54 responses so far ↓

• 1 EBrown // Mar 7, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  Jeanne Tripplehorn looks photoshopped. And blue apron? I don’t think so.

• 2 ryan // Mar 7, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  I haven’t watched Big Love since Season 1, might have to watch this episode. It’s been 15 years since I was in the temple, wonder if I’ll have flashbacks?

• 3 Quin // Mar 7, 2009 at 6:01 pm

  Wow. Except for the apron being blue and not green . . . pretty close!

• 4 wr3n // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  The blue is weird. Will they show Paxton in a baker’s hat?

  Did you watch Pushing Daisies? There was a smattering of Mo references. There was one ep I took screenshots of when I watched it online. There was a polygamist family who’s livingroom looked like the celestial room in SLC. I’ll find ‘em on my hard drive and upload them.

• 5 angryyoungwoman // Mar 7, 2009 at 9:04 pm

  The first time I went to the temple I didn’t have a white bra. I offered to go braless, thinking it was no big deal, but the temple worker was totally shocked and went to the little temple rental center and found a bra for me.

  I never really could figure out what was going on in the ceremony. Every time I went I had to ask someone to help me. If I saw the Big Love ep, I probably wouldn’t recognize a thing.

• 6 Sunday in Outer Blogness: Back in Business Edition! | Main Street Plaza // Mar 8, 2009 at 12:23 am

  [...] Jana talks about how the Word of Wisdom places former members in a bind. John R. reports that the LDS temple ceremony is going prime time, via “Big Love.” Andee tells about proudly wearing her “CTL” ring — I [...]

• 7 Doe Daughtrey // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:46 am

  I wish you would watch, John. I know you’re much younger than I am, but I laugh and cry at every episode because it’s exactly what I thought it would be like when the church would eventually reinstate plural marriage–and in the 70s and early 80s I routinely heard that possibility over the pulpit at church. It touches every nerve, pushes every button, is deeply disturbing and sometimes deeply moving. I’m a little nervous about this one, but can’t wait to see what happens.

  I understand that email campaigns have already been started, aimed at shaming HBO…not surprising, of course. Most interesting, however, is the response on the HBO boards: Some are responding to complaints about this episode by arguing that when the LDS Church calls for its members to get involved so heavily in defining marriage for the entire country by stripping people of legal rights, those members should expect that all bets are off.

• 8 Mel // Mar 8, 2009 at 11:43 am

  Why do you guys care?

• 9 xJane // Mar 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  Mel:
  

  as one of thousands who was hoodwinked into going through the ceremony and socially coerced into accepting its secret oaths and tenets, I think that just about any public airing will help to diminish the power of the ritual. While I would hesitate to characterize Mormonism as a cult, the temple is where it gets the closest to acting like one. So this airing is a Good Thing.

• 10 Doe Daughtrey // Mar 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  Mel // Mar 8, 2009 at 11:43 am

  Why do you guys care?

  DOE:

  Why does anyone care about anything having to do with religion, including Mormonism?

  For a start, it’s because…

  1. Religion as a category has the capacity to define every aspect of life.

  2. Many people (especially in America) have made every major life decision based on their religious commitments.

  3. The LDS Church promotes itself as the only true church and as the only repository of the saving ordinances necessary to achieve exaltation, including progression into the state of Godhood.

  4. The temple ceremony depicted in this episode of Big Love is where many of those ordinances take place.

  Works for me!

• 11 Jana // Mar 8, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  Why I care…
  With the exception of my veil looking slightly less dorky and my apron being a more vibrant shade of green, the costume pictured above is what I wore to my wedding ceremony. I had no choice about the garb, except that I could select my own wrist-length floor-length dress to wear underneath the ceremonial clothes. (Can you, those of you not LDS, imagine how a bride might feel about not being able to choose what she wears to her own wedding?). FWIW, my spouse was wearing nearly the same get-up except he wore an odd hat that looks something like a combination of Chef Boyardee and a french beret. Oh, and he was wearing white pants and not a dress.

  Seeing those clothes pictured in the TV Guide magazine is at once shocking and achingly familiar. The mix of emotions I feel is difficult to describe…the temple will always be important to me, but it’s so odd. Odd that it’s secret, odd that it’s nothing like the LDS religion practiced in public. You can’t look at that pic and not think it’s just odd. And yet when I was practicing LDS there was nothing odd about it–I saw my family and everyone I knew dressed up like that all the time.

