posted
Does anyone here watch Saved! on TNT (after The Closer on Monday nights)? One of the paramedics is a Mormon, a naive insecure young rookie who gets a lot of jokes made at his expense; fair enough. Part of the storyline is his relationship with his feisty Hispanic lesbian partner. Well, last night they put him in a situation where he had to strip down to his skivvies due to exposure to a hazardous chemical. And of course he was wearing temple garments. I, personally, was offended by that; I know that in today's climate nothing is sacred but that is sacred to me (and of course that's exactly what the character said when his partner laughed at him). I'll probably keep watching the show but I hope they don't pursue the "let's make fun of the weirdo Mormon customs" too much. There was some implication in the dialogue that he had an illicit relationship w/ a woman on his mission; sure, it happens, but I'd hate for viewers to think that's the norm and not the rare exception.
Anyone else see it? Thoughts/comments? (I probably won't be back till tonight to respond)
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ask this in good faith, not snarkily--do you think Mormons on television should never be shown with their clothes off if it means revealing the temple garments?
I feel for you, though. The things that I hold sacred are often made fun of, or potrayed in a negative way, and I wish people saw things the way I did so that they wouldn't do it, but I don't know if that's realistic.
That brings me to the thought that so many things are sacred to so many people, I don't see how it would be possible to not show something being done on television that wasn't profane to someone.
So, if it impossible to not show profanity to someone, how should an artist or a network decide what to show if they seek not to offend?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes them real? That's a respectful question, I honestly don't know much about this. Are they only considered real if purchased directly from the church? In other words, if it were a homemade version just made to resemble the garments, does that make it less offensive?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read an interview with Chloe Sevigney where she claimed that she wore real temple garments while filming Big Love.
Then, they showed her in a sleeveless dress, and the other women applauded it. She wasn't wearing garments then, and having the other women applauding it is definitely an anachronism.
I doubt they were real garments - I can't imagine anyone thinking that was a good idea. I also really don't like the portrayal, although I guess as the Church gets bigger and more mainstream, it will happen more often.
---
Members can make their own. Before everyone bought their clothes in stores, they had to. You can get patterns and instructions from the church. The material doesn't matter, but unless you're military (no white underwear allowed), they have to be white.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which brings up the question freedom of speech and expression. Should they be allowed to do it? In my opinion, yes, they have every right. Does that mean they should? That's personal.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they were, or were a product made to mimic it (including markings) I think it's wrong.
If it's made to mimic it, but isn't it, what's wrong with that?
It's exposing to ridicule something very sacred to us. We are instructed specifically when we recieve the garment not to do anything that will expose it to ridicule. It's not that thet garment in itself is sacred; it's that what it represents is, and so it's very offensive for it to be ridiculed or exposed to ridicule in any way.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Which brings up the question freedom of speech and expression. Should they be allowed to do it? In my opinion, yes, they have every right. Does that mean they should? That's personal.
Yes, I'd say that they have a right to. But I think they mock and alienate a portion of their potential audience by doing so, and I don't think it's right to mock and alienate people.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that unless the scene is written by active, faithful members of the Church, there's going to be a discrepancy between the way the characters act and the way an active, faithful member of the Church would act. I don't think they meant to cause offense. But it would have been possible to have the actor in just a white t-shirt and boxer-briefs/boxers that fell to the knee, and have his back turned so there was no need to show that it wasn't marked, right? If they had done that, there wouldn't be this question.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, for the non-Mormon members of Hatrack, can we get a run-down on what exactly the garment is, what it represents, why it shouldn't be exposed, etc.? Do only women wear them?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the quotes from the Wiki article talked about an Army chaplains conversation where the garment was likened to an ordained priests clothing. Is the garment sacred to Mormons only if it's being worn?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, it's not sacred in and of itself. It's what it represents, the covenants.
However, like I also said, it's not to be exposed to ridicule-- on or off the body. That usually means we just don't let anyone see it if they're not an endowed member (or at least living with one), either. When I'm doing my laundry at the laundromat, I fold the garments so that the markings are to the inside, and put my husband's tops on top of the pile, so they just look like t-shirts, and don't incite questions. That's one example. My mom has helped me with my laundry, but she's never commented on the markings; I think she has the tact not to look too long or hard at people's underwear. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
katherina - in Basic the wearing of Temple garments was addressed, and as they're required by religion, they are allowed. I remember thinking at the time that it was nice that a place as ultra-conformist as Air Force Basic Training had room in it for religious expression. I also work with two Mormon guys and they wear the garments too. While it really clashes with the black t-shirt we all understand Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen this show, so I might be completely wrong on this, but. . .
