For those who were around in the 80’s, you might remember a church video called “What is Real”. Serving my mission in the early 1990’s, I showed it to nearly anyone who we met more than once. It is actually not a bad story, for a church video, if you can get away from the cheesy script and stereotypical portrayals of the characters. It uses the analogy of a movie set where the characters slip in and out of the real-ness of the story to speaking to us by looking into the camera. It uses that to ask the question…”What is Real?”
For those who want a bit of nostalgia the video is on YouTube here.
Our own Hawkgrrrl back in 2012 posted regarding the photoshopping of lds.org pictures. The general response appeared to be one of disgust – as in the particular case mentioned, it was a young girl. However, these type of things often take on a different feeling when they have a personal connection…
My own mother called me recently to tell me a story. Here in Australia, and in other areas of the world, the Ensign comes with an insert that covers local stories. As it turns out, my mother (then RS President) and the members of the local Relief Society were featured in one of the stories where a picture was taken. One of the sisters (I have de-identified her) and my mother had recently been given this insert by one of the elderly members in their Ward (the event was about 5-6 years ago). Neither my mother nor this other sister were aware of the picture until it was recently brought to their attention. Upon looking at it, the sister realised that the photo had been altered. The dress she was wearing was low cut, but being pregnant at the time, comfort was the order of the day. As you can see from the photo there is a t-shirt (white) depicted as being worn under the dress. This sister was not wearing that on the day, and in fact, did not own such a t-shirt.
I guess my gripe with this is that these are REAL sisters, in REAL clothes, at a REAL service project in the REAL world. Apparently, there is someone whose job it is to draw a line somewhere as to what the members are wearing, and it’s level of apparent modesty. Never mind the good that they were doing, the time they had given up or the positiveness of the story.
Without reading too much into this…this type of behaviour could very well be seen to be analogous to the way the church has sanitised its own history. Keep the nuts and bolts, but pretty it up around the edges. Make it seem that little more perfect. Unfortunately, the end result is, certainly for my mother and this particular sister involved, one that has little to do with the service they were rendering and more to do with trying to understand why someone would want to do this?
The video “What is Real” has taken on a very different meaning for me than what it did 25 years ago. The question then was finding the real-ness in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The meaning now, just like the image above, is disentangling the truth and fiction of what the Church had presented as its history.
My questions are:
- Whose job is it to do this?
- Are they still doing this today?
- Should you be notified if there is an intention to alter your image?
- What does it say about us as a Church?
- What would you do if they did this to your image?
- Does this seem analogous to the broader issues we see in church history?
Discuss…
Wheat & Tares 
Teeth grinding.
This is the release form you are required to sign when submitting media (https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/create/participant-release.pdf?lang=eng)in the “Create and Share your Media Talents” section of the Media Library on lds.org
“I, the undersigned, irreversibly grant to Intellectual Reserve, Inc., its related entities, and their respective employees, agents, and representatives (collectively called “IRI”), the full right to create and obtain, in the past, present, and in the future, images, photographs, video, audio, interviews, stories, personal histories, performances (vocal, instrumental, dramatic, or otherwise), mixes, and any other recordings, documents, or materials, in any now known or future media, of my name, image, voice, likeness, performance, and other items (collectively called “Recordings”). I also authorize IRI to copyright, adapt, edit, translate, summarize, reproduce, perform, display, distribute, publish, license, sublicense, sell, broadcast, post or stream over the Internet, and otherwise use and allow others to use any and all parts of the Recordings, forever and throughout the world, in any and all manners, and in any and all forms of media that IRI
believes suitable.
“I agree that I shall have no right, title, or interest in or
to the Recordings(or to any work comprising or based on the
Recordings, in whole or in part), and that all right, title,and interest in and to the Recordings belongs to IRI. I waive any and all right to payment or other compensation arising from or related to the Recordings. I will not state or imply, or allow others to state or imply, that IRI approves of or endorses me or my activities. I further agree to release, defend, and hold IRI harmless from any claims, damages, or liabilities related to the Recordings or IRI’s use thereof. I understand this Release is governed by the laws of the State of Utah, U.S.A.”
I’m not a legal person, but this looks like you are granting them rights over all and anything media related, not just the items you submitted, if you so much as submit and grant rights over a single single photograph. And they can do just what the hell they like with it in perpetuity. No idea how that will hold up in a court of law.
Please, someone, explain how I’m wrong on this.
I think this reflects a church that is obsessed with presenting a “perfect” image to the world. It is a culture that has an extremely tough time accepting and grappling with reality. Given the choice of real vs. ideal, historically the church seems to go with ideal.
And yet, calling this weird tee shirt under her blouse “ideal” strains at the meaning of the word. Nobody wears stuff like that outside of Utah (well, maybe Mesa, but that’s more or less the same as Utah).
“Nobody wears stuff like that outside of Utah”
Sadly that’s not the case.
“Never mind the good that they were doing, the time they had given up or the positiveness of the story.” Since I assume there was no footnote to the story that an editor added the T-shirt, then I don’t see how adding the T-shirt detracted from the good they were doing or the positiveness of the story. T-Shirts under shirts? We’ve been watching re-runs of The Middle, and the mother, Frankie, almost always is wearing a T-shirt under another shirt, and they are anything but Mormon. Don’t know quite the cleavage looked like in the original picture. You or I and half the bloggernacle might not have a problem with the amount of cleavage, but I have no problem with some artistic effort in some cases. I think people working in the editorial departments of the church magazines come and go, so you’re going to get cycles of modesty efforts. I do agree the church has consistently tried to put it’s best foot forward. I don’t see that as a fault. We have more access to church history than any other church that I know of. I don’t know of any other church that purposefully tries to air it’s laundry in public. I think most people, both in and out of the church, would concede that God works through people, and people are complicated.
