quote:The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.
This was at a Big Love premiere party, but there was no explicit statement about exposing what "Mormons are really like" in Big Love. He has since apologized for the "un-American" portion of this statement.
posted
"They have only anti-Mormons as the shows advisors."
Ex-Mormon is not the same as anti-Mormon. (Though I realize that a lot of the harshest critics of the church are ex members.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's quite clear in the show that the main characters, the Henrickson family, are not mainstream LDS; indeed, much of the plot of the show revolves around their attempts to hide their polygamy.
It appears - though nobody seems to know for certain yet - that the temple depicted here is not a fundamentalist temple, but rather a mainline LDS one. This could work in one of two ways - 1)Barb, the wife in the photo, was born LDS, not fundamentalist, and has attempted to conceal her involvement in polygamy. Much of the plot has involved her embarrassment at being discovered by family and friends, and attempts to avoid it. Thus, it's entirely possible she still has a temple recommend, posing in a ward as a woman married to a non-member (which is technically true). This does occasionally happen; I could give names of real people in just such a situation. Given that according to TV Guide, she leaves the temple in disgrace, it's possible that the episode might involve her being found out while in the temple.
Alternatively, 2) some fundamentalists forge or steal temple recommends to worship at one of the temples built while (so they believe) the LDS Church still had God's favor - Manti, Logan, St George, or Salt Lake. It's possible Barb did this and was again, found out.
Here's something I wrote in an email to somebody else.
1) I applaud the Newroom's call for maturity and restraint; that's precisely what's called for. Thicker skin and the ability to deal graciously with offense - intended or otherwise - is the hallmark of a mature faith.
2) However, at the same time, I'm not sure that it's fair to lump Big Love in with September Dawn and other items on the list. Here's the thing about Big Love, based on what I've seen of it. It very clearly distinguishes between the Henrickson family and the broader LDS church.
It is also incorrect, I think, for the release to characterize the characters as "unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous."
Rather, the show's writers and creators have a great deal of sympathy for the Henricksons' faith; the things they believe and the practices they engage in (like the baptism for the dead a couple weeks ago; a Catholic guy I know made a point of coming up to me and raving about it - I suspect that those few minutes did more to make the concept make sense to non-Mormons than anything the church has done to date. When the man repeated Bill's line "Not one soul will be lost," he had a hitch in his voice) are never depicted in a less than respectful and moving fashion. Perhaps the release intends for that caveat to apply only to the LDS characters on the show; there, I think, there's a bit more ground to make the case, but as a broad generalization it's not true.
3) Given that, I think there's a qualitative difference between what Big Love is doing in depicting the temple ceremonies and what September Dawn was doing when it did the same thing. Barb in Big Love wants to go to the temple because she believes it is what is claims to be; being excommunicated, which is, I gather, what will happen in the episode, is devastating to her. September Dawn, on the other hand, wanted viewers to think the temple was cultish and pagan.
4) All that given, I suspect the real issue here is not the nature or intentions of the source in question, but the simple act of depicting the temple ceremony at all. Three thoughts here.
a) First, clearly, most contemporary Mormons feel that regardless of whatever the ceremony itself says about what should or should not be kept secret, all of it should. This extends even to official discourse within the institution itself. Noah Feldman's concept of 'soft-secrecy,' twentieth century Mormons' proclivity to minimize those things which might seem odd or disturbing to contemporary Americans may play a role here, even within the Church. Clearly, the temple is quite important to all Mormons, but I think a fair number of members of the Church also find it odd and somewhat dissonant with the very low church faith of the ward house; not speaking of it is a way to avoid bringing this into the open. Now, I don't think this is a conscious strategy on anybody's part; rather, I think that it's human nature to read the inherent strangeness of high ritual as sacred-in-itself. Secrecy is a way to maintain that strangeness, and to protect it.
b) This secrecy is one place where the cultural assimilation of Mormonism to American society in general grinds to a halt. The rough and tumble American public sphere views secrecy as inherently suspect, incompatible, ultimately, with democracy. There's a certain amount of religious integrity with the Newsroom's protests.
c) So, the part of me that's impatient with Mormon hyperdefensiveness is annoyed by the facebook groups and futile email chains. The part of me that's annoyed with Mormon assimilationism is not.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
You mentioned there wasn't any explicit statement about exposing what "mormons are really like," well maybe he didn't say the exact words I suggested he said, but if what you pasted IS word for word then what does this sound like to you?
