I don’t normally post the text of my Wife Watch! reviews here on The Critical Condition, but this week, I’m making an exception. Because this is the episode of Big Love that depicts the sacred endowment ceremony of the Mormon faith, I’m discussing whether sacred rituals should be depicted for public entertainment. It’s a meaty topic that I’ve only just begun exploring, and I’d love your insight.Â
My original post can be found here at The Huffington Post, but you’ll also find it after the jump. Let the discussion begin!
Welcome to Wife Watch!, the only blog post that ranks the most powerful wives in this week’s episode of Big Love.
I’ve taken an extra day to process this week’s installment—”Outer Darkness”—because it’s the most controversial of the season (if not the series.) Some Mormons protestedthe the portrayal of the sacred and extremely private endowment ceremony , which gives this episode a particular amount of cultural heft.
In one sense, I agree with James Poniewozik from Time magazine that in the context of this episode, that scene seemed like the least of the church’s worries. As he mentioned, this episode depicted LDS leaders as corrupt and power hungry, basically excommunicating Barb for spite because of her family’s connection to the infamous “polygamy letter.” There were also pointed references to Elizabeth Smart and other church scandals.
By contrast, the endowment ceremony was portrayed as a sacred and powerful expression of pure religious faith. As an outsider, I could only watch it as a piece of theater, but it struck me as incredibly beautiful. Seeing Barb get the opportunity to symbolically touch the hands of God and then join her mother and sister in a “foretaste of eternity,” where she and her family can sit lovingly together forever, was deeply moving. Those aren’t my rituals, but I do have rituals, so I can appreciate how stirring the endowment ceremony must be to someone who believes in it.
But there’s the rub, right? I’m not a believer. I asked an ex-Mormon friend of mine what he thought about the endowment ritual being televised for a largely non-Mormon audience, and this is what he said:
My first response was, “Somebody’s going to get hurt.” Somebody’s going to be deeply hurt by having this shown because it will feel like a violation. It’s like having someone see you naked that you don’t want to see you naked. It’s hard for me to imagine anything that could be accomplished aesthetically or thematically that would equal the hurt that comes when something private and precious is revealed.
And this coming from an ex-Mormon. I can imagine how a practicing member of the church must feel. To complete the binary I created above, I agree with James Poniewozik in one sense, but I disagree in another. Of course the depiction of corrupt church officials seems more volatile to me than the fictionalized portrayal of a ceremony that I don’t believe in. I can relate to the negative ramifications of corruption more easily than the revelation of the endowment ceremony. But for a practicing member of the LDS church, I can absolutely understand why pulling back the curtain on something sacred would mean more than dissing some guy behind a fancy oak table. The Mormon leaders are merely human, so a stain on them is a stain on one person. The ceremony is holy, so a stain on it is like a stain on God.
Thinking about it this way, I feel sullied by what was shown. It’s the same way I felt when I saw a performance of a Native American tribal ritual as a teenager. Everyone is demeaned when something so powerful is put on display as entertainment. Or at least they are when the ritual is designed to be private. I don’t think it demeans Christianity, for instance, to show fictional Baptist preachers on television, because the ethos of Christianity is so often about creating public declarations of faith… of not keeping the “good news” to one’s self.
But from my understanding, that’s not how Mormons work. They’re not public worshippers, and so by forcing them to become public in this scene, Big Love may have crossed a line. Like my friend, I’m not sure there is any aesthetic achievement that can be worth so much hurt.
Sigh.
Another part of my conflicted response is that I loved this episode. I was moved and engaged, which means I am now complicit in turning a sacred ritual into an entertainment product. I need more time to sort out what that means to me.
But for now, I have an assignment, so I hope you will bear with me as I lay aside my qualms and continue the Wife Watch! mission. After all, there is a clear first wife this week.
I was impressed by Margene’s gumption as she secreted Barb to the compound for a reconciliation with Nicky. It didn’t work, of course, but still… good on Margie.
However, I think she’s trying to convince herself that she wants to stay in this family. Did you notice that when Nicky and Bill were fighting about Nicky being kicked out of the family, Margie mentioned that no one asked her if she wanted a divorce? I was like, “Whoa, Margene! Is that what you want?” It seems possible.
Obviously Nicky isn’t this week’s first wife, what with Bill saying he wants a divorce, though as usual, her storyline is gripping. Learning that she had a daughter with JJ was especially devastating, since we learn about her first lost family just as she loses another one. Talk about your pity and fear. This show is like a Greek drama.