• 12 Craig // Mar 8, 2009 at 5:07 pm

  It’s recording right now on my DVR. I can’t wait to see what they end up showing.

  It’s about time.

• 13 Shelly // Mar 9, 2009 at 8:13 am

  Jana – I can so relate to what you said. For me there is such a mix of feelings.

  However, I’ve already received two email forwards to contact HBO with my disgust – oh and of course a suggestion to join a group on Facebook proclaiming the indecency of the upcoming show.

  What makes me smile about is that all the hoopla about how wrong it is to show something like this is bringing more publicity to it.

  Plus, how many other religions have had their private or sacred ceremonies done up on television? From what I can tell, no religion is safe.

  Oh and Jana – when my spouse came walking into the session on the day of my endowments I just about died with laughter. It didn’t help that my mom kept making comments about how funny we all looked – I think that was part of her contribution to lighten things up.

• 14 Kay // Mar 9, 2009 at 8:18 am

  It’s odd that you, Jana, couldn’t choose your dress. I wore the same dress to the ceremony, dinner, and reception, excepting that after the ceremony I unattached my long sleeves. Nothing weird about anything in the temple to me.

• 15 wr3n // Mar 9, 2009 at 8:26 am

  I remember before I went through for my endowments my old roomate telling me about the day she went. She was talking about how her dad brought her to the mirror in the celestial room and commented about how beautiful she looked in her temple clothing. I asked what was was wearing and she went into panic mode. Far too many members sweat the secrecy which in a way diminishes the proclaimed sacredness.

• 16 Jana // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:07 am

  Kay:
  I don’t think you understood my comment. I did choose the white dress underneath (though I had limited choices given that it had to be floor length and long sleeved). The temple clothes I wore over that dress weren’t optional.

  I wore a completely different white dress (short sleeved, tea length) for pics outside the temple and to my reception. It was a dress of my own choosing.

  Glad to know that there’s nothing weird about the temple to you. I wonder if some people are either more prepared or if there could be generational differences. I could hardly believe the ritual clothing the first time I saw it. I knew about the aprons, but had no idea about the mens’ hats and all the ties, bows, robes, etc. And when I returned I was constantly getting reprimanded for various things–I forgot to wear white hose, my earrings were too dangly, my skirt too wrinkled, my slip was showing, my veil not worn high enough on my forehead, the soles of my slippers were light gray instead of white, etc. I thought the initiatories a bit easier simply because it was hard to mess up at getting totally nekkid (altho of course they don’t do it that way anymore).

• 17 jjohnsen // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:32 am

  My wife and I are only halfway through season one, so I’m interested in what leads up to this happening. We may have to start watching two episodes a night so I can catch up.

  The protest pages and email campaigns make me laugh though. What do people think they’re going to accomplish other than giving HBO some free publicity?

• 18 Mangmang // Mar 9, 2009 at 2:37 pm

  Jana: I chose a wedding dress out of a non-Mormon shop and wore it in the temple, outside for pictures, and to my reception. Sounds like you got some sad information about your big day. You can wear your wedding dress, you just have to have removable long sleeve inserts and it needs to cover your underwear and be white, but other than that, you can wear whatever dress you want. Sorry to hear you had to wear a yucky, boring temple gown.

  To the rest: The main thing we should be concerned with is where the line is when everyone’s beliefs are up for ridicule and disrespect. Who’s to say yours won’t be next? Wouldn’t it be better to let people have their beliefs and respect their rights to those beliefs? I am not sure what good is accomplished when we mock the sacred things of others no matter how much we disagree with them or how much we think we know about them. It isn’t about having free speech or rights so much as using our free speech and rights responsibly. Having some decency and respect for the differences of others around us is a good place to start. We all live here together, you know.

• 19 John // Mar 9, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  Mangmang: there’s a powerful tension between respect and truth. Mormons understand this well, as when they proselytize or challenge the legality of marriages outside of the Church. When a social institution causes pain and tries to hide from legitimate criticism behind “sanctity”, I feel my own balance tipping in favor of truth over respect.

• 20 wr3n // Mar 9, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  Mangmang, why is a tv show depicting events in someone’s life considered mocking? I don’t consider it mocking when I see baptisms, bar mitvahs, or people praying in movies or on tv.