There are SOME (thankfully, not all or seemingly a majority) who live the late H.L. Mencken’s definition of a ‘prude’ – a person who goes into an apoplectic fit that SOMEONE out there is having a good time. I really doubt that someone would get their jollies out of a wee bit of cleavage of some thirty-five-ish woman with child…then again, who knows with whatever crapola is ‘out there’.
I don’t see the photoshop as a huge deal, but it is indicative of just how scared of sexuality “the church” can be. In the same daily mail that I get the Ensign delivered, there is junk mail with bikini laden pictures on.
This also reminds me of how someone (a female – not a male) noted that the New Era never shows young women that have large busts. I have looked and noticed that is very true. I wonder if any YW have noticed that. Especially those that are both un-endowed and simultaneously well-endowed and felt out of place.
Hawkgrrl,
You’re right. By ideal I was more referring to the editor’s (or whoever decided to photoshop the white undershirt) version of ideal.
Let it go.
I for one would not be pleased at having my photo shopped like this. It’s like they are saying “Cover up, slut.”
“Let it go.”
Are you saying that in the Disney Frozen defiant homosexual sense?
“Are you saying that in the Disney Frozen defiant homosexual sense?”
Now that you mention it……
On another note, I was thinking that top photo was actually Hawkgrrl on her mission….
Well, praise be I never wore that Utah 90s hairdo in my life. I had the Princess Di thing going on during my mission and before.
Would it be a man or woman who has the job of covering up the naughty bits of women? Be a bit strange whichever, but perhaps worse if a man. Could this be a full time job? Imagine telling your friends what you do for a living?
There is a lot more cleavage on show at church from the adult women, than in the unimproved version of the photo. The temperature here today is 36c which is 96.8f and its autumn.
Everything the church does has as one of its focus’ to be educational. They are trying to teach modesty.
I triple dog dare you to find collarbones in any picture published in a church magazine.
IDIAT – “I don’t see how adding the T-shirt detracted from the good they were doing or the positiveness of the story”.
If you were that person, would you think that the magazine was more concerned with what you were wearing or the story.
Obviously no one else knew, except for my mother and this sister (now half the bloggernacle…). I guess what I was getting at was that if all the church presents in its official publications are sanitised, standardised images of people – and then the reality is something different – is that a good thing for the church??? This is exactly what the church IS facing with its history. It historically presented a church with the white shirt added – now it is having to explain itself.
What things like this do is set norms and send strong signals as to what someone somewhere thinks is “appropriate”. And lets be honest, the people interpreting what the range of “appropriate” or “acceptable” is are under paid bureaucrats in one building in SLC from a very narrow background. I guess if we are all comfortable with that then cool. But it does seem a bit…Pharisaical. Maybe shooting beyond the mark? And exactly what is the purpose here? To demonstrate to women what “appropriate” is by altering their attire or to “protect” the sensitive eyes of men and boys from skeeving out on the women’s blouse? Both? Its just plain weird.
I think they should photoshop a white shirt and tie on the Angel Moroni…that dude was not living up to Ensign standards!
This has been a recent issue in Utah with schools photoshopping yearbook photos in order to make outfits more modest (and erasing tattoos). It’s not just the Church, but it does seem to relate to communities with high numbers of Mormons.
Yes, the Church and it’s people have an unhealthy obsession with presenting an idealized public image (I don’t actually think it’s related to the possibility of immoral thoughts resulting from the photo).
Mary Ann – you may be right about it not really being about appearing “moral,” although of course to the ones being photoshopped, they are feeling judged and found wanting. I think it would be difficult to find clothing to conform to some of these arbitrarily stringent standards. Evidently if they have to add tee shirts under shirts.
I think we need to put t-shirts on all the men and women in the famous Christ Comes to the America’s painting. Next time you pass it, look at the painting? These hang in our buildings. You would think correlation would have fixed that, too. I am taking a white sharpie next Sunday and fix ours. Anyone want to join me?
For your viewing pleasure.
The horror Cat!
You have made me think ill thoughts by posting that picture. I mean several ladies have the shoulders almost showing and for sure not garment ready.
And all the female viewers that see those bare chested men WITH GOLD BANDS ON THEIR BICEPS. Talk about bling that no woman could resist! I mean is this post about 50 shades?
Happy Hubby – The man on the far left stairs has his inner thigh showing. Like almost to the nether regions. I may not sleep tonight after seeing that. I probably need to make a confession appointment.
And just think the model that posed for him is probably dead.
As a man in the church, I really have no control over my thoughts. Seeing the bare shoulders in those paintings of ancient times when Christ visited them creates immoral thoughts which aren’t my fault, it is the painter’s fault for immodestly displaying these worldly people who have no morals or dress codes.
I suggest we have women posted at these paintings at church to make sure men don’t look at them too long and to hurry them along in the halls past these pictures before something terrible happens.
…this kinda stuff makes me think of Hawkgrrrl’s other thread…about the crazy things counsels come up with around modesty that goes beyond reason.
Nothing against your mom, LDS Aussie, she’s probably a beautiful lady…but seriously, what kind of men do we have in our church that can’t handle a shirt of a pregnant mother being a little low during hot weather?
Sometimes I think we are just trying to give SouthPark writers easy material to make fun of us with.
Can we just get REAL?