And if I lay aside my moral questions about the endowment scene, I can see Barb‘s journey in this episode as another piece of fantastic classical drama: Like a tragic Greek figure, she moves from willful ignorance to terrible knowledge about her own position in a church she loves so much. And because of that revelation—that her beloved church doesn’t want her if she lives the life she’s chosen—she is forced to alter the course of her life forever.
You know the drama is working when Barb’s choice is uplifting and crushing at the same time. On one hand, she can exult in her decision to stay with her polygamous family—to honor what she has chosen for herself—but on the other, she must suffer as she imagines herself cast into the outer darkness. In Barb’s eyes, she’s chosen one path to eternity at the expense of another… but what if she chose the wrong path? Again, pity and fear. I may not have Barb’s faith, but I can certainly pity someone who makes a life-altering decision without being 100% certain it’s correct, and I can fear that I’ll be put in the same position some day.
And because Barb leads us to a catharsis while also choosing to keep the Henrickson family in tact (for now), she is clearly this week’s First Wife.
25 responses so far ↓
1 Russ Jackson // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm
All religion is entertainment to me.
2 Dani // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I was very uncomfortable with this episode, even though it was wonderful. And I can see why practicing Mormons would be deeply hurt. On a much less profound level, I can understand it. I am not bothered when sorority girls are depicted as silly, vapid, or mean. But if my sorority’s chapter rituals were portrayed on screen? I’d be furious. Something is taken away when the “sacred” is made into a plot point.
3 Rommate Joe // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm
But aren’t we shown private rituals and experiences on TV all the time? Private experiences of grief, love, sex, confession — any or all of those moments are the most private of experiences in real life, but we’ve come to accept them as “entertainment” in TV and movies. And I don’t think it shows disrespect to the grieving process to put that up on film, especially if it’s handled with sensitivity. I’m not sure why this particular Mormon ritual should be treated as any different.
I understand religious sensitivity, but I’m not sure whose responsibility it is to keep Mormon rituals secret beyond the Mormons themselves. (And that’s not even going into whether secrecy within institutions like these is a good thing at all).
4 Tammy // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm
As someone who lives in an area that is heavily populated by Mormons, in fact, we have a temple here, I have heard about this ceremony for years. My husband’s family was LDS and his grandmother performed a lot of temple duties. Unfortunately for me, as I watched the episode, I could only imagine my Mormon acquaintances similarly dressed and going through such nonsensical motions. I have no sympathy for their loss of secrecy as they have shown time and again a lack of sympathy for the beliefs of others. We endure their missionaries coming to our doors to argue doctrine and to show just why our beliefs are wrong. Big Love showed a ceremony that one can research online and learn about, so it has been bared long ago. The problem for Mormons as I see it is that this is one of those secret ceremonies that they offer to only those who join them wholeheartedly and faithfully. If all their secrets are brought out in the light of day, what will they use to lure people into submission? However, I do think the churches practice of buying up historical documents is far more damaging than the showing of the Endowment ceremony. Just an opinion from an unbeliever who has lived in Mormon country for most of her life.
5 dimestore lipstick // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:43 pm
When Margene mentioned that no one asked her if she wanted a divorce, she meant no one asked her if SHE wanted to divorce Nicki. The family has been paying lip-service to the “everyone in this marriage is married to everyone else in this marriage” concept for three seasons, and Margene just found out rather brutally that it isn’t really true. When push comes to shove, Bill calls the shots unilaterally. She was duped, she just discovered she was duped, and she’s pissed. I don’t blame her.
6 Kent Francis // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:00 pm
While I was horrified to see our most sacred religious ceremonies splashed across the screen, I was more horrified when CBS News aired it again as a clip on the early show interview with Paxton and then put up on the CBS News website. This isn’t about journalism but sleezy sensationalism.
7 Kristi // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hey, Mark! Thank you for your sincere article. I am Mormon and I have been married in the Nashville Temple. I don’t watch this show so there’s not much I can say about it specifically. Sure I’m sad that a ceremony that is private to me is broadcast to the world not matter how “respectfully” it’s done. I am also sad to hear about some of the leadership characters you discussed that are portrayed as “power hungry.” I’m sure that there have been some cases. We are a church of over 12 MILLION members and our leadership positions are all voluntary. People aren’t perfect but God is and as long as we’re trying a little harder each day to do a little better and be a little more like Him…well, that’s all we can do, right?
8 Bdanger // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Speaking to an LDS friend this week he said something the to effect of “they didn’t show my endowments, and this doesn’t make my endowments mean less, but it still breaks my heart.”
I get the point, but there are several full endowment ceremonies on you tube and websites that reveal a lot more. I think when you bring your fold so close others are going to be curious. As someone who grew up Catholic in a heavily Mormon area, I will admit that it always seemed weird to me. You can come in my church and I don’t have barcode so I can’t come into temple. You can witness my religion while LDS just seemed so guarded and hush hush.