  One of the points of Big Love is that people should let others have their beliefs. The family unites and defends their right to practice polygamy. The show is compelling in part because it does depict a family trying to live their faith.

  My governing principle, my mantra in life over the last few years has been, “We’re all in this together.” For that reason I do have respect for differences. We are free to practice what we want as long as we do no harm to others.

  Some Mormons may consider it insensitive to air anything related to the temple. I probably would have at one time. However, they’re in difficult spot to cry persecution of the sacred when they’re actively seeking to prevent and eliminate what others consider sacred, namely marriage. The temples are not going to be shut down because of free speech on a tv show.

• 21 Doe Daughtrey // Mar 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm

  MangMang: Wouldn’t it be better to let people have their beliefs and respect their rights to those beliefs? I am not sure what good is accomplished when we mock the sacred things of others no matter how much we disagree with them or how much we think we know about them.

  DOE:
  I was sealed in the temple (twice, no less!) and I think where I disagree has to do with tone: I don’t see HBO as mocking Mormonism or Mormon belief or practice in any way whatsoever. Everything I’ve seen (and I’ve seen every episode of every season at least 5 times) has been right on target and very serious.

  How can you possibly get what is at stake in the Big Love family unless you get the temple ceremony? Every time the series has depicted our rituals, from baptism to sealing, the tone has been deeply sacred, meant to convey the significance of the choices these people have made. If I were the LDS Church I would be singing their praises. I would think, “Finally, somebody GETS us!”

  Frankly, as a 53-year-old Mormon woman who in my 20s-30s was repeatedly told over the pulpit the church had merely *suspended* plural marriage, not disavowed it — and I’d better be ready to be obedient when it is surely reinstated — this is the first time I have felt really *seen* by Hollywood.

  Of course this is precisely why most Mormons are likely to hate it. It’s as if (especially) LDS women are saying in their minds as they dismiss the program “Don’t even think about it! Not in MY lifetime, you won’t!”

  In other words, it only matters because we’re still afraid of it.

• 22 ryan // Mar 9, 2009 at 3:51 pm

  I didn’t see that anyone had mentioned this but it turns out it wasn’t on the episode aired last night.

  It will be on the Mar 15th episode.

• 23 G // Mar 9, 2009 at 7:24 pm

  ryan- whew! well good! I’ll make sure to set my dvr.

  seriously, I think the hoopla is more about the visual: now folks know the wierdness of the look. and lsd like to think of themselves (and portray themselves) as so mainstream.

  we look at that image and cringe a tiny bit inside because, dangit… we really did hate how we looked in that veil. and it is so not mainstream.

• 24 anax // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:38 pm

  i’m mormon, i’m active and i’m not too surprised about this whole thing. After Tom Hanks made tasteless comments towards the church, and then apologized i figured he’d try to get back at the church somehow (he’s an exec).

  This just goes to show that nothing is sacred anymore. the temple ceremony has been available on the internet for years. However, someone had to go looking for it. Now it will be projected right into the fat american faces without them having to think about it.

  Along with religion no longer being sacred, neither are marriage, sex, children or life. If you don’t believe me, just watch HBO. Fornication, murder, child abuse and homosexual marriage is everywhere. It’s not that Mormons wanted to deny homosexual’s their “rights,” it’s that marriage is the highest level we can achieve in life. It is sacred and has been for 10,000 years, and it’s always been defined as between a man and a woman. So trying to change this, after thousands of years of tradition, teaching and beliefs is a bit ridiculous. Why don’t homosexuals come up with something else? something their own? why do they want to intrude on something that’s been defined as between male and female since the beginning of written history? To be honest, it’s simply arrogant and disrespectful.

  I believe that homosexual couples should have rights in hospitals, insurance and everything else (except adoption, that’s an entirely different issue). This situation is much too complicated for one post, however i’m just glad that this country supports free speech and we’re able to discuss these issues.

• 25 John // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:57 pm

  Moderator comment: I’m letting Anax’s comment through primarily as an example of disrespectful discourse on a gay-friendly blog (“fornication, murder, child abuse and homosexual marriage”). Once again, it’s not unlike an earnest cocktail party discussion being rudely interrupted by a drunken boorish and tangential speech.

• 26 Craig // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:58 pm

  It makes me sad to see someone express so much self-righteousness and lack of understanding for other humans, for history, and for reality.

