Big Love Re-Offends Mormons. Do They Have a Point?

I'm surprised the LDS is outraged about this particular scene. If anything, I would have expected the secret church letter legitimizing polygamy storyline to have prompted the bigger reaction.

This is all just a really long introduction to an off-week LDG topic about faith and eyeliner, right?

It is all fair game. Is a Mormon ceremony really that much more intimate and private then say, some people having sex, or the President praying to God, or any number of other often depicted scenes?
.
If we start not showing certain LDS practices because it might upset some people, then before you know it, we might not be able to peaceafully make fun of scientologists.
.
No one wants that to happen.

Let me put it this way, even South Park never attempted to portray sacred Mormon Temple rituals. Also, I think there is significantly more backstory to this issue by way of Big Love executive producer Tom Hanks insulting Mormons following the passage of Prop 8, later apologizing for said insults and now spearheading what is no doubt a much bigger insult to Mormons.
.
With respect to Temple Rituals. it is often described as a distinction between sacred and secret. Mormon Temple rituals aren't secret they're sacred. The Mormon Church's hope is that others would respect the sacred nature of the rituals, much as Jewish groups have asked the Mormons not to perform posthumous baptisms for Holocaust victims. I'm not convinced that the story telling requires portrayal of the ceremony and that the portrayal isn't just being used for shock value.
.
Context will be everything. The photos I've seen showed Barb in temple attire. Is she in a Mormon temple? If that's the case then there is a serious misrepresentation As a practicing polygamist Barb could not get a Mormon temple recommend. (Last weeks episode showed Barb's sister suggesting to Barb's former bishop that a disciplinary hearing is necessary, as polygamy requires excommunication.) If the scene is from within a polygamist temple, then all bets are off.
.
Finally, the tone of the Mormon Church's letter is questionable. To me the appropriate response would have been to emphasize that the show Big Love and all the characters in it are fictional and to direct people interested in learning about Mormons to the church's website. Instead the letter proves what it is attempting disprove. That this is a big deal and that they are very offended. Then the letter almost gloats in recounting the recent failures of their public adversaries.
.
Such a letter will not foster sympathy or understanding and never would have been released during Gordon B. Hinckley's Mormon Presidency. For that matter the Prop 8 fiasco never would have occurred either. President Hinckley spent his professional career in media and public relations and would have exercised more tact.

I have the perfect solution for those Mormons out there: change the channel. No one is making them watch. I mean, we live a free country. A free country that allows the Mormons to practice their religion without persecution; a free country that allows them to spend millions preventing loving couples from having the same rights that heterosexual couples have. That same freedom allows HBO to air whatever show they like, say what they wish, show what they wish. I am so sick of religion attempting to insert itself into what we can or cannot watch, say, or do. If I'd been an HBO exec I would have ignored the whole incident. It's not as if these people are the target audience for Big Love. Quit giving them the power to affect you.

What is sacred to one group is just a curiosity to another. While I wish all religions/groups avoid offending each other through less-than sensitive handling of sacred things, I don't think it is really possible. For example, in this case, how can outsiders really understand the sacredness of a secret ceremony?

The Catholic Church took issues with the book The Da Vinci Code, made that clear publicly and the book was boycotted by Catholics and perhaps some Christians. Everyone else— Mormons included— had no problem reading it or seeing the movie. Why? Because it wasn't their "sacred thing."

I appreciate the concerns that the LDS Church and members have over the Big Love episode but the Mormons have some accounting to do themselves. While the Church requests HBO to respect things that they consider sacred, they have no issue preforming Baptism for the Dead. As tyrantking notes, Jewish groups have requested that the ordinance be stopped for Holocaust victims. While the practice for the most part has been stopped, the LDS Church is not responding to requests “implement a mechanism to undo what you have done.” Catholics and those of other faiths have issues with the practice as well but the LDS Church has no intentions of ending the practice except for Holocaust victims. LDS leader Elder Lance B. Wickman said, “We don't think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines.” So what's a religion to do?

