Thus far, “Big Love” has gone to great lengths to distance their storyline– a polygamous marriage in Utah– from the Mormon faith. The central characters, the Henricksons, don’t refer to themselves as Mormons, and even the throwback sect at Juniper Creek doesn’t say the word Mormon. But last night’s episode has some members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints riled up, not for an unrealistic or unflattering depiction of Mormons, but because the HBO show depicted a secret temple ritual that usually is not open to outsiders.
According to the Chicago Tribune, some mainstream Mormons are considering a boycott and “canceling subscriptions to companies owned by HBO’s parent company Time Warner,” because of the show’s treatment of a rite called “the endowment ceremony.” But the Church itself is not taking a boycott position.
“Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding,” the church said in a statement. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series.”
In the episode titled “Rough Edges” (and this might be considered a spoiler, so duck out now if you’re concerned), pretty much everything is dissolving. Nikki’s been kicked out while Bill thinks about her betrayal; she is living at Juniper Creek with her uber-creepy brother, and being visited by her previous husband (Zeljko Ivanek, in his third memorable role in the last year) who talks about an unnamed third person (“she’s doing well, do you want to see her? She won’t remember you…”) who we can only assume is a daughter that the two had before she was unsealed from him. Drama, but not for LDS followers.
Over in Barbland, the first Mrs. Henrickson (Jeanne Tripplehorn) gets a visit from LDS elders asking directly if she’s involved in a polygamous marriage, and she admits to it, knowing full well she was risking excommunication. Barb’s then seized by a desire to go into the LDS temple to participate in the sacred endowment ceremony, and begs her mother and sister to sponsor her access. She is allowed into the temple and proceeds through a series of liturgical statements to “converse with the Lord in His presence,” which translates to her sitting in a room with her mother, sister and several others among the faithful until a woman tells her that her 15 minutes are up.
In approaching the dramatization of the ritual, the executive producers admit they had a responsibility “to be completely accurate and to show the ceremony in the proper context and with respect,” and that the ceremony was “thoroughly vetted by an adviser who is familiar with temple practices and rituals. This consultant was actually on the set throughout the filming of the scenes to make sure every detail was correct.” The producers revealed that the consultant was born into the church and taught temple ritual and practices, before resigning from the church eight years ago.
posted March 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I thought it was fascinating and thought-provoking. I don’t feel that showing the ceremony was any more intrusive than what films have done for decades – showing Catholics in the confessional. Just why are the members of the Church of the LDS afraid of others knowing about their rituals? What is there to hide?
posted March 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Don’t watch the show and in fact didn’t even know about it until the articles here on B’net. Does the LDS really think absolutely no one has ever told anyone outside the church what happens in the “hush-hush” ceremonies? I expect more people know about those secrets than they think. The show said that it was done accurately, so if they have a problem, don’t watch.
posted March 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I wish more could see this along the lines of what’s described in the New Testament when Christ occasionally commanded those that were healed to not tell anyone about what had happened. It matters little how “accurate” or “respectfully” it is done (the relating of the story/event) none of that takes away from the fact that someone would be defying the command of God to do the telling, they are placing themselves in a position of, at the very least, presenting intent to profane the holy, and at the very worst bringing the worst of condemnation on their own head.
There’s no beauty in that just as there’d be no beauty in publishing to the world one’s honeymoon night or a reenactment of it. Again accuracy is irrelevant.
It’s interesting how this very topic of sharing that which was not meant to be casually shared is what birthed things such as the schisms of the gnostic movement. Why don’t our Traditional Christian brothers and sisters seek to depict what Christ taught during his 40 day post-resurection post-ministry time? What was Christ hiding? And if he was just teaching what he’d taught previously why’d he need to come back a second time? Did he not get it right the first time?
When people think that transparency is holiness that’s when they are indistinguishable from the profane and unable to see anything that isn’t profane. Like staring into the sun without the proper filters or protection the only thing they are left with are fried retinas and the delusion that they’ve seen all that needs seeing.
posted March 17, 2009 at 1:44 pm
It is not that there is anything to hide – it is a sacred rite that God has told us to keep sacred and not to drag it before the world where it is subject to mocking and ridicule by those who cannot understand it and are not prepared to receive it. No matter how hard they try they cannot portray it accurately – they cannot portray the spirit that is in the Temple or that exists during the ordinance and it cannot be understood in context by those who do not believe and have not dedicated themselves to following Christ and keeping God’s commandments. It simply cannot be done.
We don’t fool ourselves – we know it is available to those who really want to find it. That’s part of why we insist that it is not really secret. Still, we hold it sacred and are offended when it is held up to scorn and ridicule especially by people who have no respect for religion of any kind – not just ours.
posted March 17, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Actually it’s not available to those who seek it improperly. It’s nigh the same problem found in the uncertainty principle. You can never see in truth the holy by unholy means and really perceive it. That’s not to say that there’s not negative impact to seeking the holy via the profane path, but purity in perception. When compromising the lens is part of getting the look then your lens is always going to give an erroneous view
posted March 17, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Mormons are so sensitive! I watched the last Big Love in earnest to find something to mock – not that I hate Mormons or anything: Love the Believer – hate the beliefs! But still – all I have is Mormon magic underwear to ridicule (Thanks Mitt Romney!)…
posted March 17, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Oh yes, the “magic underwear”. Fully no secret as they can be purchased over the internet.
posted April 30, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Hardly Fast,manner sheet apparent operate recommend obvious publication defendant problem skin call spot indeed government divide pension recognize southern want source race future main shot now award item negotiation spend view strange relief about expert whole park module argument observation directly instead tend demonstrate sign hand certainly factor ship home emphasis device area through strategy wave plus home except whether rapidly strategy offer rate liability leave line prisoner low presence apart insist agency deep limit increased move alone institution me strike realise response throughout via open conflict