It worked in the story for me, even if Barb being in the temple is sort of impossible to begin with. I don’t think I would have understood what she was missing, what she was really being cast out from in the physical (not in the next life) sense without those scenes. I don’t think it is disrespectful, it is what Mormons do.
9 Rey // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I’m not sure I accept the premise of your question, Mark, in the sense that it singles out religion from any other aspect of the human experience in our society with regard to privacy.
Every single thing on TV comes down to raising advertisement revenue.
It’s just the way it is…
10 rhonda // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’ve never understood why a religion, built upon the premise of “saving” as many people as possible, can be so exclusive. Making people feel unwelcome or unworthy to even witness your religion just seems ridiculous. If that’s the way the Lord works, like a club where only a few are allowed, I’ll pass. I doubt it though. It seems like Mormons and other religions like that just need to get over themselves. They seem like a junior high clique.
11 Jeff C // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I hadn’t heard about this. I think it’s awful.
I am hardly surprised, though – in pursuit of money, our culture is horrifyingly amoral. As Rey put it, every single thing on TV comes down to raising advertisement revenue. People’s relationships, struggles with addiction, marriages, children, faith, etc. are held out as a train wreck for our momentary enjoyment.
It is not healthy for us as a culture. When the things that give many people meaning to life are systematically undermined and exploited – for virtually no reason whatsover! – we wind up having nothing left to live for. If nothing is sacred, everything is profane, which pretty much explains the lot we are in.
12 Rommate Joe // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:28 pm
So, by definition TV devalues everything it depicts? I really don’t agree with that at all. Isn’t context important? Doesn’t the fact that “Big Love” deals with this subject matter in a largely responsible, respectful way count for something? If you’d take the time to see the episode, it’s clearly not a train wreck.
13 Eleanor // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with what they did. Religious rituals are interesting to lots of people and perhaps it even helps with tolerance to see that the Mormons aren’t sacrificing goats or babies. It was beautiful to watch even if personally one thinks it’s silly.
14 Dennis Decker // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormons. I want to point out that we as a church are not interested in keeping the temple secret from others—quite the opposite, in fact! We want everyone to reach the point where they are ready to visit the temple and make sacred commitments with God that will benefit them not just in this life, but for eternity.
We want everyone to have the chance to be sealed to their spouse, parents, children, so that they can be with their families forever. If you doubt, just consider how many missionaries we send out every year for this very purpose. I served a mission, and my mission president taught that the purpose of missionary work is to help people prepare not only for baptism (another sacred commitment) but also for the temple.
However, God, whose house the temple is, has said that the teachings and covenants we receive in the temple are so sacred that people need to be ready before they come. Christ said, “don’t cast your pearls before swine.†The metaphor may sound offensive, but all he meant was don’t thrust more at people than they can handle, or they’re not going to get it.
Since salvation is so important, we do the best we can to share it with people in the way that best meets their needs, in a way that they can “get.†So we teach people that they can speak to God, and expect Him to answer, that God is our loving Father in heaven, and that Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins, so that we can repent and improve ourselves.
The first principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands by those who have authority for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. These come first because they are the building blocks on which all further knowledge and understanding can be received. Our Father in Heaven wants us to learn about him and become like him, but he teaches us one thing at a time, line upon line, as we say, and precept on precept.
The temple is a place where each person can get more personal understanding about God’s plan, covenant to love and serve Him, and be prepared to start an eternal family and to become a better servant for his or her fellow man.
So this brings me back to the episode in question, where the temple ceremony was portrayed as part of an entertaining story. I’m sorry, but the temple is about more than entertainment. The endowment, part of which was shown, is something that is important not only for currently practicing Mormons but for every human being who ever lived on this earth.
In the immortal words of Lavar Burton: “But you don’t have to take my word for it,†anyone who is willing to try can find out whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is what it claims to be—the restored Church of Christ, with the truth and the authority to get us home to our Father in Heaven. Go get a copy of the Book of Mormon. Meet with the missionaries. Pray, and ask whether our message is true. God will speak to you in your mind and heart, and you can find out that it is true.
Then, I sincerely hope, you can prepare yourself to go to the temple and go in and take part in the entire endowment ceremony for yourself.
Sincerely,
Dennis Decker
Provo, UT.
15 katy // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Good topic, Mark. The point isn’t whether TV devalues everything it depicts, or whether rituals are interesting to watch. I also don’t think it has anything to do with whether you sympathize with the idea of having private / secret religious rituals to begin with, or how weird the practice seems to you.