  But we do agree on one thing. Nothing is sacred.

  Nor should anything ever be. Nothing and no one should ever be exempt from criticism or examination.

• 27 ryan // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  I started to nod off before the end of Anax’s comments because I have heard ad nauseam the exact same tripe from people I used to think of as logical thinkers.

  Is there a list of homosexual marriage talking points that gets emailed around?

• 28 Everyday Joe // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  I love going to the LDS temples. They are symbols of our devotion to Jesus Christ. All the best things in my life come from my membership in His church. No matter what others may say, I will remain true, so help me God.

• 29 anax // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  i apologize for grouping fornication, murder and homosexual marriage into one lump category. that was not my intent. it was that life: murder, sex/procreation: fornication, marriage: homosexual marriage.

  Each is either the opposite of the other or simply a deviation from the norm (as in fornication or gay marriage).

  I actually have a degree in philosophy, one in history and one in theology. So to claim that my knowledge of history is faulty is difficult, and i’d love to see some sources proving otherwise.

  I am not being self righteous, there’s a difference between condemning everyone to hell and upholding morals which i believe in. Just because i don’t believe in your moral code doesn’t mean that i am unenlightened, in the same manner that i don’t view your morals as lesser or immoral.

  in a simple application, IF the world practiced abstinence until marriage, AIDS would be gone in two generations. STD’s would deteriorate, and orphans and single parent families would decrease significantly. Do you see anything wrong with this?

  if someone wants to be gay, then by all means, be gay and be happy. However, don’t get married have children and then decide to be gay (this is a common occurrence in Mormon culture ). It hurts the children the wife and the family in general. I grew up with two families (in a town of 1000 people) where the father left with his gay lover. One woman contracted herpes due to his infidelity and both men died of AIDS shortly thereafter (this was before the life-extending drugs we have now). Does that mean that all gays are bad family men? Of course not, it just means that if you are gay, then be gay!! and don’t bring a family into it before you decide to do it!

  That is how marriage and the family are affected by homosexuality (i do understand that it’s not only men who do this). I have homosexual friends and family members and i honestly don’t have all the answers concerning gays and morality. I’m not the typical bible-bashing “all gays go to hell” kind of guy. I don’t know how it will all work out in the end, but i know that attacking someone’s sacred beliefs definitely is not the answer.

  Yet why can’t the homosexual community respect the wishes of the majority of this country who want marriage to REMAIN between a man and a woman? In the legal world, there is a higher burden of proof in order to overturn the status quo. In this case we’re talking thousands of years of establishing this status. Thus one movement in a couple of states will find it difficult to redefine such a status quo. Humans are creatures who fear change.

  Marriage is simply a title. Gays can live together, file taxes together, share benefits together and do everything else that straight couples can. So why stir the pot and try to change the definition of marriage?

  I’ll be honest and tell you one of the main reasons people don’t want gays to be affiliated with marriage: because they believe that it will soil the institution of marriage. I’m not sure if i totally believe this, but i know many religions do (baptists, protestants except anglicans, and catholics). Why create controversy where there is no need? it’s not like blacks and civil rights, or women and suffrage. This is a privilege (much like a driver’s license) where people used to have to pass blood and IQ tests before they were allowed to be married. Marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege. Gays have these same privileges, just not the title.

• 30 xJane // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  ryan @27: yes. I can put you on the list if you really want.

  anax: I did not know that Tom Hanks was Mormon. I also think that it’s good that other cultures that coexist alongside our own are portrayed in a respectful way. Whether it’s prayer, bar mitzvahs, or temple ceremony. Making it respectfully public does not detract from its sacredness, it allows people who would not normally see something to appreciate it. Thus is understanding born.

• 31 anax // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:48 pm

  oh and Jeanne Tripplehorn looks absolutely awful. What happened to her?

• 32 anax // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:52 pm

  no Tom Hanks is NOT Mormon. He made offensive comments about them which he later retracted.

  The temple is the most sacred part of the LDS faith. This religion is based upon serving others. The temple is used to do work for the dead (as found in the bible). We believe that Jesus commanded all men to repent and be baptized or they can in no wise be saved. So we baptize those who did not have the opportunity. We view this as an absolute service to those who have passed on before us.

  Big Love will not portray this, rather they will focus on the things which they do not comprehend and which they have no desire to comprehend. I believe that understanding is divine, however, mockery is evil.