_______________________________ "but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible" _______________________________
But it's worse than that, because his next line is: _______________________________ "and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards" _______________________________
What is he implying here . . . it seems to me he's inviting the public, or Big Love audience to use the light that is to be shed on the show that will display the people responsible for the Prop 8 passing- then suggesting there's some kind of "self correcting" system that will deal with these "un-Americans," the LDS church members. What exactly is he referring to there, with the "self correcting" system that might allow America to move foreward instead of backwards with these "un-Americans?"
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
beleaguered, are you being serious? Assume he's talking only about political processes, I think that should answer your questions.
MattB, interesting post! I do think that "unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous" refers only to the mainstream LDS characters in the show (all minor characters AFAIK), and based on the parts I've seen, I think that's a fair characterization.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the sheet I got from my mother, it's very apparent that the producers realize that this is offensive to Mormons, and that they really don't care. The timing is suspicious to me, and if it really is related to Prop 8, I hope the producers realize that if there is ever anything that can prove that fact, it's going to blow up in their faces.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What exactly is he referring to there, with the "self correcting" system that might allow America to move foreward instead of backwards with these "un-Americans?"
IMO, he's expressing the ideal that we generally move towards better things and greater equality, possibly invoking the same mechanism that eventually ended slavery and diminished greatly the practice of racism and sexism.
But this is idle speculation. I don't think Big Love or HBO are part of any self-correcting mechanism for Constitutional reform, even in Tom Hanks' mind.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, I think you're pretty far off-base in your speculation about the show. In the most recent episode, Barb's sister told the Bishop of the ward where the Hendricksons live that she is living in plural marriage. I think what will probably happen is that once inside the temple, the Bishop will show up (or be there by coincidence) and will out her. How she gets a temple recommend, I'm not sure. We'll have to wait and see.
As for the comments about the Mormons on the show being depicted as petty and narrow. Absolutely they are. I refer not to the Hendricksons, but to the people who are depicted as actual Mormons on the show. There is not one among them who is decent. On the show, missionaries are secretly spies. Barb's practicing mother and sister are vindictive and backbiting. Her brother in law betrays Bill over and over again, supposedly acting on behalf of nebulous church authorities. The only LDS character portrayed in a positive light is innocent-dumb (the teenage daughter's best friend) rather than evil and conniving. She's not treated realistically either.
As to the question of the existence of the letters, as depicted in the show.... The problem is that they are presented as factual, existing items (within the story, anyway). Not as things rumored to possibly exist.
I have no doubt, now, that the show is grinding an axe. For what reason, I don't know -- though we could all speculate. I do think it might have something to do with Proposition 8. The timing of the change in the nature of the way the show depicts the religion just works out very well. Of course, that is only speculation.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL - thanks for the plot clarification - I've not actually seen the current season. I imagine you're correct; Barb will be outed in the temple.
As to the letters - there is actually a presumed John Taylor revelation that states more or less what the WW revelation discussed here does. Here's a link to the wikipedia article on it; the article states it's missing, but word on the street has it in Church Archives.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Lance Black still do writing for Big Love? If so that to me is a likely place for where this direction is coming from.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of all places to find information about religious fact and practice, I wouldn't trust a wiki site. Anyone can go in and update or change or fabricate information. I do trust Wikipedia for many things, such as general word or people information, but on something such as the possible existence of a letter such as what you're referring to, I wouldn't trust it for one second. It is a source, nonetheless, and could be taken any which way- knowing it's a wiki site.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somewhere yesterday (I guess not this thread?) I saw an explanation of how the temple scene if they are not members in good standing. They were, before there was wife #2, and this is a flashback.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Page. Sheet. Whatever. I'm guessing it was an excerpt of the TV Guide ad for the show, but it was just one page without any identifying markers.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of all places to find information about religious fact and practice, I wouldn't trust a wiki site.