The point is that for the LDS, for *this* particular culture, the endowment ceremonies are supposed to be private and not even discussed by Mormons outside the temple, much less shown on TV. That’s part of their religion, and it’s not weird to them. It’s true even for LDS members who haven’t received their endowments.
It’s not that people don’t have the “right” to televise the endowment. Of course you have the right to televise just about whatever you want about any cultural or religious group. It’s that it’s rude. And disrespectful. And it’s going to upset people. Because, as Mark says, these are rituals that mean something different to believers than non-believers.
The LDS aren’t as hip a religious minority as, say, Muslims — for sure in large part because of their morally problematic social and political positions. But I think respect for a culture that isn’t your own ought to hold generally true across the board.
You can write a TV show that shows people desecrating real Bibles or Torahs or Korans or whatever, and maybe there are cases where this makes sense. But I would still argue that you should avoid it when you can. Everybody has some sacred cow — even nonbelievers — and it doesn’t hurt to show other culture’s sacred cows some deference, even if you don’t agree.
16 dan // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I agree with Eleanor. What’s the big deal? I thought it was very trippy, mysterious and intriguing. The best episode of an incredible year for this show. These actors ALL deserve Emmy’s, this is the best show on televsion right now. LOVE IT.
17 Reese // Mar 18, 2009 at 1:47 am
Mark, this was the best reaction I’ve seen on the web. You totally get where we’re coming from.
I’m a devout Mormon, and for us, this is like making a cartoon of Mohamed. True, all this information is plastered all over the web so the “secret” is out, but this is a lot different than obscure web sites of unknown provenance.
There may be some confusion about the temple that leads people to believe we’re even more cliquish than we are. When we go to the temple, the ceremony is equivalent to a nun taking her vows. It’s personal and profound.
On Sundays we worship at local meetinghouses that look just like any other church, and the world is welcome to that. Every one of our regular church buildings says “visitors welcome” right on the side. It’s just the temples that are exclusive, because you have to be ready for the promises you’re going to make.
Ultimately this really isn’t going to make a difference to how the church operates, so I’m sure it will all blow over soon, but I appreciate the conversation.
18 jens // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:45 am
@ Dani-
That was the same thought I had. I think that people draw a line too often about what is wrong or right based on *who* the action would hurt rather than if it is hurtful in and of itself. The fact that some people who practice the Mormon faith are jerks or intolerant can’t be used as justification for revealing things that are sacred to them. I also think that the “but you can already find it on the internet” argument is weak in the same way- it’s still a choice for someone to portray it this time, and for you to watch it this time.
That being said, I know I sound like I’m on the Mormons side, but it’s not that black and white. I also think that when things of this nature *are* portrayed respectfully, they can be an incredibly powerful tool for understanding. Those are the kinds of things that can make a difference- just one person who’s had their perspective changed or who’s loses a prejudice because they were able to see things in a way they wouldn’t have in their own life.
19 ferretrick // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:20 am
@BDanger
“As someone who grew up Catholic in a heavily Mormon area, I will admit that it always seemed weird to me. You can come in my church and I don’t have barcode so I can’t come into temple. You can witness my religion while LDS just seemed so guarded and hush hush.”
But I can’t (or shouldn’t) go into your church and partake in Communion. Just saying.
@Roommate Joe
“So, by definition TV devalues everything it depicts? I really don’t agree with that at all. Isn’t context important? Doesn’t the fact that “Big Love†deals with this subject matter in a largely responsible, respectful way count for something?”
I agree that TV does not necessarily devalue everything it depicts…often the opposite in fact. Televising the ceremony COULD lead people who know little about the Mormon faith to more respect and tolerance for it.
But, that’s not the point. The point is that it is their sacred, private ritual. And I question whether anyone has the right to publicize it without permission.
20 Rommate Joe // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 am
But who would have the right to give that permission? The Mormon church alone? If someone who has experienced this ceremony wants to disseminate or dramatize the ceremony for an audience to see, isn’t it their experience to share?
And if it’s the equivalent of a nun taking her vows, would there be a moral problem with a TV show depicting that? Or would we acknowledge that a dramatization of the thing doesn’t devalue the thing itself?
21 trish // Mar 18, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I have to admit that I know very little about Mormons and their church. This blog and all it’s comments have taught me alot. Thnx!
22 ferretrick // Mar 18, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“If someone who has experienced this ceremony wants to disseminate or dramatize the ceremony for an audience to see, isn’t it their experience to share?”
