Big Love's Public Intimacy
So I don’t have HBO, but I do have access to YouTube, where I found the most controversial bits of the Big Love episode that depicts pieces of the Mormon temple ceremony.
Watching it was quite an unnerving experience, more so than I had anticipated when I wrote about this earlier.
I just don’t know the appropriate way to discuss this. I take what happens in the temple very seriously, and, like most members of the church, I am not willing to discuss much of it outside the temple. So I’m left with trying to address something intensely personal and sacred to me after it’s been ripped from its context and thrown out into the wide world.
I really don’t know how to describe my reaction in a way that will make any sense to anyone outside my faith.
The word that keeps coming back to me is “intimate.”
It’s not perfect, but it will have to do. The problem is that “intimate” is often used as a euphemism for “sexual,” and what happens in the temple is in no way erotic. Yet there’s an analogy in that word that has some merit to it. Imagine, for instance, if what happened in the intimate moments of your marriage were to be broadcast on national television. It’s not that you’re ashamed or embarrassed by what happens then; it’s that intimate things are not for public consumption. And if the producer of the show kept telling you that what they were showing would be depicted “tastefully” and “with respect,” would that make you feel any better? And even if the depiction were, indeed, “tasteful,” would you feel any less violated?
Maybe that helps.
For the record, I do think it could have been a lot, lot worse. The ceremony was, indeed, depicted as a sacred moment for the characters involved, and there seemed to be very little attempt to amp up the weirdness quotient. I don’t really know if what they showed was weird enough on its own terms, as I have been inured by a lifetime of Mormonism to be able to objectively gauge the perceptions of outsiders. Perhaps I’m being Pollyanna-ish, but I suspect that many looking for Xenu-esque goofery would come away disappointed. I remember when I first went through the temple that I was expecting to learn big, kooky mysteries, like the location of the lost tribes of Israel or the intergalactic coordinates to Kolob. I recall that one of my first reactions was, “This is it? What’s the big deal?” If I were a betting man, I’d think that most people who watched this episode probably had a similar reaction. Maybe that’s just me.
What was very odd to me was how clumsy the show was with things that would have been very easy to get right. For instance, the polygamist lady refers to her upcoming “Love Court,” where she anticipates being excommunicated. She uses the term as if it’s common Mormon jargon, when, to my knowledge, no Mormon has ever used that phrase in any context. It’s also very silly when the matron in the temple comes up to the woman and her family and shoos them out of the temple because their “fifteen minutes are up.” What, do you take a number? Is there somebody sitting in the back of the room with a stopwatch? In real life, you can sit in the temple for hours if you want to. What was the point of that, other than to make Mormons look rude and insensitive?
This is a tempest in a teapot. This, too, shall pass. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say it was somewhat unsettling.
Watching it was quite an unnerving experience, more so than I had anticipated when I wrote about this earlier.
I just don’t know the appropriate way to discuss this. I take what happens in the temple very seriously, and, like most members of the church, I am not willing to discuss much of it outside the temple. So I’m left with trying to address something intensely personal and sacred to me after it’s been ripped from its context and thrown out into the wide world.
I really don’t know how to describe my reaction in a way that will make any sense to anyone outside my faith.
The word that keeps coming back to me is “intimate.”
It’s not perfect, but it will have to do. The problem is that “intimate” is often used as a euphemism for “sexual,” and what happens in the temple is in no way erotic. Yet there’s an analogy in that word that has some merit to it. Imagine, for instance, if what happened in the intimate moments of your marriage were to be broadcast on national television. It’s not that you’re ashamed or embarrassed by what happens then; it’s that intimate things are not for public consumption. And if the producer of the show kept telling you that what they were showing would be depicted “tastefully” and “with respect,” would that make you feel any better? And even if the depiction were, indeed, “tasteful,” would you feel any less violated?
Maybe that helps.
For the record, I do think it could have been a lot, lot worse. The ceremony was, indeed, depicted as a sacred moment for the characters involved, and there seemed to be very little attempt to amp up the weirdness quotient. I don’t really know if what they showed was weird enough on its own terms, as I have been inured by a lifetime of Mormonism to be able to objectively gauge the perceptions of outsiders. Perhaps I’m being Pollyanna-ish, but I suspect that many looking for Xenu-esque goofery would come away disappointed. I remember when I first went through the temple that I was expecting to learn big, kooky mysteries, like the location of the lost tribes of Israel or the intergalactic coordinates to Kolob. I recall that one of my first reactions was, “This is it? What’s the big deal?” If I were a betting man, I’d think that most people who watched this episode probably had a similar reaction. Maybe that’s just me.