MattB is extremely well-versed in LDS history and theology. I'm sure he pointed us to the wiki more for our own easy access than because he treats it as a primary source.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Page. Sheet. Whatever. I'm guessing it was an excerpt of the TV Guide ad for the show, but it was just one page without any identifying markers.
Gotcha. It wasn't clear what you were talking about - it sounded like maybe some sort of handout that someone had made about the issue.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
beleaguered, like MattP says, I can refer you to scholarly books that discuss that revelation if you'd like.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The revelation, however, is much like the "White Horse Prophecy" letter. It is the kind that says that so-and-so told me, or someone told me that so-and-so said. I hold both with the same amount of belief: None.
As to the HBO topic, I do find it funny that those who are talking about it most are (aside from the usual crackpots - speaking generally and not about Hatrack) Mormons. This is heartening in that I don't think people really care that much. Yet, it is ironically making more out of it by those who want less made. Personally, I think that is because the Temple is a subject that for too long has not had enough inner-Mormonism discussion. Sacred doesn't mean taboo, even if discretion is necessary.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somewhere yesterday (I guess not this thread?) I saw an explanation of how the temple scene if they are not members in good standing. They were, before there was wife #2, and this is a flashback.
That makes complete sense. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the comments about the Mormons on the show being depicted as petty and narrow. Absolutely they are. I refer not to the Hendricksons, but to the people who are depicted as actual Mormons on the show. There is not one among them who is decent
What about Pam and her husband? They're the Henrickson's neighbors who found out that they were polygamous. Before they found out, I can't remember them ever being painted as anything but nice people. After they found out, they've stayed friends with the Henricksons and kept their secret. And while Heather is naive, her portrayal has been very positive. That's half of the LDS members regularly shown.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer- Pam has some issues too. Like the fact that her husband is going to leaver her for being infertile (which would not go over well with any LDS bishop I have met). And her prescription drug use. Of course, I view the show as a soap opera and everyone on a soap opera is supposed to be dramatic. As I said in a different thread, a nice normal family is hard to incorporate in a soap opera.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually pretty sure that Heather is going to eventually (maybe next season-ish) realize that she's a lesbian and leave the church. They've been foreshadowing that since the first few episodes, I think.
I don't mean to indicate that portraying her as a lesbian would be to portray her in some villainous role; it's just that I have my doubts as to whether or not they'll allow a decent person to remain in good standing with the LDS church.
They've filled her statements about her beliefs with so many non-sequitors. And every crisis she encounters seems to erode her faith, just a bit. She is constantly in the position of having to choose between what she thought she believed about her religion, and he friendship with Sarah.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that by the time the series ends, she will have resolved these conflicts by leaving the church. We shall see. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, I don't mean to sound all woe-is-me about this. Most members of this forum know that I am no longer a member of the LDS Church. However, I was raised as a member, and remained a member until early adulthood. My family is active. The best people I ever knew were/are LDS.
I don't believe the religious tenants, but I don't think it's an evil church or anything. I think they do a lot of good (and some bad).
But somehow it matters to me that it be treated fairly, and often it isn't. I used to enjoy Big Love on the basis that, although it was totally fantastic, it was a fun show with interesting characters and didn't seem particularly to be grinding an axe against the church. Sure, it got every detail wrong, and didn't seem to care. But its purpose didn't seem to be to say: "Look at what dopes these Mormons be."
I'm just disappointed that that has changed. And I no longer trust the writers to be neutral. In fact, I am convinced that they will not be. Whatever shift has occurred, for whatever reason -- they've begun to grind that axe. I just don't think it's too cool. If I thought they were still objective, I wouldn't actually care about the depiction of the temple ceremony.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattB, I'm with Occasional when it comes to the revelation you're referring to. I have no desire to dive into something that holds no relevance to me now.
TL brings up a very good point. I see a shift change also with the show. They might have been neutral, or seemingly neutral about the way they portray the LDS community, but something has shifted. If the shift IS the Prop 8 issue in California, then things can turn really ugly on the show.
