HBO Recreates Portions of Temple Ceremony

[Hemidakota]

Allow the church to respond vice the membership.

[lestertheemt]

First....do I personally agree w/ HBO..........not one bit.

However, in part, some of the sacredness comes from the knowledge we obtain................I seriously doubt that those watching and even those who are involved (actors, writers, directors) will gain much. As the spirit wont be there to testify and to edify.

Other item to bring up is that when there is huge "anti" push..........it tends to push people to seek the truth.

Just my 2 cents.

Les

[Wingnut]

First....do I personally agree w/ HBO..........not one bit.

However, in part, some of the sacredness comes from the knowledge we obtain................I seriously doubt that those watching and even those who are involved (actors, writers, directors) will gain much. As the spirit wont be there to testify and to edify.

Other item to bring up is that when there is huge "anti" push..........it tends to push people to seek the truth.

Just my 2 cents.

Les

I think the thread should just be closed now. What a great note to end on. thanks so much Lester! :)

[MarginOfError]

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/19164-hbo-recreates-portions-temple-ceremony-4.html

I think that we should "so choose" and that we should start the emails around again.

I think this is strong encouragement by the church for us to "so choose". Of course they cannot officially say, but they can unofficial say it, and I think they have unofficially said it.

I'm sending this out.

I just sent out this email to a ... few... people :) You may send it out too if you "so choose".

The Publicity Dilemma - LDS Newsroom

The HBO "Big Love" is going to show temple ceremonies on TV. the church has said:

"Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose. "

The church cannot officially put this around, but unofficially, they have said that we can make an impact through a boycott... IMO individual Latter-day saints should "so choose" to take action. I am not a church leader, so I can unofficially send this around. I will not tell anyone what to do, just FYI what is going on for those who do choose to do something. We have an incredible amount of power in deciding where to shop, what products to buy. Why support groups that are anti-Mormon?

Here is a way to contact HBO

HBO Online: Corporate Info

if you so choose, you can send them a note saying something like:

Concerning "Big Love" - I and others am offended when my most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. The TV series "Big Love" is in appallingly bad taste. The show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. Current themes in this show say much about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives. Is this the type of show that you support? If so, many of those who find you insenitive will cease supporting HBO, AOL, and others owned by Time Warner. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will not condone any official actions, but have issued the following statement:

"Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose. "

The Publicity Dilemma - LDS Newsroom

I am one among many individuals who will "so choose".

Please pass this info on if you deem it appropriate so that everyone knows what actions may be taken if they so choose.

Thanks!

Jamie

I will politely decline to support institutions that do not hold my mortal beliefs. (Time Warner is not the only company that I do not support.)

All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

If you have HBO or AOL - Do you feel comfortable giving your money to those who support mocking our temple ceremonies?

It is one thing to ignore it, quite another TO SUPPORT IT. By continuing your subscription, you are supporting it. It appears we are being forced to support embryonic stem cell research and the Taliban. We are not being forced to support this.

We have a choice of who to support and who not to. Why not use that choice? Perhaps I was not polite enough, sorry, I still do think it is the right thing to support moral companies… and not to support immoral ones.

I seem to remember being asked something like...

Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, .....

I guess if I subscribed to AOL or HBO - I would have to answer "yes" to that one.

You've advertised this episode so well now that I think I'm going to subscribe to HBO just to watch this episode. I'm exceptionally curious about what it is that has your panties in such a twist. Thanks for bringing this fascinating episode to my attention.

And since I need to renew my temple recommend anyway, I'm going to invite my bishop to come watch it with me, and we can do my recommend interview after the credits start.

[lilered]

My view is I am still going to get up everyday, do the very best I can to obey the Lord and his teachings. Set the best example I can in church, with my friends, my mormon and non-mormon contacts, my business dealings and keep on gettin on. I will continue to listen to and trust the cousel of the church leaders and when instructed to do something, will do my best to comply. I believe our church leaders are inspired and will take whatever appropriate action God advises them to do.

So if they want me to support a stand against Prop. 8 or HBO etc., then by cracky so be it until then I await their guidance which to date has been to not discuss certain parts of the Temple ordinances etc. and only discuss those parts that they themselves comment public on. Such as the case in the earlier ABC news documentary I earlier referred to.