In the end, I suspect the Big Love episode won't cause as much heart burn as Mormons think. I do find it funny in some ways though that they are so upset about HBO hijacking their ceremony. A short 6 weeks after Joseph Smith, Mormon founder, became a Master Mason (March 1842), he introduced the Temple Endowment, borrowing heavily from Masonic ritual structure, signs, symbols and tokens he had PROMISED NOT TO REVEAL TO ANYONE. In 1990, Masonic elements were removed from the ceremony but some still remain. Ironic. Maybe it's the Freemasons who should be upset with the Mormons. =)

As a member of the LDS church I agree with the statement. It doesn't call for boycotts or any actions against HBO, it just says that the use of this ceremony in the TV show is offensive to those that hold the ceremony sacred.
-
I thought this part of the Church statement was the most interesting part:
-
"There is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long term negative effect on the church."
-
Basically, the effect of these scenes on the church is not a big deal. How many people watch Big Love? 10 million? Since ex-mormons have posted the ceremony online and made documentaries about it, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter that 10 million more people have access to it.
-
I appreciate that my church will release a statement sticking up for what it believes and hold dear but not make a huge deal about it. I'm assuming the church PR department could have gotten news outlets outside of SLC to pick this up, but chose not to go that route.
-
BTW, I loved the ending of that episode of South Park. Usually South Park's creators make fun of something and offer no redemption for the religion/actor/public figure. I'm assuming the redemption was allowed to happen because the creators have said they grew up with a lot of mormons and they were good people.

Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

These are private facts and I am offended...

I am offended that the producers of Big Love would use something that millions of people around the world view sacredly as just another way to get a few more hits. Frankly it feels like a personal violation.

Our great country may give freedom of speech to everyone, but it also gives a right to privacy to them as well. It's not a question of religion, but a question of privacy. How far should an entertainment medium be allowed to go until what they are doing is a violation of someone else's private life?

"Religious traditions about representation are often strict and absolute—that, in part, is the point of them. Like dietary laws or other religious-cultural traditions, they serve to keep the group cohesive by drawing bright lines between it and outsiders."

This is the problem with religions in general - that 'us versus them' mentality and all of these secret society things emphasizes the differences between people whether real or - in this case - merely a matter of belief. That emphasis on "difference" sets into motion a common and unavoidable human psychological reaction. That which is different is mistrusted. That which is mistrusted is eventually feared. That which is feared is eventually hated. That which is hated is eventually the target of violence.

Since most religions emphasize that everyone outside of the church (or even the congregation in some cases) is different, those within the church treat others with mistrust at BEST. It goes downhill from there.

As long as religions do this, Mankind, being less than perfect, will forever suffer the consequences of religiously germinated violence. Yes, there are a lot of things that define us as different, but a "real" religion will emphasize the things we have in common and paint those not in the religion as no different than those in it. Because in the end, we all end up in the same place.

I take deep personal offense at Big Love's depiction of a sacred LDS temple endowment ceremony. In doing so, the producers join the ignorant and cruel throngs who have ridiculed and driven the Mormons over the centuries—never pausing to hear or appreciate the beauty of their message.

I refer to the mobs in Missouri and Illinois who sought to exterminate the life of every Mormon; or to the captain who refused to stop the boat upon hearing that my aged ancestor had fallen into the Mississippi because “It's just one of those damned Mormons” (her body was never recovered); or to the countless bloggers who vehemently decry the Mormons—largely without reason—and neglect the testimonies of the millions who, like me, have been so profoundly blessed and comforted through its teachings and programs.

Although I now live in the California Bay Area, I spent my first 25 years in Salt Lake City. Thanks to Big Love, my friends here cannot believe that I really never knew, or even knew of, a polygamist. They have the impression that the LDS Church passively permits polygamy. Of course, seeing that an LDS rite is depicted, one could argue, again, that Big Love has not honestly attempted to differentiate the LDS Church and polygamist sects—likely because it intended to do the opposite all along.

Let's see, flushing or threatening to flush a Koran down the toilet is offensive to Islam and should not be tolerated. Drawing cartoons about Mohammad is offensive, the cartoons in question should not be shown, and the creators jailed for being offensive. But it is OK to show a rite sacred to Mormons on television? And which liberal hypocrites do we have to thank for this piece of twisted logic?