What would happen in real life if a Mormon was exposed to a potentially hazardous chemical and had to strip, quickly and publically? I've read in disaster prepardness articles that one of the problems we've run into planning for a chemical or biological incident is people's reluctance to strip in front of others, even if their health/life is at stake. In the event of widespread contamination, outdoor portable showers would be set up, to move as many people through them as possible as fast as possible. People would be asked to take off their outer clothing an leave it, to be cleaned or destroyed depending on what they were exposed to, and get under the water asap. In this sort of situation private shower stalls are unrealistic, and planners have had to try to figure out how to convince people of the importance of complying with emergency personal instructions.
So, a Mormon in that situation in real life. Is it more important to shield his garments from possible ridicule or do what's necessary to protect his health/life? I would say the latter, and I would hope if any of his companions were insensitive enough to make fun of his garments he would respond by saying you might not consider this sacred, but it's sacred to me. Just like the OP said happened on the TV show. If it was well done, I would see the TV show as advancing cultural understanding about Mormons, not making fun of the culture. The question is was the viewer supposed to identify with the woman making fun, and laugh at the man, or with the man, and feel his passion for his religion and dignity in the face of ridicule?
If this show is primarily a comedy, I would lean towards saying the usage is inappropriate. if it's a drama, though, you have to realize that characters are put in dramas to create tension with other characters. If they're going to put a Mormon character in a drama, the only reason to specify his religion is to use it to increase tension with other characters at times. Otherwise, what's the point? Is it better to not have Mormon characters on shows, so you never have to deal with aspects of their religion causing tension?
I'm sure part of why they did this was to create controversy. But I bet part of it is also character development. They are showing how important his religion is to him, and showing him defending wearing garments to his partner will advance that considerably. As long as the characters actions are consistant with what a member would do in that same situation, I would think you could look on this as a positive portrayal of your religion and a sign that LDS is becoming a more mainstream religion in the US.
Of course, since I'm not a Mormon, either, all this is just blowing smoke on my part, and I recognize that. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It didn't seem positive or directed towards character development when I watched it. It seemed more sensationalistic. They were going for shock value.
"Wow! Those kooky, weird Mormons!"
That was the tone.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
kat, I wouldn't expect that an actual Mormon would play this role and think bringing color to a TV show was a valid reason for exposing garments.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my one and only viewing of the show (and I haven't seen the episode in question) I'd have to agree with Puffy Treat, it seemed more of a gag - making fun of the strange Mormon paramedic, who wasn't as cool and enlightened as the rest of the crew. That's how I took it and it was one of the reasons I didn't feel compelled to keep watching the show. Ridiculing people's beliefs for a punchline is not something that appeals to me, even if the faith is not my own.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
LJ: I'm not sure what you're asking me, then. Do I think it was an appropriate/respectful/good thing to do? No.
I think it's inevitable as the Church gets bigger, but it's still kind of crappy and I'm not impressed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
What would happen in real life if a Mormon was exposed to a potentially hazardous chemical and had to strip, quickly and publically? I've read in disaster prepardness articles that one of the problems we've run into planning for a chemical or biological incident is people's reluctance to strip in front of others, even if their health/life is at stake. In the event of widespread contamination, outdoor portable showers would be set up, to move as many people through them as possible as fast as possible. People would be asked to take off their outer clothing an leave it, to be cleaned or destroyed depending on what they were exposed to, and get under the water asap. In this sort of situation private shower stalls are unrealistic, and planners have had to try to figure out how to convince people of the importance of complying with emergency personal instructions.
So, a Mormon in that situation in real life. Is it more important to shield his garments from possible ridicule or do what's necessary to protect his health/life? I would say the latter, and I would hope if any of his companions were insensitive enough to make fun of his garments he would respond by saying you might not consider this sacred, but it's sacred to me. Just like the OP said happened on the TV show.
I work in disaster planning and this has occured to me as well. I know that if I were in a situation where I needed immediate decontamination, my garments would be gone. I would probably take everything off all in a bunch and toss them in with everyone else's clothes. So there really wouldn't be an issue with the garments themselves, because I wouldn't be wearing them anymore. And everyone else in the same situation would not be wearing their clothing either. Of course if I had a choice of being in public in just my garments, or being in public completely nude, I'd prefer to have my garments. So really, Mormons wouldn't be in any different situation in an emergency like this than anyone else.