[sensibility]

They aren't revealing anything new or exciting. All information about the temple ceremonies is already available online. We all know this. It's not even an innovative attack on the Church, it's just that this one has commercials in. This episode won't invalidate our covenants or make the temple less sacred any more than previous exposés have.

None of us can stop this, but God can handle it, and He's fully capable of turning it to the good of the kingdom.

Is it offensive? Yes. Are people going to make fun of us because of it? Undoubtedly yes. Would I take great pleasure in cancelling my subscription to HBO, if only I had one? Yep.

But this God's work. HBO and Dustin Black can't stop it. The temple is still sacred. It'll still be sacred no matter how many people mock it. The Church is still true. It'll still be true even if our beliefs are ridiculed on national TV. We'll be okay.

[Guest Godless]

Hemidakota has posted the Church's official statement on this matter in another thread. I think the Brethren have taken an excellent approach to this issue, and I can only hope that LDS members will heed their counsel.

[emailhyrum]

I received an email forward with information about this and here is what I sent as a "reply to all":

I wanted to share with all of you my thoughts about the issue. This email that is going around has attached and linked depictions of the very pictures that we find sacred. By viewing and forwarding those things we allow sacrilegious images into our homes and help circulate and advertise for the very thing we're fighting against.

"Big Love" has been on the air since 2006 and the church made a statement at that time about it. I would encourage you to file a complaint with HBO but be aware that they already know that much of the material they broadcast is offensive and it is very unlikely that the show will not air. If we succeed in being heard it will take time.

The church has now made an official statement about the current matter. If you would like to forward something onto others please forward the link to file a complaint with HBO and the link to the official church statement. Please at least stop spreading the links to and attachments of the sacrilegious images and pdfs.

Here is an example of an email you might want to send to your contacts and friends instead:

"Dear friends,

HBO is planning to depict what they understand to be sacred temple ceremonies in the show called 'Big Love'. Please respectfully stand up against this by letting HBO know you find this offensive and do not support the public broadcast of sacred things. Click here to view the official statement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints concerning the matter. Send this on to people who will stand with us on the issue.

Sincerely,

So and So"

[Wingnut]

You know, if nothing else, people who watch the show on Sunday night will learn that while we may dress a little funny when we go to the temple, that nothing psycho or unnatural happens there. I think the viewers of Big Love will learn (those who don't know already) that Mormons are normal. Unless they read the freaked out emails that members of the Church are wont to spread. :)

[LittleWyvern]

I just thought of something... if the subjects of the Big Love show are members of the FLDS Church, do you think they'll show the FLDS temple ceremony?

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, maybe I'm a cultural Nazi here (haven't had cable or dish for six years), but . . .

why would any Mormon still have HBO in the first place? Don't they run some rather risque programs during the late night hours?

[Wingnut]

OK, maybe I'm a cultural Nazi here (haven't had cable or dish for six years), but . . .

why would any Mormon still have HBO in the first place? Don't they run some rather risque programs during the late night hours?

That's part of the point some of us have been trying to make. :)

[pam]

I have enough problems trying to keep what the local FOX network shows off our tv let alone have the entire issue of HBO to deal with as well.

Edited March 10, 2009 by pam

[Just_A_Guy]

That's part of the point some of us have been trying to make.

Ah. That'll teach me to make a post without reading the entire thread.

[Madriglace]

Many years ago someone compared the church to a great race horse standing in a field. The horse may be bitten by a fly but it is still no less a great race horse.

The Adversary is getting really desperate to think this is going to cause more than minor upset. The work will roll forward until it fills the whole earth ... we have been promised this. We have way to much to do to let something like this even cause a momentary pause in the work. There will be people that investigate the church and join us because of this ... we need to use it to our good where we can. Follow the lead of the Prophet and we can never go wrong. JMHO

[pam]

Ah. That'll teach me to make a post without reading the entire thread.

I think you are fine with your comment. Hey after you get to 70+ posts..who wants to go back to read every single one of them? :)

[lusciouschaos]

I love this article in Meridian Magazine. My favorite quote is this "When we hold something sacred, our approach to life will be different than when we do not. And, when we hold something sacred, we will rarely be offended by what others hold sacred, at least in the traditional definition of the word. " Enjoy!:

M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E Is Something Sacred? Meridian's Response to Big Love

By Terrance D. Olson

Editors' Note: As most of you know, HBO's “Big Love” is running a show next Sunday, March 15th, which they claim to feature a portion of the temple ceremony. This is an article that addresses the issue about the importance of granting to people what is sacred to them as a prerequisite for a civilized society.