@willard, you've set up a straw man. I don't think that you're referring to James as the liberal hypocrite but regardless he specifically said that he is ok w/ depictions of Muhammad if it serves a purpose.

ldsrevelations,
weren't the Masons descendants of those who worked on Solomon's Temple and other Jewish Temples before they were destroyed. Most likely they stole those rites from the Jewish Temples before they were destroyed and Israel dispersed. Did the Masons ever claim to come up with those rites by themselves? If as the Mormons claim, that EVERYTHING was restored - would that not include those rites which were practiced anciently? Just a thought...

As a Mormon, I believe what the LDS church and members find offensive in the televising of this particular sacred ordinance is that it is meant to be experienced only by those who have learned and lived worthily enough to be able to experience it. It's not like a baptism that anyone, even an outsider, is free to witness.

For a Mormon, going through the temple for the first time is a special event that takes a lot of spiritual preparation. Because the ceremony is not publicly talked about outside of the temple, the understanding is that the things learned in the temple should be held privately and discussed only within the walls of the sacred temple. To have the ceremony televised as entertainment cheapens it in a sense and detracts from the spiritual nature of it.

Mr. Poniewozik,

I will try to explain why many Mormons are uncomfortable with the endowment ceremony being depicted. Admittedly it is somewhat difficult to explain. The ceremony is considered to be one of the most sacred events in a person's life. When Mormons go to the Temple it is an effort to get away from the things of the world and draw closer to God.

Certain experiences are not meant to be talked about, except in generalities. For example, in the New Testament we read of the experience on the Mount Transfiguration but we don't hear about all the intimate details because they are too sacred to be shared. Likewise, in the Torah we read about Moses going up the mountain to receive the 10 Commandments from Jehovah but we don't get a detailed account of his conversation with God.

I'm not sure if it is something particular to the Church but I will say that Mormons are very concerned with any portrayal of any ordinance. For example, we do not take pictures of our baptisms, nor of anything that happens inside the temple, in fact we do not take pictures of any of the ordinances that we perform. Perhaps that is different from other faiths.

As far as this particular ritual, as I said previously, the endowment ceremony is considered one of the most sacred experiences in a person's life. It is a very special experience that is not to be trifled with or talked about except inside the temple.

I hope that this has been helpful. For more information you may want to check the Church's websites lds.org and mormon.org.

James -
You have a good point. Why are mormons unable to explain why it is offensive to depict their sacred ritual? I would argue that it boils down to them not wanting to alienate future potential converts. The mormon church relies on the fact that potential converts are not aware of the practices and teachings and actions of the founders and leaders that would seem bizarre or contradictory or immoral. Once a convert has been fully indoctrinated they are able to rationalize or ignore such information, but before that it is quite easy to eliminate the chance of someone becoming mormon through a knowledgeable discussion.
This layered withholding and revealing of information, which involves outright deception at times, is called by mormon faithful "milk before meat". A pertinant example being the changes in the mormon temple ceremony over time. Mormon documentation can be found of top leaders in the mormon church publicly claiming that the mormon temple ceremony has never changed. If you restrict your information to only that which is publicly disseminated by the mormon church itself, you would not have any reason to doubt this.
If you want to know how mormons who have learned of the changes justify the deception, ask them and watch the contortions. I did not learn until I had left - I had participated in temple ceremonies and dedicated myself on a two year mission to convert others, yet the leaders in the church didn't think that I might want or deserve to know about any changes. The only "meat" of the gospel they are hiding is the flesh rotting off the skeletons in their closet.

James, I think it's because LDS Church members themselves aren't allowed to discuss certain aspects of temple rites (note that these rites are somewhat analagous to Masonic ritual, including the idea of the keeping of Masonic signs and tokens secret), so Mormons tend to become offended -- or at least are presented with quandaries -- when outsiders discuss them.

"I'd love to get elaboration from any Mormon visitors willing to engage it. "

I am LDS (a Mormon's term to refer to himself or other in the mainstream church to differntiate us from the various offshoot, mainly polygamous sects) and will try to explain why it is NOT OK to show "the endowment" on TV according to US.