I have not seen the show described, never even heard of it to be honest, but I'm sure they couldn't have the cast running around naked, as they likely would be in an actual incident. From what I'm hearing from those who've seen it, it sounds like a cheap shot to me.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hasn't every religion been exposed to the same type of ridicule or satire at some point? I'm not Mormon, so the situation absolutely seems strange and somewhat comical to me, but then again so do burkas, nuns, speaking in tongues, snake handling, and many other religious practices.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have no hesitation in stripping to my garments or to complete nudity to save my life in a disaster situation.
I still think they could have shown it from the back and used unmarked regular white underwear. Or used a neck-up shot of him in a regular t-shirt. Or both.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is an interesting thread, I reall am not sure how I feel about the scene in the TV show. My initial response is "The show could have done without the scene."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still think they could have shown it from the back and used unmarked regular white underwear. Or used a neck-up shot of him in a regular t-shirt. Or both.
If they had done this, what would the context have been for the "joke"?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Responses and ramblings generated by various posts:
As to why anyone who isn't LDS should care, well, I honestly don't expect everyone else to be up in arms about this. I do appreciate Belle's comments, though; I feel the same way when I see someone of a different faith ridiculed for their beliefs. It's just a cheap shot. I wish there were a bit more respect in the world. Respect, of course, is generally not what comedy is all about--but it can be. I mean, I can't remember Bill Cosby ever being mean about any particular group of people other than, say, "parents" or "children." There is not much that actually makes me laugh out loud, but his old routines will do it every time.
Is this show a comedy? No, it's a drama, but it has its funny moments. So far, one of the reasons I'm willing to continue watching it is because they are starting to show some of this character's inner strength and allowing his partner to slowly gain respect for him (and vice versa). However, I'm not thrilled that the basis for some of that respect seems to be where she discovers that perhaps he's not as rigid in adhering to his beliefs as she thought.
In situations where I've roomed with someone unfamiliar w/ the temple garment I have explained previous to their ever seeing it what it is, and people have been unfailingly respectful. This guy did not prepare his partner for what she was about to see. As far as I could tell it was not a real temple garment on the show.
And in accordance w/ our beliefs about treating the garment w/ respect, I probably never should have initiated such a discussion on a public forum; I guess the major reason I felt OK in doing so is because, with some exceptions, I have found Hatrack to be a place where such matters are discussed w/ respect. And since many of you may have seen the show already . . .
Oh, and thanks to katharina for the link.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why they even had to mention that he was wearing Temple garments on the show, in that context. I just don't see that it's necessary.
I'm glad it wasn't real-- but was it marked? If so, I'm still upset by that.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a different situation if it was used only for a joke. This started out with a fascimilie being shown at all was wrong. I think those are two very separate things.
I haven't seen the show and don't plan to, but it seems to me that they are necessarily dealing with the LDS character's separation from the rest of the people. Considering that temple garments are both the most physically visible and considered by LDS as marks of their separateness, this seems a particularly relevant topic to touch on.
Also, mockery of differences is a common aspect of certain types of groups. It serves several purposes. First, it excludes people who "can't take a joke". Second, it tests people to see how they react to stress and if they can hack it. Third, it provides a method of exploring and incorporating differences. Fourth, it's a bonding technique. Fifth, it's a hazing ritual, with all that goes along with it.
Terry Pratchett's got a bit about this in Thud! where the new vampire watchwoman has garlic stuffed in her locker.
I don't know if this is what's going on in the show, but I could see this as being behind it.
posted
Not to mention that in real life EMT's tend to pick on each other a lot as it is, and if this were to happen in real life there would be comments about it.
Not every joke or comment is meant to be mean spirited.
Also, perhaps her new respect isn't because he failed in his past, but because that failure makes him more of a person. I know that I don't respect someone less for having not lived up to their own standards, unless they have a holier-than-thou attitude. From the shows perspective his past failure makes him a more sympathetic character, and provides dramatic tension.
Saved shows the down side/flaws of a lot of their characters, not just the Mormon one.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here's the deal: if you're going to try to keep things sacred by trying to keep them secret, you're going to need to stay a small, niche religion. So stop recruiting, or learn to not be offended by this. Unless you somehow manage to convince the majority that your garments and other rituals are sacred instead of just secret, this is something you're going to have to deal with more and more as you grow larger.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know we'll have to deal with it, and I guess that being disrespected is part of the price of getting bigger.
I can still wish that people were different. Getting hit is part of the risk of driving, but the solution is not to never leave the house.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is the concept of sacredness, to be honest. Having someone comment on your garments isn't -- and shouldn't be -- equivalent to being struck by a car.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he stripped due to hazmat exposure, why did he stop at the garments? It's basically the same as being seen naked. But nakedness means different things to different people. Some people would die before being seen naked. Some will do it to make a few bucks.