I had the lead in the high school junior play. I played a psychopath who was "caring" for an elderly lady. My character carried a hip flask full of water that he swigged from as if it were an alcoholic beverage that helped him get from moment to moment. We had completed about five performances through a two-week run. Just before going on stage for performance number six, I was greeted by a solemn prop crew. They had my flask. Their message to me was approximately this:

"Terry, we want you to know everything is all right now. But someone wanted to pull a prank on you and they had filled the flask with gin. They were laughing about it and told us to watch what happened when you took a swig on stage. We were horrified and immediately said, 'But Terry doesn't believe in drinking. He's a Mormon.' (The pranksters stopped laughing.) They didn't know what your beliefs were until we told them. They apologized. We have rinsed this out about ten times. It is okay."

I have reflected often on the respect and concern both my friends and the strangers involved showed for my beliefs. They did not hold those beliefs but were not offended that I held them. Moreover, they were not willing, in pulling a prank, to cross a line which would put me in a situation where I violated what I considered sacred. In honoring my beliefs, they were not just being tolerant, they were being compassionate. Both attitudes are fundamental to moral and ethical relationships.

My experience has been that those who respect another's beliefs, especially beliefs about what is sacred, usually hold some things sacred themselves. To have reverence for something suggests an empathy for others who hold things sacred. Whatever we hold sacred, when we live true to those beliefs, we seem willing to grant others the opportunity to reverence their beliefs. When something is considered sacred, relationships among diverse peoples are possible. When nothing is held sacred, relationships, neighborhoods, cultures, and countries may be in conflict and possibly fall apart. Most of the time, it is probably our unwillingness to grant others their sacred feelings, and not the differences in what we hold sacred, that create contention.

For example, I made plans to attend the opening of the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles . I arrived that February morning in a rainstorm. I had not met the woman from the communications department who was to assure my admission. I sensed that she was the one holding an umbrella and looking anxious. I introduced myself. She was the one.

On this day that she and the others of the Jewish community had waited so long for, her first words were, "Terry, there has been some problem with one of your leaders and a speech in Utah ." I didn't know what she meant. She continued, "He was speaking and a man came out of the crowd claiming he had a bomb." I had not yet heard a thing about this, but she had been listening to a Los Angeles news station at midnight and had heard a brief report. Then she spoke about what she assumed I held sacred but which she had never heard of or understood. "The radio report said that the congregation started singing a hymn, and it distracted the man so that he could be apprehended. I'm impressed, Terry, that an audience would turn to something of peace in a time of crisis. I would like to know the name of that hymn."

I was putting two and two together. Had I not been in Los Angeles , I would have been on the stand in the Marriott Center that night, listening to Howard W. Hunter give the CES fireside. I told her, "I can almost guarantee that the hymn was one you would be interested in because the Old Testament came to us through prophets. The hymn was probably, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet." She knew virtually nothing of LDS culture, music, history, or doctrine. But she knew how to sense the sacred in someone else's beliefs.

Actually, it is possible to have sacred beliefs and yet demean other's convictions. To do so, however, means betraying our own beliefs of how to behave, perverting the attitudes we hold, or in other ways dishonoring our own spiritual commitments. Whether our betrayal takes the form of moral superiority, spiritual arrogance, interpersonal ridicule, or being offended at others' devoutness, all are signs of more than not granting others their sacred feelings. They reveal we have turned against our own.

The woman at the Wiesenthal Museum , without even thinking about it, was concerned about me, a person she had never met, and my culture and commitments. An assault on my leaders, however minor, was all too familiar to Jewish history. But I am convinced her compassionate response to the threats to President Hunter were more than simple empathy. They revealed the heart of a woman who held her own heritage sacred. Had she been cynical about life, her response both to "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet" and to the museum's opening would have been devoid of reverence.

When nothing is sacred, everything is fair game in conflicts of ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. If something is sacred, then some ground rules of harmonious interaction are possible.

