Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Simon Belmont]

I'm really interested to find out what "Fun For Family Night" or The Mormon Hierarchy books did to merit the "reviews" they got from FARMS. Or Rod Meldrum, for that matter. (Did Meldrum put the Church and its people down in some way? I must have missed that... He wasn't necessarily nice to the apologists, but I hardly see how the apologists = "the Church and its people.")

Well, for starters, Fun for Family Night was a good book that provided quick and easy ideas for Family Home Evening. Shirley Ricks liked it as well, and made some suggestions, like laminating some of the pages, or photocopying them. She says

I found only a few minor errors in the book.

And

My younger children, ages 5-9, thoroughly enjoyed looking through the book and were interested enough to play some of the games on their own. I agree with the authors that the lessons are adaptable for all ages, and I could also envision using them in other groups, such as in Church classes or sharing time in Primary. I congratulate the authors for preparing a useful, quality resource.

So, basically, Fun for Family Night was/is a good book which received a good review.

[_Blixa]

That said, this really leaped out at me for some reason:

The pictures are, in my opinion, okay as photography. Not terrible. But not particularly distinguished or memorable, either. (Sorry, but this is a comment section, and that's my honest reaction.) Moreover, the people in them are portrayed as very glum, which must represent a decision (for whatever reason) on the part of the photographer, and, whether this was intended or not, the general depiction tends to make them look rather like the rural poor in Appalachia. I would also say that the subjects of the photos come across as somewhat alien, as The Other.

(emphasis added)

Given some of Schryver's comments, this really struck me as being significant.

But of course! What is "the Other" for a haughty name-dropping academic who reads big books but "poor white trash"? I'm certain that Shumway deliberately portrayed his family as being as incapable of reading Emerson as quoting Camus correctly.

[_Kishkumen]

I must say Reverend, you latest article in PostMedival Journal on the 224A Fragment thought to belong to Abelard was fantastic. Your analysis brings much credit to your education acquired at BYU.

It is a pity that they have banned me from speaking on campus. I feel like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich--an exile from the culture I adorn.

[_Jersey Girl]

Could someone please tell me what about the photos makes the family appear to be "poor"?

[_Kishkumen]

So, basically, Fun for Family Night was/is a good book which received a good review.

Well, now you know, Simon, eh? I guess your time wasn't completely wasted in this serious research project.

[_Kishkumen]

Could someone please tell me what about the photos makes the family appear to be "poor"?

Poor=not models with surgical augmentation, bleached teeth, and wearing extremely expensive clothes.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, basically, Fun for Family Night was/is a good book which received a good review.

Well, now you know, Simon, eh? I guess your time wasn't completely wasted in this serious research project.

I know that I always enjoy it when lower-tier Mopologists take the bait.

[_Kishkumen]

I know that I always enjoy it when lower-tier Mopologists take the bait.

It will really eat at Simon that he has you to thank for enlivening his Family Home Evenings.

[_MrStakhanovite]

The woman was eating a flippin' vegan burger, not exactly a top choice fo poh white trash. No one looks poor in that photo essay, they looked human. The fact the entire conversation even happened @ Time is a testament to the martyr complex Mormons have.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Poor=not models with surgical augmentation, bleached teeth, and wearing extremely expensive clothes.

Exactly, it's that fake perky image is such a turn off.