• 33 Craig // Mar 9, 2009 at 11:20 pm

  @anax

  Being gay is not a decision.

  Extending marriage to all people, gay & straight is simply about civil equality and fairness. It has nothing to do with religion.

  The majority does not get to decide what rights minorities get. That would be mob-rule.

  If marriage is just a title, and not something with deep meaning and significance, why fight so hard against gay marriage?

  Your comments about the historicity of heterosexual marriage make me question your understanding and knowledge of history. What do you mean by the term “marriage”? What is your evidence for the figure 10,000 years? You have the burden of proof to show that your claims are reasonable when you post here. Your attempt to argue from authority doesn’t mean anything to me and isn’t logical. The only evidences you give to support your claims are anecdotal, and therefore aren’t useful.

  Basically, your arguments just don’t hold water. They aren’t logical. Not only do you have your facts about marriage wrong, but upholding outdated traditions simply because it’s tradition is simply a terrible reason to deny other humans equal civil rights.

  There is great need to create controversy. Members of the GLBTQ community will never be equal until they have all the rights and privileges that any heterosexual persons gets just for being heterosexual. There is no scientific, logical, or reasonable reason to discriminate against gays. There is no valid excuse for government to discriminate against me.

  So long as gays are barred from being married, society is saying that gays are less than heterosexuals. The only argument for this is a religious one, and religion and civil government do NOT mix. Or when they do, the result is inevitably disastrous. So long as there is any form of inequality between heterosexuals and GLBTQ persons, homophobia will persist, violence against gays will continue, and people will continue to grow up thinking they’re better than others. This isn’t only about marriage equality, but about the way our society is structured to dehumanise minorities, and about how we need to change that.

  Dehumanisation is probably one of the worst things that can happen in a society.

  That’s why all humans need to be treated equally.

• 34 anax // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:15 am

  I will get my sources for you tomorrow, they mostly come from Indian writings and some earlier Zoroastrian scripts. but i’ll get them to you.

  However, if you are proposing that history supports the societal mores which uphold homosexual marriages, the burden of proof lies much more at your feet.

  tomorrow we can continue this conversation. Just please know that i am not saying that being gay is not immoral, having homosexual relations IS immoral. i have a good friend who is gay who has chosen not to indulge in his desires. The older he’s gotten, the easier it has become. He now is married, with an adopted son. He has lived a happy happy life and will openly state that he has no regrets.

  To me, this is the perfect example of how a gay man is not immoral.

  However, Gay marriage leads to homosexual relations which are immoral. Thus why support a system which will perpetuate immorality?

  As i’ve said and heard many times before, it’s not the person God doesn’t like, it’s the act. A simple solution to this: stop believing in god.

  in any case, i respect the homosexual community as you have really come a long way. However, i do not hate the gays and lesbians, i just dislike the acts they perform (homosexual, fornication).

• 35 John // Mar 10, 2009 at 6:27 am

  anax, this thread is about the temple ceremony being shown on an HBO program. In one comment, you transformed it into a platform for arguing against the morality of gay marriage/sex.

  I believe strongly in the things that I do, but when I am in predominantly faithful Mormon spaces (online or IRL), I strive to be diplomatic. Partly this is strategic–bold confrontation just isn’t productive in those areas. But I also respect communities and their spaces.

  I know you’re trying to be respectful, and I appreciate the tone you’re striving for. I want to encourage dialog across divides, but I hope you’ll consider the context at the post level as well as at the MoF community level. Please remember that you are a guest in an established online community that affirms, celebrates and champions gays and their rights.

• 36 philosophie // Mar 10, 2009 at 10:00 am

  xjane: You’re kidding, right? “I also think that it’s good that other cultures that coexist alongside our own are portrayed in a respectful way. Whether it’s prayer, bar mitzvahs, or temple ceremony. Making it respectfully public does not detract from its sacredness, it allows people who would not normally see something to appreciate it. Thus is understanding born.”

  “Other cultures that coexist alongside our own”? In other words, We are normal and They are something we should examine as if under a microscope to find out just what makes them so dang weird. The issue is that most prayers, bar mitzvahs, and other religious ceremonies are already public. The temple ceremonies have always been restricted, for several reasons—one of which is so that they wouldn’t show up in a “respectfully public” way on that sacred medium, television. There is no way a casual TV viewer can appreciate the full context of temple ceremonies.