I'm worried the show will become a political platform for the producer and writers. They've begun to grind that axe and the show's producer makes public comments about the LDS church that are so strong with regards to prop 8 that he retracts his comments (looked like a prepared speech to me) . . . it's all suspicious to me.
I'm not worried about the church's over all reputation while this silly show takes their jabs and right hooks, but I have lost all respect for Mr. Tom Hanks as the show's producer, and for his comments.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: I'm actually pretty sure that Heather is going to eventually (maybe next season-ish) realize that she's a lesbian and leave the church.
Don't say that. You'll just encourage slashfic writers.
Posts: 212 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattB, I'm with Occasional when it comes to the revelation you're referring to. I have no desire to dive into something that holds no relevance to me now.
Hey, fair enough, and I'm hardly a fundamentalist evangelist. My primary point is that the show's plot twist is not precisely from outer space.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why anyone would care about such a document. Modern day, the church has never said we will never ever allow polygamy. And since we have multiple sealings in the temple, it is pretty clear we are ok with the idea of polygamy when we are dead. And it is kinda one of the favorite what ifs for people to talk about (what if the church reinstated polygamy).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette - I think your last three sentences exhibit exactly why folks interested in studying Mormonism might be interested in the document.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase- I can see why people would be interested. I don't see why the church would be ashamed and hide it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattB: BTW, thanks for that long post, particularly point 4. I thought thats was pretty interesting and informative.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Try this link out. Many of you should find it interesting. The LDS church came out with this video as an answer to the Big Love controversy, and posted it to youtube.
posted
I've been away for a while, but I heard about this Big Love controversy. I'm pretty disgusted they want to display what the LDS faith holds as sacred. This has been said atleast 50 times already in this thread, so I'll go to something new.
Beleaguered, The link you provided for the youtube video, that's pretty good. I am somewhat familiar with LDS temples, but had no idea so many other religious leaders (NOT Mormon) had anything meaningful to say about them. That's a good video, and I think it might be a good defense against whatever the show Big Love can do. Does anyone think this proactive response by the church will satisfy those feeding into the controversy Big Love producers and directors might have wanted to start? Do you think this video qualifies as being "proactive"?
[ March 14, 2009, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: DC Morphis ]
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the problem here and recognize the perceived rights of people with, I don't want to use the word 'secrets' so how about 'private rituals'.
However, I wonder if people feel that this is different from the public release of Scientology's private rituals?
If it is not in your opinion objectively different, do you have a different gut reaction to publicizing Scientology's private rituals instead of publicizing LDS private rituals?
I objectively consider them the same.
I think any private society that has private rituals is inevitably in danger of even mild opposition overriding non-believer/non-participant respect. To a non-participant, it does not take much to break the gentleman's agreement. Any friction, for example a large donation to an opposing cause, will be a catalyst for breaking this unwritten privacy agreement.
Although objectively we may regard the private rituals of the Church of Scientology and the Church of... Latter Day Saints as equally subject to respect it is clear--at least to me--that because Scientology is widely regarded with disdain due to its questionable practices that more people find overriding its claims to privacy acceptable.
When it comes to the media, the agreement is even more easy to override. The media, both fictional and non-fictional is given to doing things that other people don't do, and I'm not so sure it doesn't.
All this said, much of this seems to be about the fact the ceremony is sacred, not private. In fact, people go out of their way to insist the ceremony is not secret but "sacred". Now, this is odd because all religious ceremonies are sacred, but not many are secret.
I do get a strange feeling that "sacred" is a euphemism here for "private". Or perhaps in LDS world, sacred does carry that added meaning of private that doesn't exist elsewhere. In which case there's a lot of crossing of wires going on.
quote:However, Shelley says, "we hold (the ceremonies) sacred," and the public often mistakes this as secretive behavior.
"People seem to think there's something weird there because we don't discuss it openly," she says.
