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

[california boy]

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).

lol well I see a difference between the prophet of God pronouncing what was or was not doctrine. (I am still not sure if he was announcing a change in Mormon doctrine or just trying to mislead the interviewer) and a photographer who is not a recognized representative of the church. I hope you can see the distinction as well.

[Calm]

Another "Mormon" photo essay from Time: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1903792,00.html

[volgadon]

Another "Mormon" photo essay from Time: http://www.time.com/...1903792,00.html

This caption is priceless.

Welcome Committee

Young college students, chosen for their exceptional language skills, education and pleasant personalities, stand by a desk in the visitors' center. Typically, students like these volunteer for 1½ years.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1903792,00.html#ixzz1geDEfKDQ

[Calm]

I liked the seminary photo....very descriptive.

Here's the article that went with it from 2009: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904146-1,00.html

[Calm]

lol well I see a difference between the prophet of God pronouncing what was or was not doctrine. (I am still not sure if he was announcing a change in Mormon doctrine or just trying to mislead the interviewer) and a photographer who is not a recognized representative of the church. I hope you can see the distinction as well.

Since as far as I know you now don't actually believe he was a prophet of God, the distinction seems to be one of official standing, which if so I do not see the significance as it relates to intentional lack of context being deceptive in the one case and not the other.

[volgadon]

I liked the seminary photo....very descriptive.

Here's the article that went with it from 2009: http://www.time.com/...04146-1,00.html

Absolutely agree with you. Most of the photos are pedestrian, but the seminary one is descriptive, evoking resonance.

[california boy]

Since as far as I know you now don't actually believe he was a prophet of God, the distinction seems to be one of official standing, which if so I do not see the significance as it relates to intentional lack of context being deceptive in the one case and not the other.

I guess you are assuming that I don't think President Hinckley was a prophet of God because I am no longer active in the church. The truth is, I think people definitely believe he is a prophet. and as such I definitely think he has a responsibility because of his position to always error on being truthful. Do I think he talks to God face to face on a regular basis? No. Do I think he has ever spoken directly with God, probably not. Do I think any of the prophets and apostles in the past have talked to God face to face? With a couple of notable exceptions, none have even stated that. Do I think those that wrote the scriptures and leading the church today think they are writing Gods will? Probably. Is it Gods will? It is only a guess. And men guess wrong often. There certainly are plenty of examples to that in church history.

Despite how others try to paint me as, I respect the Mormon church. I encourage my children to remain active in the church. And you will not be able to find any post I have ever written to discourage anyone from being a Mormon. Of course you will find many posts by me where I disagree with the actions of the church. I don't think the church leaders KNOW the will of God. I think they decide most things by committee. And I have to say, I seem to be more disappointed when I feel the church is being deceptive then I did when I was more active in the church.

I guess dogma has become much less important to me. Living as Christ encouraged us all to do has become much more important to me. When I study the life of Christ, I see less dogma, more charity and caring for others. Sometimes I think all the dogma gets more in the way of doing what Christ wants us to do.

[KevinG]

....whats good for the goose comes to mind.

If that works for you. I prefer charity and empathy when discussing matters of faith and family with others.

[KevinG]

My Karma ran over your Dogma.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

Two things…

In the first picture people had to stand very still, to get exposure. For a long time you had to have your head immobilized with a neck brace to assist. Also in that day few adults smiled…lets just say density was not the order of the day also children soon lost interest.

The second picture is a painting that was photographed, or reproduced. Truth be told we have no photos of JS in his adult life.

[Lightbearer]

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?

Well being a professional photographer myself, I can recognize an agenda driven group of photos when I see them. This so called photo essay does not say anything about Mormonism at least not to me. It looks more like what I would call a "Mormon" emulation of photographer Diane Arbus. Trying to desperately show a context of isolationism, unhappy, strange (the Jesus pictures were odd), and potential violence with the ending photo of the boy acting out the sword of Laban, which was quite unnecessary and emphasized a twisted view of Mormon culture. I am not sure how people in Utah live but the few times I have been out there it does not reflect what is depicted in the photos. It is a not so subtle attempt to peg Mormons (and by implication Mitt Romney) as a sad group of weirdos who have no clue about the "real world" which is totally false and insulting. I know very well that photographs can and do LIE! So spare me the "pictures don't lie" crap, I know very well that it is easy to say whatever you want in photographs either by careful staging or laying in wait for the perfect moment. Then attach irrelevant captions that may have no relation to reality to produce the given effect. There is a fine line between "taking a photo" and "making a photo" so I hope most people are visually savvy enough to understand this. Unfortunately with the scandal-sheet mentality that seems to sell to the lowest common denominator many people view anything that appears positive to be propaganda or PR and anything that is negative must be the "truth" or they couldn't print it... same mentality of those deceived by Anti-Mormon mudslingers.

It is unfortunate that those who would undermine the church should be given a national forum and those who would show the truth of the restored Gospel would be prevented from depicting it. About 15 or so years ago I wanted to do a photo essay for my Graduate thesis and I tried to get permission to do a "Life of a Mormon Missionary" story, unfortunately the Church had been burned by so many so-called journalists that they asked if I would do another project instead. I would not go against the counsel of the General Authorities so I abandoned my project. I suppose it was for the best, but I wish I could have done the project because it would have reflected the great love I have for the Church and for Missionary work... maybe some day?

[Deborah]

If someone wants to see photo essay of the church I suggest they get this book, which is full of candid photos of life in the church all over the world:

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0446518891

One of my favorite photos is of the daughter with her hand under her elderly sleeping mother's chin to support it during Sacrament Meeting. This photo depicts real Mormon life.