  “Thus is understanding born”? Do you honestly think that Big Love viewers are watching in order to have a better understanding of the LDS faith? No, thus are mockery, disrespect and division born.

  As a believer, I disagree with Craig’s comment that no one should be exempt from criticism. By definition, God is flawless. But everything can and should be examined. Those of you who attended the temple (by choice or by hoodwink) had the opportunity to decide for yourself its worth. You decided it was not for you, and that is your privilege. But those like the Big Love ex-Mormon consultant are not content with leaving it behind; they want to mock something that they know is sacred to others. I suppose that’s their privilege too. But let’s call it what it is, instead of pretending that it’s in the noble interest of “examination” or “understanding.”

• 37 wr3n // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  philosophie , men and women define deity in many forms and we are all flawed, much like the gods we create.

  Other rituals were not always public. It’s a bit prideful to insinuate your rituals are more sacred, beyond understanding, or deserving of different treatment than anyone else’s.

  You are welcome to think others are “so dang weird” but that is not what xJane said.

  Big Love isn’t about your church but it’s hardly an anti-Mormon show. I suspect anti-Mormons hate it because the show makes a pretty good case for why people should be free to practice their beliefs.

  A lot of churches call what Mormons believe a mockery of Christianity. Mormons beg to differ as well they should. Again it begs the question of who judges what is mockery. There’s always another person with an ax to grind.

• 38 xJane // Mar 10, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  anax: I know you’re getting mixed messages here, Craig asks you to back up your assertions & John asks you to leave the discussion to the side. Although I agree with John that this is not the thread for a discussion of gay marriage (which is why I left your homophobic remarks originally unnoted), I am interested in seeing an indication that the current definition of marriage (as guided by love, between a man and a woman entering a contract as equals, possibly for the purpose of producing children “of the marriage”) is in anyway historically supported, since marriage has changed so much over time that our current system would hardly even be recognizable to a 14 year old girl walking down the aisle into a marriage with a man her parents chose for her who is likely twice her age in medieval France—let alone to Zoroaster.

  I am, however, more interested in learning what your substantive arguments are for keeping fictional portrayals of Temple ceremonies from television.

• 39 xJane // Mar 10, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  philosophie: I am absolutely normal. As far as I am concerned, normal is white female ex-Catholic (married with two cats). Does that mean I’m better than that other, Japanese ex-Mormon male who I blog with? Nope. And we two share our cultures openly and respectfully, each understanding more because of it. This is how humans are. That which is “self” is normal. I’m not certain that makes everything else “weird”, but it certainly makes everything else an opportunity for understanding.

  I presume your discussion of “sacred” television was ironic, because I certainly see nothing sacred about it. Which is why it’s so great. It normalizes everything. What’s in my living room becomes normal. Whether it’s drug addicted asshole doctors or polygamist families and their struggles. Exposure removes “weirdness” and “sacredness”. I, for one, believe that nothing should be sacred; because sacred means unquestionable, unspeakable, unseeable, and unknowable. By questioning, speaking, seeing, and knowing things, we all grow. Including the so-called “sacred”.

• 40 Shelama // Mar 10, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  Mormonism, like all of Christianity, is indeed a cult: the Cult of the Empty Tomb; the Cult of the Christ Myth. How the Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus of Nazareth led to the creation of the Christ Myth may be the greatest story ever told. But Christianity, including Mormonism, is still a cult. Mormonism more than anything just goes to show that anyone who can believe in the “empty tomb” or the Jesus died as a bloody atoning sacrifice for sin can believe anything. No denying that the Christ Myth is very, very seductive and powerful.

• 41 philosophie // Mar 10, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  xJane: Phew! I am so relieved to learn that you’re normal. But since anything that’s different from “normal” is referred to as “abnormal,” I still wonder about all us non-xJanes.

  Actually sacred doesn’t mean any of those things you mentioned, if you go by Webster’s, which I do. One meaning is “entitled to reverence or respect.” Is respect too much to hope for? Would private be a better word than sacred? Because I hope you believe in privacy. If not, could I have a look at your paycheck stub, your last performance review, and a copy of your medical history? Craig said, “Nothing and no one should ever be exempt from criticism or examination.” Yikes. Would you mind, then, if I brought in a camera crew for your next sexual encounter and gave you notes afterward? Or published a transcript of a deeply personal conversation between you and your partner? Because apparently we all have a right to know.