Not if, when they voluntarily chose to participate in the ceremony originally they understood that the Church considered it sacred and by agreeing to participate they were never to publicize to outsiders, no. I’d argue that however the information originally got out (youtube videos, personal accounts, etc.) those people made an implied contract with the Churchan that they would keep it private.
23 Jeff C // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@ Roommate Joe – I never claimed that TV devalues what it depicts per se, though the reality approaches that. Even assuming the depiction of this ceremony on Big Love was done with total respect, there is no guarantee that future depictions (South Park, et al.) that parody Big Love, or the debate surrounding Big Love, will be so kind. Once Pandora’s Box is opened on a subject, there’s no easy way to close it.
HBO prides itself on “groundbreaking” shows, with “groundbreaking” usually being a synonym for “controversial.” Controversy gets paying viewers. I don’t begrudge HBO or the Big Love production team the legal right to do what they’ve done.
At some point, however – and I believe this “point” was reached at least 20 years ago – the shock value of depicting something so intimate became greater than the societal value of respect for others.
As a final point, I would mention that “exposing” and stepping on LDS rituals are about as ‘fair game’ in Hollywood as they have ever been. The sociopolitical dynamic of what is going on is undeniable.
24 Linda // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“Not if, when they voluntarily chose to participate in the ceremony originally they understood that the Church considered it sacred and by agreeing to participate they were never to publicize to outsiders, no.”
I don’t understand this, though. If what makes it sacred is the beliefs of people who believe in it, then how is it not yours to share if you no longer believe it should be private? It’s not a contract. Your religious beliefs are your own, and if you participated in a ritual and you later choose not to keep it private, I cannot understand restricting that choice simply because other people with other religious beliefs disagree. What if you feel driven by God to speak truthfully of that ritual? To tell other people about it? What if conducting a similar ritual in public is now YOUR spiritual path?
I just cannot go along with giving any religious group — and I think it’s inaccurate to say this is aimed at Mormons because they’re disfavored; you can name your religious group and I’d feel the same way — the right to veto fictional depictions of their religion. It’s just not the way I see it. I do agree with the “cartoon of Mohammed” analogy, and I wasn’t on the side of people who believed that should have been censored, either.
What if a Catholic person believes a priest shouldn’t be played by a gay person because it’s a slap in the face? What if Quakers don’t want a movie about them shown by a network that takes money from military contractors?
I do believe depictions shouldn’t be bigoted and shouldn’t be designed to trade on prejudice, but I can’t sign off on the idea that “if they say they don’t want you to truthfully describe what happens in this ritual, then you shouldn’t.” If you want to make an argument of substantive insensitivity, that’s fine, but “you must treat a religion as it asks to be treated because that’s how it asks to be treated” does not work for me, no matter the religion at issue.
Would the same apply to writing a book in which the ceremony happens? Can you not describe an endowment ceremony in a book? If you’re writing a piece of fiction in which the ceremony would logically occur, can you write about it? Can you write that it happens, but without details? Or is it something about video? Or television? How about a highly artistic movie? How about a documentary?
There’s just something fundamental in me that chafes at the idea of granting people the right to control what others may see and hear. I understand the “we believe you can only see this ritual if you are ready” argument, but respectfully, that is a religious belief. If I don’t hold that religious belief, then…I don’t. I understand that you do. We disagree. Being apologetic and “I understand this is hurtful” is fine, but by that standard, we should apologize to people who are offended by depictions of divorced families if their religion classifies that as something that shouldn’t ever be depicted in fiction. We should apologize to people whose religious beliefs are offended by interfaith marriages if we depict an interfaith marriage.
I understand it’s hurtful that one person’s beliefs sometimes clash with those who don’t hold them. It’s hurtful to me when things happen in the world that contradict my beliefs. But I understand that those beliefs are mine, and others don’t share them, and it’s not a good enough argument for me to say, “This is my belief, and you can’t do otherwise, because to do so is disrespectful to me.”
25 Rey // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm
We live in a country where freedom of speech and separation of church and state are *supposed* to be two of our founding principles.
Maybe this particular example epitomizes the healthy struggle that should exist in a free socirty between preserving the right to do something and exercising proper wisdom in deciding whether or not it should actually be done.
It’s a responsibility that falls upon all of us. We will make mistakes and people will inevitably be offended, hurt, and even outraged, but it is better than the alternative: censorship.
It must also be applied equally to all, without double standards or hypocrisy. Those of any religion (or lack thereof) who want their rights upheld while simultaneously showing intolerance to others need to reconsider and carefully re-examine their own behaviour prior to judging others, then work harder to more closely adhere to perhaps the most basic human covenant of all: treat all others with the same respect you yourself wish to be treated.
Leave a Comment