adult apostasy. Edited December 15, 2011 by DaddyG
lachrymolotov Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 What if my brother decided to mock my belief in modesty and wearing a sacred garment by posting my bare nekkid behind in a national photo essay? Who would be the dead man in that scenario?Again... I'm not offended or full of angst. The comments defending the essay or comparing it to photos of gays in full parade regalia are more offensive than the essay itself.I think the photos are average and a weak attempt at a Dorthea Lange type essay. The commentary is weak and condescending to the photographers "normal" Mormon family. The context during a national campaign where a Mormon happens to be running for President is not a coincidence be it an attempt at empathy or a mild slam. I can't read the editors mind so I can't tell which it was.Was that butt picture taken with a photo essay in mind?
KevinG Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Was that butt picture taken with a photo essay in mind?Who knows? but he did submit it as a commentary on garment wearing so in the end the effect is the same.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 "These photos have more to do with the photographers family and how they lived/live "LDS" than about the LDS Church in general"That is if it is an accurate portrayal. Having read the personal blogs of other family members, I think there is room for doubt. It wouldn't be the first time someone misrepresented their family and community for personal gain (think Nibley Beck who claimed as reality practically every Mormon urban myth I ever heard of and some I hadn't.)
Sine Saw Square Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Mormon Pride parade...too bad this doesn't have a majority of thousands of non-mormons watching it Edited December 15, 2011 by Sine Saw Square
wenglund Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 If for example the gay community could control every photo taken of them, there would only be loving gay couples dressed in modest clothes walking down the streets of America. And quite honestly, most of the gay people in my life live normal lives, go to work, do laundry, vacuum, and come home to someone they love. This might surprise you but most gays don't even own a g-string. Does that help you deal with unflattering pictures of Mormons???Does your past outrage when I posted unflattering photos of gay's help you understand the objection of LDS to the photo essay in question?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
lachrymolotov Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 They aren't smiling. This picture is unflattering. The photographer should be ashamed of himself for his picture of this Mormon family. Right?All pictures of Mormons should look like this... right?
LeSellers Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 They aren't smiling. This picture is unflattering. The photographer should be ashamed of himself for his picture of this Mormon family. Right?All pictures of Mormons should look like this... right?Actually, the photo is flattering. No one is disheveled or in a messy room. Further, in the mid-to-late XIX, no one smiled because it was too hard to hold the pose long enough for the early emulsions to record the light: film was very slow back then.The painting does not purport to be a candid shot (neither does the photo, for that matter), so neither of your examples rates much mention.We've been through this. Read the topic before making yourself look too foolish.Lehi 2
Deborah Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 lachrymolotov:They aren't smiling. This picture is unflattering. The photographer should be ashamed of himself for his picture of this Mormon family. Right?Context. It was not the custom to smile at this time period and the fact that this article shows the same morose faces may be evidence that he was trying to portray Mormons as backwards and old fashioned.
Calm Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 CB, if I understood you correctly, you saw Pres. Hinckley as being deceptive for not providing more context when he could have about the Snow couplet. Do you see the photographer deceptive for not giving the greater context the pictures he took reside within? Such as at least some of his family love living in Utah Valley, seeing it as supportive and loving even when they are not an "orthodox"family (one of his sisters promotes raw food eating due to almost losing her life to intestinal difficulties...thus the vegan burger she is taking to her family, she is also studying other religious traditions).
wenglund Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) All pictures of Mormons should look like this... right?Wrong.Some pictures should look like this painting of Hauns Mill:Or this painting of Christ in Gethsemane:Your stereotypical caricature of LDS responses is duly noted, and ironic given this is what is being objected to about the photos in question.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited December 15, 2011 by wenglund
frankenstein Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 CB, if I understood you correctly, you saw Pres. Hinckley as being deceptive for not providing more context when he could have about the Snow couplet. Do you see the photographer deceptive for not giving the greater context the pictures he took reside within? Such as at least some of his family love living in Utah Valley, seeing it as supportive and loving even when they are not an "orthodox"family (one of his sisters promotes raw food eating due to almost losing her life to intestinal difficulties...thus the vegan burger she is taking to her family, she is also studying other religious traditions).In that same theme, why can't LDS accept the same reasoning provided by FAIR, which in part is "well there was not enough time and the audience did not have a sufficient foundation, thus there was no deception or misleading." Essentially that is one of the excuses offered by FAIR and promoted by people on this board who have also posted in this thread....whats good for the goose comes to mind.
Recommended Posts