  I have very deep feelings about the sanctity of the temple. It pains me to know a re-creation of a ceremony which is sacred to me will be broadcast on TV. You don’t have to share my belief, but as a humanist I hope you would acknowledge my feelings. If someone is really interested in understanding my faith or the temple, there are plenty of good resources. Big Love is not one of them. This is not about understanding. It is about exploitation, mercenariness (yep, it’s a word), disrespect, and possibly an agenda against the LDS Church.

• 42 pete // Mar 10, 2009 at 8:10 pm

  It’s great to see and read about how mormons react to this show.
  Big Love has shown me what it must feel like to be a muslim and having to deal with negative portrayals in the media. Portrayals that highlight the negative aspects of an entire culture/religion that might be false.
  What it must feel like to have the sick vision of a minority taint the majority.
  Us and them.

  but i just think jeanne tripplehorn is hot!

  pete

• 43 xJane // Mar 10, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  philosophie: despite the fact that you defined “sacred” as worthy of “reverence or respect”, you seem to conflate it with “privacy”. I would have no problem at all if you attended my next sexual encounter and gave me pointers afterward. But do you object to television shows that portray love because it’s simply too “sacred”? There goes an entire genre!

  I believe in legal privacy—that is, that not everyone is necessarily entitled to information about certain aspects of my life. But I also believe that if I were a public figure, I would not be entitled to this privacy (see: Obama & his Blackberry). Privacy is a fluid thing.

  If you truly think sex is as sacred as temple ceremonies (I actually think it is more so), would you not want everyone to know everything they can about it? So that every time they have sex it is a beautiful, sacred act, rather than ignorant fumbling or base violence? You say that there are “plenty of good resources” for information about what goes on in the Temple, but I think you’re being disingenuous. There are as many good resources for me to find out about your Temple services as there were for me to find out about sex as a child growing up deep in Catholicism. Which is to say, none at all.

  Big Love may not be the best way to get information about certain LDS rituals in the public eye, but it is turning out to be one of the only ways. Perhaps, if the church was more open about its practices, people would not be so curious that “LDS ceremony on television” would be such a titillating topic.

  You may have lost your privacy, but you would have found your respect—which is what you claim to have been after.

• 44 wr3n // Mar 11, 2009 at 7:20 am

  I finally saw last Sunday’s episode last night. After reading this news story today it sounds like only Barb will be participating. Based on the previews, I’m wondering what the context is. Barb’s sister goes to a bishop asking for help and says her sister is in a plural marriage. The show hasn’t really said much about the Henricksons’ transition from the LDS church which has me curious about the circumstances that would put Barb in a mainline LDS temple. She wouldn’t still have a current recommend as they’ve been inactive for years.

  I’ll remind myself now that this is a tv show which always means suspension of disbelief. lol

• 45 Jana // Mar 11, 2009 at 9:40 am

  I’ve heard from various sources (incl, I believe, the article in the SL Trib) that the temple scenes will be flashbacks to a time when she was active.

• 46 wr3n // Mar 11, 2009 at 9:43 am

  Ah, thanks, Jana! Hadn’t thought about that.

• 47 wren // Mar 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  Robert Kirby brings up the same point in the SLtrib about other faiths and their practices. Good column.

• 48 xJane // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm

  Kirby makes some really good points about how most religions have been fair game (in terms of showing their “secret” things) for a while and emphasizes the point that it is possible to get this information already (say, online). Speaking as someone who doesn’t even get cable, I’m quite amused by the arguments that this is now going to be “more available” on a show that most people don’t watch (as opposed to the internet). I especially like the way he ended his piece—that the Mormon faith will suddenly be up for review just like every other faith.

  Meanwhile, Orson Scott Card weighs in at the National Review (who invalidated that link once before, so here’s a back up). I’m entertained by OSC’s argument that Mormons are “the exception” when it comes to respecting people’s religions. Because Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Pagans are never mocked or portrayed in a less-than-amazing light. The persecution syndrome that everyone in this country seems to have is really bizarre. He also raises a valid point: if you don’t make a big deal out of it, it won’t be a big deal. But I think that cat’s been out of the bag for a while in terms of “ooooh, no it’s too secret to show you.”