But again, if tolerance and compassion were intertwined in acknowledging what others find sacred, new solutions would be possible. A simple example is the Seventh Day Adventist community where the mail is on Sunday (but not on Saturday). It costs nothing in such a circumstance to honor what the community finds sacred. But my major focus here is about how we individually by the way we honor the sacred, treat others, change or improve ourselves, and solve relationship problems.

I am convinced that a major reason any individual is empathic toward those from other cultures is because they themselves hold some things sacred and could therefore grant the sacred reverenced by others. One Native American couple in a parenting class told of how, growing up, winter nights consisted of hearing their religious heritage rehearsed in folk stories told by a grandfather around a warm fire. Some members of the class from other cultures expressed the wish that they had had such a background. One Anglo woman noted that her religious roots would have been cemented earlier and more deeply had she had a hogan storyteller instead of a TV set. The religious beliefs of the two cultures were different; the ways winter evenings were spent were different, but these individuals resonated to the idea of the sacred. They granted each other the legitimacy of deep spiritual feelings.

I have cousins whose upbringing on a farm sensitized them to the sacred. When you depend not just on hard work but on weather patterns for your livelihood, and see how unpredictable wind and rain and temperature can be, and when one crisis follows another (too much water, not enough water, badgers in the hay, sick cattle, too hot, too cold), you have plenty of invitations from the environment to be either bitter or humble. Granting the sacred makes keeping on with the hard work a faithful, rather than a despairing, enterprise. Successes are not accepted without thanks to God and failures are not endured without pleas to the heavens. In that respect, farmers share something worldwide about what it means to work the soil. Farmers either build determination and confidence from their labors or use their afflictions to destroy their spiritual peace. Significantly, the source of the outcome lies in the human, not in the soil.

When we hold something sacred, our approach to life will be different than when we do not. And, when we hold something sacred, we will rarely be offended by what others hold sacred, at least in the traditional definition of the word. "Sacred, consecrated to; esteemed especially dear or acceptable to a deity. Made holy by association with a god..."( The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Volume ii, p. 2,616). Of course, it is assumed that God's interest is in the best interest of his creations, his children, his offspring.

Finally, as one of my cousins from Mink Creek farm reminded me, "You can not expect to receive what you are not willing to give." In relationships, that suggests willingly granting another's feelings of the sacred. Your expectations of being similarly treated will not necessarily be met, but your way of being with them means you've done your part to create a starting point for mutual understanding and harmony in religious matters.

[Elphaba]

Thus, bringing up Black's affiliation with "Milk" is entirely reasonable, for what I would have thought were obvious reasons.

Yes, I understand your obvious reasons. So what?

"Understanding" does not equal "necessary." For example, from the e-mail:

The head writer of "Big Love" this season, is Dustin Black, the recent Oscar-winner for "Milk." Raised a Mormon, he is clearly versed in our culture.

Now watch what I can do:

The head writer of "Big Love" this season is Dustin Black. Raised a Mormon, Black is clearly versed in our culture.

See how that works with no gratuitous digs at “Milk”?

Elphaba

[lilered]

Sure... you could do just the bare minimum... but what about going above and beyond your calling?

Perhaps so, but maybe its the very best I am capable of. At least I am using the precious time here on earth for what I consider a much better purpose.

[Moksha]

...why would any Mormon still have HBO in the first place? Don't they run some rather risque programs during the late night hours?

That is where tilting your head at an angle comes in.

[Elphaba]

I do not usually care for Meridian s articles, but I enjoyed this one very much. I really was impressed by how Olson described what was sacred to different cultures. As always, I would like to add some perspective, specifically about the implied assertion that one must believe in a deity to hold things sacred.

I realize Olson is referring to “sacred” in its traditional and religious sense. However, if you all will indulge me, I’d like to take it out of context for just a moment, because this quote from Olson is profound as it stands.

Most of the time, it is probably our unwillingness to grant others their sacred feelings, and not the differences in what we hold sacred, that create contention.

I believe this is so true, but while Olson refers to "sacred" as a religious descriptor, I know one can still feel the "sacred," without any religion or worship.

Olsen quoted the dictionary, and now I will too. This is the last reference to "sacred":

5 a: unassailable , inviolable b: highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility

Note, there is no reference to a deity in this definition, and I think it is important to realize "sacred" does not always have a religious connotation.