Forgive me, but it is clearly a private ceremony. It is secretive behavior to not discuss something openly. To say, "this is not private but I won't discuss it" is political jargon for "it's private". And that's fine. Lots of societies have private rites and regulations which they keep mostly to themselves.
I feel that the mixed messages that are being given off about this ceremony are only confusing the matter further.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Now, this is odd because all religious ceremonies are sacred, but not many are secret.
I do get a strange feeling that "sacred" is a euphemism here for "private". Or perhaps in LDS world, sacred does carry that added meaning of private that doesn't exist elsewhere.
There are many ceremonies in religions world-wide that are both sacred and not for general public viewing. I really don't see how you can claim this is unique to the LDS Church.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poteiro: It was the consequence of a series of rethinks. First I had just LDS, then I thought hm, seems wrong, so I decided to add the "Church of" then I realised that it might not be the right name, looked it up but instead of typing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or shortening it to the CoJCoLDS, because it was long, I just put in the ellipse.
I assure you, there is nothing more to it than a series of events.
Puffy: You answered your own question by seperating the word "sacred" and the phrase "not for general public viewing".
Usually, what I called 'elsewhere', the word "sacred" does not inherently include a privacy caveat. It seems that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the word sacred does.
I know the CoJCoLDS is not unique in the privacy of their ceremonies.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods to Teshi* The LDS church tends to use the word "sacred" to mean "so sacrosanct that it's also private." As in "no, you can't share my cookie. It's sacred." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nods to Teshi* The LDS church tends to use the word "sacred" to mean "so sacrosanct that it's also private." As in "no, you can't share my cookie. It's sacred."
I agree that "so sacrosanct that it's also private" is one common usage of "sacred" among LDS. (Though the cookie thing is misleading; there's not much reason to compare temple ceremonies to a sweet morsel one wants to himself.)
However the LDS church also uses sacred to refer to things that are not subject to the same sort of reticence. Baptism, sex between married couples (though not the mechanics thereof), laying on of hands: all of these things are "sacred," yet not subject to the same level of hushed reverence as the temple ceremonies.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny, I always thought sex between a married couple was "sacred" like the temple ceremonies ... IOW, something wonderful that is private and not something everyone is invited to see.
But no, even in LDS circles the word doesn't necessarily mean private or secret. Only in certain cases.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Scifi, that the word sacred is used to describe many aspects of the LDS gospel, and is only used with reverence with temple ceremonies.
Not just anyone can enter the temple. A person needs to be deemed spiritually and emotionally prepared by his/her bishop, and then by a member of his/her stake presidency. The preparedness doesn't necessarily need to become another discussion, since it is really more simple than it might sound. The meetings with both bishop and stake president (bishop is the equivelent of any basic clergyman, and stake president oversees many different congregations within an area) consist of a basic conversation- nothing fancy.
Jenna, lol- Yes, my sex life with my wife is very sacred and private between just us, and is not put on display.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I watched it, and I was surprised to find that when the scene was over I felt ashamed. I didn't expect to feel that. It felt disrespectful to be watching that.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched it (the show) as well. For any that don't watch the show but are curious about the context, here it is. Barb, the first wife, was LDS up until 7 years ago and is still very attached to the LDS church. When she finds out that she's going to be excommunicated, she begs her sister and mother to let her borrow one of their temple recommends so that she can go one last time to partake in something that she sees as extremely holy and sacred. Her sister is the one who set the excommunication in process and she feels guilty and presumably gives Barb the recommend.
The scene is very short but also did not feel necessary. While the scene did show how very much Barb loved the church and how painful it was for her to choose between her family and the LDS church, I know there are many other ways they could have accomplished the same thing.
To be honest, I was a lot more annoyed with the excommunication event than with the temple ceremony. Barb accused them of it being about the letter- which doesn't make much sense as polygamy is enough in and of itself. I really hate how they're using this imaginary letter to paint the church as corrupt and self-serving. I would not have a problem with an exploration of those themes if they were based on something real, but to paint a real organization as deceitful based on something pretend is highly annoying to me.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I just don't think it's too cool. If I thought they were still objective, I wouldn't actually care about the depiction of the temple ceremony.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