[Sine Saw Square]

If someone wants to see photo essay of the church I suggest they get this book, which is full of candid photos of life in the church all over the world:

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0446518891

One of my favorite photos is of the daughter with her hand under her elderly sleeping mother's chin to support it during Sacrament Meeting. This photo depicts real Mormon life.

To be fair The Mission has an agenda too... Just a positive one.

Lightbringer, I apreciate your perspective. It goes hand in hand with my initial response.

[Deborah]

To be fair The Mission has an agenda too... Just a positive one.

But given the scope and the many candid photos it also gives a more accurate image of who Mormons are.

[maklelan]

What do you think?

I think the photography is mediocre at best, and belittling at worst. The artist himself acknowledges that (1) he was unhappy as a teenager, (2) he detects something "slightly unsettling" lurking beneath the surface, and (3) he wants his pictures to reflect both. Bravo. An adult who wants to blame his family and their faith for his unhappiness as a teenager. A diamond in the rough.

The tone feels like the kind of photography you'd see in National Geographic of a girl in Siberia morosely holding hands behind a barn with a boy her parents don't like, or a mother breastfeeding in Cambodia while she stares off into the middle distance (only without the creative use of light and dark), as if to say, "Look at this bizarre little microcosm that has the same boring experiences as real humans, or rather, cultured Americans." Only rather than sympathizing with that microcosm, or presenting the happy along with the sad, the photographer expressly presents a negative view of his family because it's therapeutic, and that, seemingly, because it gives him the opportunity to say, "I'm better than that now."

[wenglund]

Either way, your position is a silly one since cameras don't ever lie or misrepresent anything.

That's right. Cameras never lie. Albert Einstein actually looks like Marilyn Monroe

And, this guy really is holding the moon in his hand;

Silly indeed!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mariner]

That's right. Cameras never lie. Albert Einstein actually looks like Marilyn Monroe

And, this guy really is holding the moon in his hand;

Silly indeed!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How is this evidence against the assertion that cameras don't lie? A camera is an inanimate device.

In your examples, the camera recorded the scene in terms of the light that came through the lens when the shutter was open. Any "lies" or trickery were on the part of the photographer in setting up the shot, or in the post production image processing / manipulation.

[wenglund]

Your perception is what is lying to you. The camera is showing what is right in front of it.

Thanks

Of course that is true. Back in the day, the world was only black and white with not color. Here is a photo of downtown Chicago with the camera showing what is right in front of it:

Years later, downtown Chicago was transformed, and given color and reshaped with a fisheye look. Here is link to photos of what the camera showed right in front of it:

http://www.tabblo.co...s&navuser=48881

Here is the last photo of Chicago. It really was on fire:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 16, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

How is this evidence against the assertion that cameras don't lie? A camera is an inanimate device.

In your examples, the camera recorded the scene in terms of the light that came through the lens when the shutter was open. Any "lies" or trickery were on the part of the photographer in setting up the shot, or in the post production image processing / manipulation.

The point I was making was that cameras can be used, and can themselves, distort reality--i.e. "lie." My comment came at the end of an exchange mistakenly posted on another thread in which sometimessaint said:

My objection is the manner in which my faith was presented. Anyone of even nominal intelligence can snap a picture with a camera. It takes some of personal integrity to accurately present his subjects.

To which lacyrymolotov responded:

...Either way, your position is a silly one since cameras don't ever lie or misrepresent anything....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That's right. Cameras never lie. Albert Einstein actually looks like Marilyn Monroe

And, this guy really is holding the moon in his hand;

Silly indeed!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See God does have a body of flesh and bone...holding the moon up.

[William Schryver]

I think the photography is mediocre at best, and belittling at worst. The artist himself acknowledges that (1) he was unhappy as a teenager, (2) he detects something "slightly unsettling" lurking beneath the surface, and (3) he wants his pictures to reflect both. Bravo. An adult who wants to blame his family and their faith for his unhappiness as a teenager. A diamond in the rough.

The tone feels like the kind of photography you'd see in National Geographic of a girl in Siberia morosely holding hands behind a barn with a boy her parents don't like, or a mother breastfeeding in Cambodia while she stares off into the middle distance (only without the creative use of light and dark), as if to say, "Look at this bizarre little microcosm that has the same boring experiences as real humans, or rather, cultured Americans." Only rather than sympathizing with that microcosm, or presenting the happy along with the sad, the photographer expressly presents a negative view of his family because it's therapeutic, and that, seemingly, because it gives him the opportunity to say, "I'm better than that now."

+1¹⁰

[Grundelwalken]

edited for lack of thought by the author. Apologies to those who are already offended. MW

Edited December 16, 2011 by Grundelwalken

[Calm]

MW, too fast of an edit. I didn't get to read it. Spoils the fun.

[Honorentheos]

When I first stumbled onto the photos through the cnn website, I was not very impressed by the imagery and thought the narrative was contrived. But I started seeing little details that made me wonder about underlying themes.

One of those was his sister who is a repeat subject. When following the dates and examining the photos along with the narrative, there was a portrait of her that became interesting to me. Another of his nieces is a repeat subject who, captured over the course of a few years seems to be portraying another theme. I could say what I found them to be, but they are my own interpretations and not something formed out of actual knowledge. But given the timeframe and change expressed in the portfolio my initially negative view softened. I don't think it's particularly great work, but it's interesting.

[Peppermint Patty]

I can totally relate to these photos growing up in conservative Davis County, Utah.

If you were to visit my mother's home, you would notice very similar photos on both sides of an entire hallway. The hallway is competely covered with photos of our childhood, holidays, High School dances, college, family vacations, etc.

Me and my siblings cringe whenever we have to travel down that hall. We call it the "Wall of Shame".