• 49 Eric // Mar 30, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  I just saw this post today and feel bad that I missed all the hubub. My two cents, if I may put them in here; is about the nature of “sacred”. I was a Mormon once and I remember the mantra that the temple is sacred not secret. So let’s start with definitions (from Merriam -Webster):

  -Sacred-

  Etymology:
  Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite šaklāi- rite

  Date:
  14th century

  1 a: dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose)
  2 a: worthy of religious veneration : holy b: entitled to reverence and respect
  3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane
  4archaic : accursed
  5 a: unassailable , inviolable b: highly valued and important

  -Secret-

  Etymology:
  Middle English, from Anglo-French secré, secret, from Latin secretus, from past participle of secernere to separate, distinguish, from se- apart + cernere to sift — more at secede, certain
  Date:
  14th century

  1 a: kept from knowledge or view : hidden b: marked by the habit of discretion : closemouthed c: working with hidden aims or methods : undercover d: not acknowledged : unavowed e: conducted in secret
  2: remote from human frequentation or notice : secluded
  3: revealed only to the initiated : esoteric
  4: designed to elude observation or detection
  5: containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security — compare confidential , top secret

  Given the definitions most people in the church, at least during the time I was a part of it, would prefer the definition of sacred be applied to the temple and its ceremonies. That is an appropriate title, and one in keeping with the experience and nature of the temple for most members of LDS Faith. That being said, sacred is only an adjective that can be applied to something you hold sacred. Because you hold something sacred you may choose not to discuss it openly because you feel/believe it trivializes it. You will treat it differently because for you it is sacred.

  HOWEVER

  What you hold sacred does not mean everyone else holds it sacred. Ask yourselves where is your passion for decrying the DaVinci Code for trivializing elements of the Catholic Faith, or for the people (yes even some Christians) who mock the burqa that many of the Muslim faith deem as sacred. I could give examples here forever if I needed to but that is not really the point of my post.

  Here is the point. Mormons welcome to the big time. The LDS Faith is now one of the big religions in the world. A sign of that is its growth, but also the fact that people will question it, mock it, trivialize it, and condemn it.

  This is the world we live in and especially in America the freedom we enjoy comes with allowing freedom to everyone else even if they choose to trivialize that which we hold sacred.

  p.s. ok maybe that was more than 2 cents, John, xJane let me know how much I over charged

• 50 xJane // Mar 30, 2009 at 5:37 pm

  if you’re giving us your 2¢, then we’ve overcharged you! I went in and removed some erroneous tags.

  I think the reason a lot of people equate “sacred” with “secret” is because of definition (for the former) #5a: “unassailable , inviolable”. As though keeping it from public view or question makes something holy.

• 51 stace // Dec 1, 2009 at 3:46 am

  I feel sorry for all of you.
  Leave the temple alone. I love that place.

• 52 Craig // Dec 2, 2009 at 8:09 am

  How wonderfully condescending.

  The fact that you love the temple doesn’t in any way mean it ought to be exempt from critique or comment. Just because you think it’s sacred doesn’t mean others ought to also.

  Welcome to diversity.

• 53 ExMoHoMoDon // Dec 8, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  I watched several episodes of Big Love but didn’t see the episode in question. I enjoyed the series immensely and thought it was an accurate depiction of the 19th century offshoot polygamous sects and those who live in Utah among mainstream Mormons while secretly practicing polygamy. Personally, I wouldn’t say anything about the Temple ceremony because it is sacred to family members I love who are still members of the Mormon Church. I am no longer a member–I believe the Mormon Church to be a political and social organization mirroring the values of the Republican Party and of corporate America and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any principle taught by Jesus. What is HILARIOUS to me is the Mormons who are upset about a television show which they feel depicts something sacred to them and is thus disrespectful. Where is your respect for the lives, families, and yes the SACRED family relationships of homosexual Americans? You have no problem trashing us and our relationships and spending millions to deny us equal protection under the law and yet you take umbrage at a cable TV show? Get over yourselves. Big Love does not destroy any of the freedoms you enjoy under the Constitution–Prop 8 did exactly that to homosexuals. If you imagine that we will just take that passively from you (while you whine about a TV show) then you are quite mistaken. Welcome to politics–if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

• 54 HappyMormon // Oct 4, 2010 at 9:02 am

  So wrong, so sad, to bad.

Leave a Comment