First, many religions have sacred rituals that are not depicted and are offended when portrayed outside their context. I am from Arizona and the Hopi Kachina ceremony immediately sprang to mind. I cannot recall ever seeing that filmed on tape, and seen many news stories of people who have tried and the public disdain in Arizona that followed their attempt. Other tribal rituals in the US are included in this definition which most media outlets follow. Native American ceremonies are normally only portrayed in our P.C. world with the tribe's permission. We are not a tribe, but the general rule in our (the LDS) world is we talk about the temple in vague terms with Gentiles (nonmembers) and only within the temple among ourselves. It is considered crude and almost sinful (in some circles) to talk about the temple ceremonies (there are more than one, eternal marriage, proxy baptism, etc...) especially the referred to ceremony which we call "the endowment" even among church member in detail.

2nd, we (the LDS body) are skittish right now. We thought we were accepted into the American mainstream. But, the singling out of Romney's faith and the subsequent ridicule, polygamous sects being called Mormon and everyone thinking we have 2+ wives (after 100 years of saying we don't, not to mention Big Love), and being singled out after prop 8 passed in CA (not African American or Latino churches, Mormon churches), has made us tired. We are afraid that something dear to us, that prepares us for our rite of eternal marriage, one of our base beliefs, will be mocked, not portrayed in a "respectful manner" once it is "out there".

3rd, notice it took an ex-member of the church to "advise" about the scene. No member of the church would do that. That is the level of sacredness we hold the "sacred event" in our lives.

Lastly, we rarely if ever record these events, even baptism on film, it is considered bad taste and shocking if someone whips out a camera during a sacrament meeting (LDS mass) or a child's baptism (age 8).

These may not be reasons for the GENTILE world to stop it from happening, but these are the basic reasons we find it offensive and are slightly peeved.

The "sacred" base of Mormon objections is phony. There are many other "sacred" parts of Mormon practice and history that they have no problem depicting, even in their own promotional videos and printed matter: baptisms, ordinations, the "first vision" of the founding prophet Joseph Smith.

The objection is that the endowment ritual is "secret," even though they deny that the secrecy is the basis for their objection, and even deny that it is a secret. They say it is not secret, but they cannot divulge its details or discuss it. That sounds pretty secret to me.

The irony is that the Book of Mormon condemns secrets and secret oaths (the endowment includes numerous secret oaths). And the Book of Mormon also prophesies that in the last days "There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed." Well, HBO is fulfilling the prophecy.

Ironic, too, is that when Mormon Mitt Romney was questioned about the endowment, he suggested that people could find out all about it on the Internet. Which underlines the irony that the endowment details have not been secret since shortly after Smith copied them from the Masons in 1842.

For the entire script of the ceremony, just search the Internet for "mormon temple rituals" or "mormon temple rituals video".

(I am a former mormon, and participated in the endowment when a member.)

Ok, I'm a Mormon, I'll bite.

I agree with levago. Even those of us who have been through the temple ceremonies, we are only to speak about them while INSIDE the temple because of their sacred nature. It's not that we'd be embarrassed about what goes on, which I guess you'll have to take my word for it, but it's really just that it's very special to us. It's hard to come up with an analogy, but I'll try.

I guess it would be like having a birth video (something you'd probably only share with close family) put on TV without your consent. I know that birth is dramatized quite often, but every birth is different. Every endowment ceremony is the same. So, to Mormons, it IS like having your very own birth video posted without permission. Now, I know that a former member of the church advised in this case so it may be very accurate, but that would be like the ex-husband posting the video of his ex-wife giving birth.

I don't plan on boycotting anything, but it makes me sad that this is happening. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed about any activity in the temple, but I don't want the ceremony opened up to the ridicule and analysis of viewers who do not understand it's deep personal significance.

Again, with the birth video analogy, a woman would not be embarrassed or ashamed that she had a baby, but she also might not want to open herself up to ridicule because she screamed or made a face (not to say this is what goes on in the temple, lol)--it's just that it's a sacred, personal experience. Again, this, to Mormons, is like the ex posting the birth video without his ex-wife's permission.

Also, because an active, temple-going member would NEVER advise a TV show about an accurate temple ceremony portrayal, we Mormons are dubious as to how accurate the portrayal, and it's context, would be, even, and sometimes ESPECIALLY, from someone who used to be Mormon.

"The producers say they relied on extensive research, including the accounts of an ex-Mormon, to re-create the ceremony."

The Producers knew it would offend and that is why they did it.
To act like they are sorry if they offend anyone, is a lie.
Seems like people who claim to be tolerant tend to rationalize their behavior for the greater good.