Also, the military garments now have the symbols printed instead of embroidered. I think they are printed on the inside.
Wearing garments in addition to your clothes in hot climates is a major sacrifice, on a par with not drinking alcohol.
Sometimes newer members of the church don't understand not to wear them as a T-shirt. The other day I called on someone who'd been a member 9 years who was doing his yard work in his garment top.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, pooka, I wondered the same thing--it was some kids in a school science classroom who were trying to cook up some crystal meth and one of them got splashed with some kind of chemical, which is why the paramedics were called in. Then if I remember right, a beaker spilled and some of whatever was in it splashed on this guy and the kids. They said they had to strip down to skivvies and go through some decontamination before they were able to leave. And I wondered if that was accurate, whether IRL they would have had to strip naked?
Anyway, Tom, in my particular point of view I'm not the one creating the concept of sacredness, God is, so I'm not going to dictate to him how he should change it so that it fits in better with the world's mores. And as far as being comfortable with the reactions of others, well, no, I don't have to be. No more than I should be comfortable with blatant expressions of racism. Sure, they're out there, they're probably not going to go away, but me getting used to it doesn't make it better.
And the "getting hit by a car" analogy was a little overwrought. I said I was offended but that I was going to keep watching the show, not that I was going to file a personal injury lawsuit! Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wearing garments in addition to your clothes in hot climates is a major sacrifice, on a par with not drinking alcohol.
Speaking as someone who doesn't drink alcohol much but sweats like something that sweats a lot, I'd consider it more of a sacrifice. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"overwrought"? Ah, the word guys use to dismiss women.
I wasn't drawing a one-to-one comparison, but an example of the logical conclusion of that attitude. It holds. If venturing into the world raises the risk of unpleasant things happening, the solution is not to never venture into the world.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is actually why many religious groups have advocated and are advocating a conscious withdrawal from the world. Engagement risks offense.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, now I owe everybody a big fat apology. I did not read carefully before I posted.
First of all, katharina, I'm not a guy! ;-) And I totally missed the "risk of driving" part of your post, which is clearly (well, it's clear to me now anyway) what Tom was responding to.
So when I saw Tom post that having someone comment on your garments is not akin to being hit by a car, I thought he was reacting to my being offended by the treatment of garments on TV. So my "overwrought" was addressed to him, improperly, so I guess it was a case of word choice of a woman dissing a man!
quote:if I remember right, a beaker spilled and some of whatever was in it splashed on this guy and the kids. They said they had to strip down to skivvies and go through some decontamination before they were able to leave. And I wondered if that was accurate, whether IRL they would have had to strip naked?
Uprooted, there was a recent discussion on Nauvoo where this was brought up, and apparently some of them work with hazmat teams or emergency preparedness or something ... and they said yes, they would have to strip naked and wash.
I didn't see the show, but I figure there are times and ways to show someone wearing them*. To mock them or mock the character for wearing them is not one of those times.
*Provided, of course, that they're wearing an unmarked facsimile, and not the real thing.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: *Provided, of course, that they're wearing an unmarked facsimile, and not the real thing
Wouldn't the facsimile be representative of the real thing? I guess what I'm trying to say is, wouldn't the fake garment (with or without the symbols...more questions on that later) carry the same level of reverence and respect as the real garment. The same joke would still apply, and I imagine that the same hurt feelings would occur.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I should also add that I'm not normally a very prickly person. If someone makes a joke at my expense, I try to see the humor in it and laugh along. There are times when this would not be appropriate, because you are sacrificing your own self-respect and become a target, but for the most part I think we can all afford to laugh at ourselves a bit.
Anyway, I as a Mormon often think our little idiosyncracies, are, well, idiosyncracies. Our "culture" has its fair share of bizarreness. I grew up on Long Island and then went to BYU and that was quite the culture shock!
So I guess I'm just trying to say that, believe me, I get why this particular manifestation of our faith seems deeply weird to the rest of the world. To be honest, it's probably a bit of a hurdle to most everyone who makes the committment to receive their temple endowment, because none of us, raised in the LDS Church or not, grows up wearing the temple garment. We're all pretty conscious that this is an odd thing we're doing! It's not so much that I want it to be a secret, but it's an emblem of something deeply sacred to me, and my preference would be that it not be mocked.
So, Tom, of course you've made a very accurate assessment: this and other "weird" aspects of our beliefs will continue to be mocked as Mormons become a more recognizable presence in a world with increasingly different mores. And I guess I'll continue to do my part to plead for such matters to be treated with respect, the same way I try to respect the customs and beliefs of others from different religions and customs. What can I say, I don't really think yarmulke jokes are funny either!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