What was very odd to me was how clumsy the show was with things that would have been very easy to get right. For instance, the polygamist lady refers to her upcoming “Love Court,” where she anticipates being excommunicated. She uses the term as if it’s common Mormon jargon, when, to my knowledge, no Mormon has ever used that phrase in any context. It’s also very silly when the matron in the temple comes up to the woman and her family and shoos them out of the temple because their “fifteen minutes are up.” What, do you take a number? Is there somebody sitting in the back of the room with a stopwatch? In real life, you can sit in the temple for hours if you want to. What was the point of that, other than to make Mormons look rude and insensitive?
This is a tempest in a teapot. This, too, shall pass. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say it was somewhat unsettling.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 4:27 PM
12 Comments:
I watched a video of it only because of your blog post.
Personally, it doesn't seem that unusual to me. I always kind of figured religious people believe what they believe based on FAITH....... and that should be a good enough reason.
Rituals are usually compatible with the faith-based beliefs. Seems like a logical and natural pattern.
The only thing that jumps out at me is that your objection doesn't seem to be based on religion.... but instead it is a "privacy" issue.
Since I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy, I think it is only natural that you (and many other LDS members) feel encroached upon.
I will forgo a lengthy comment on Justice Scalia's skepticism about the right of privacy being fundamental.
Take comfort and pride in the fact that no one who shares your beliefs will be discouraged by a fictional program on HBO.
Amen,
POUNDS
I really like this way of explaining it. I haven't watched it, and don't intend to, but I imagine I would have the same reaction.
POUNDS, I appreciate your gracious comments. (Although i feel a bit guilty for having unwittingly given this show a larger audience.)
I don't know if this is the right set of facts to debate the whole "right to privacy" thing, however. I can't think of any legal argument that would prevent HBO from doing what they did - the ceremony is old enough to qualify as "public domain," privacy or no.
I think it's just exceptionally rude and disrespectful.
SC, over on BCC, a non-Mormon wrote the following comment that I really liked:
"If I understand correctly, the privacy of the LDS ceremony is not in any way meant to hide it, but rather to preserve it as something only experienced in its proper context by members who have spent years demonstrating their willingness and ability to uphold the faith, because approaching it in any other way would fail to provide the real spiritual experience. It would therefore be impossible to create the proper context for the ceremony in drama."
My response:
"That’s a very good explanation - along with the idea that some things simply are sacred and not meant for public consumption, much less misrepresentation. For example, I wouldn’t dream of having someone film or record an actual, personal prayer in the “privacy” of my own home. For me personally, that simply is too sacred for public viewing. It is me one-on-one with God."
You are a braver fellow than me, SC. I don't think I can watch it because it would turn my stomach to see something so intimately important to me flayed out for public viewing. This issue isn't privacy or censorship at all. From what I can gather, the LDS church made no attempt to prevent HBO from taking the storyline down this road besides a polite request. We are not Scientologists. Freedom to choose for oneself is a bedrock tenet of LDS faith.
Here's a lesson from us Catholics. When you complain about something in the media it gets bigger. We make that mistake every time.
What upsets Mormons, I think, is that the portrayal is blasphemous. The problem, of course, is that the modern world doesn't give anyone a very good set of intellectual categories for thinking about blasphemy and what it means. Hence, we fall back on notions like free speech, censorship, privacy, good manners, sensitivity, tolerance, etc.
Stallion,
I wasn't suggesting that this situation involved any "legally protected" right to privacy which would preclude HBO from airing the program (after all, I am an absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech/press). Legal restrictions would almost certainly have to involve some "government" invasion of the right of privacy.
My point was that you (and others) are entitled to some private space (so to speak)... and if that is invaded (even lawfully), it is understandable that you feel wrongfully exposed, even if you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
POUNDS
All right, other than the Big one in SLC, what is the most beautiful Temple (from the outside)?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry to delete you, NotBenny, but I'm not interested in this blog being a clearinghouse for discussion of anything else that goes on in the temple. I'm sure there are plenty of other sites who would be willing to accommodate you.
I will say that most of what you cite is grossly distorted, and I've already written extensively about the "Jesus and Satan are brothers" crap in response to Mike Huckabee, who is, in fact, Satan's brother. You can read that here: http://www.stallioncornell.com/2007/12/huckabee-lied-mormons-sighed.html
And I'd very much like to address some of the other issues - the church's racial history, for instance - in future posts.
To me (as a lifelong mormon) I was a bit frustrated with the rhetoric from the HBO/Big Love people. They spoke about trying to "respect" the ceremony by taking pains to depict it with authenticity and accuracy. From my perspective, depicting the ceremonies with accuracy is the complete opposite from respect. (I haven't seen it, but it's clear that they hit it pretty close on) I agree with Law Geek that to me it is blasphemy. I would have preferred it if they had invented bizarre stuff instead.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home