I do not believe in a deity; however, that is not to say I don’t hold things sacred. While I am not a good example of living by the principles I hold sacred, they are sacred to me nevertheless.

For example, I believe in caring for the least of us. I grieve for those for whom life has been cruel. I want to take the pain away from those who are on the verge of suicide because it won’t go away on its own.

When the opportunity presents itself, I try very hard to be present, and to be kind, and when I do, I honor what I hold to be "sacred." My empathy is vast, but my actions have been small, yet I always hope it helps, even for just a moment.

But if it hasn't, I empathize with that as well, for there is a reason the person could not feel my compassion, whether it was my puny effort, or anguish so deep nothing gets through.

I suspect you get my point now, so I'll return Olson’s quote, including the traditional use of “sacred,“ back into the context he meant it to be.

I've pulled this out of its sequence in the article, but it is a great way for me to end on a positive note;

We were horrified and immediately said, 'But Terry doesn't believe in drinking. He's a Mormon.' (The pranksters stopped laughing.) They didn't know what your beliefs were until we told them. They apologized.

While I’m sure most of these kids did believe in God, as is true for the country, it is possible at least one of them did not. If this is true, even as a teen, s/he was still able to show empathy for Terry despite a lack of belief. This is not a little thing, and demonstrates the human capacity for empathy, regardless of who we worship, or not.

You don't need to believe in a deity to recognize how miraculous our ability to emphasize is. Many of us struggle with this concept, including me. But I truly believe we're all doing the best we can to honor the sacred within each of us so that we can honor the same in others. Sappy, I know, but that's what I believe.

Changing gears, I have a question: Olson wrote:

An assault on my leaders, however minor, was all too familiar to Jewish history.

Does anyone know what he meant by this? Other than the issue with proxy baptism, which I can't imagine is what Olson is referring to, I am not aware of Jewish history containing assaults on LDS leaders. Anyone?

Elphaba

[Maureen]

...I do wonder why the author included Black's affiliation with "Milk." Given it is about Harvey Milk's gay activism, what does that have to do with exposing the temple rites?

I believe his affiliation with Milk is mentioned due to the recent airing of the Oscars. I for one watched the Oscars, so when reading Dustin Black and Milk I automatically went "Aha" and put a face to the name. I vividly remember Dustin Black (Lance) and his speech after he accepted his Oscar.

M.

[sim_alyb]

When I heard about this, I also felt very sad. A few of the replies have already touched on the fact that this will not hurt the work of the Lord, which "no unhallowed hand can stop...from progressing." I also found a good article about this on the Church's newsroom site.

The Publicity Dilemma - LDS Newsroom

[Maureen]

I was actually wondering if Hanks' anger at the Church over its support of Proposition 8 had anything to do with the decision to include the temple rites in the show, effectively breaking the assurance HBO made to the Church about separating the fictional pseudo-Mormons on 'Big Love' from the real Mormons of the world....

Tom Hanks eventually apologized for his remarks.

"Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as 'un-American,'" the actor said in a statement through his publicist. "I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination."

"But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American," the statement continues. "To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are 'un-American' creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use 'un- American' lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have."

FOXNews.com - Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American' - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

M.

[Maureen]

Statement from HBO

"We know that the writers/executive producers of the series have gone to great lengths to be respectful and accurate in portraying the endowment ceremony. That ceremony is an important part of this year's storyline. Obviously, it was not our intention to do anything disrespectful to the church. To those who may be offended, we offer our sincere apology. It should also be noted that throughout the series' three-year run, the writer/executive producers have made abundantly clear the distinction between the LDS church and those extreme fringe groups who practice polygamy."

Statement from Big Love creators Mark V. Olsen and Will Scheffer

"In approaching the dramatization of the endowment ceremony, we knew we had a responsibility to be completely accurate and to show the ceremony in the proper context and with respect. We therefore took great pains to depict the ceremony with the dignity and reverence it is due. This approach is entirely evident in the scene portrayed in this episode and certainly reflected in Jeanne Tripplehorn's beautiful and moving performance as she faces losing the Church she loved so much. In order to assure the accuracy of the ceremony, it 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."

HBO releases statements on controversial "Big Love" episode depicting LDS temple rite - ABC 4.com

I'm sure these words don't really make it any easier, but at least they are aware of LDS members concerns.

M.