HBO Recreates Portions of Temple Ceremony

[Maxel]

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."

True, he made an official apology to an obviously offended group that he made a stupid and untrue remark about. However, the original sentiment is still there: he doesn't like us right now.

Statement from HBO

...

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

To me, this makes it worse. They're basically saying they are well aware of the concerns and that Mormons hold the temple ceremony sacred, but they're proceeding anyway. That's like someone apologizing to a Muslim before they burn a copy of the Qu'ran. There are other ways to achieve the director's goals without recreating the endowment ceremony. Pretending there was 'no other way' to is preposterous, unless they plan to make the events of the endowment ceremony somehow integral to the plot: in which case the situation gets worse!

Luckily, this will all blow over soon. They'll answer to God eventually- especially their 'consultant'.

[Elphaba]

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.

If Black had written a sympathetic Oscar-winning screenplay about Mother Theresa’s life, I highly doubt the e-mail’s author would have mentioned it, as it would not have had the same stomach-punch mentioning “Milk” did. In fact, it might have diluted it.

When the newly stung members of the Church discovered Black had written the show that betrayed their most sacred temple rites, of course they were stunned and angry.

Then when they read Black was also the award-winning author of “Milk,“ a sympathetic portrayal of a man who promoted a gay lifestyle, it had to further sting many of the members all the more. I’m not saying every member who read the e-mail was affected, but I strongly suspect a significant number of them were.

I doubt the e-mail’s author literally thought this through, but I don’t think she was oblivious to the effect it would have on her readers. Even if her motive was entirely benign, she had to have known it would elicit a negative response.

If not, she’s had her head in the sand for the last two years.

Elphaba

[lestertheemt]

"If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world." The Public Delemma, LDS Newsroom March 9, 2009.

All I can add is....isn't it great that we are lead by a Prophet of God!!

[Hemidakota]

It seems even the Washington Post had something to say:

HBO, Mormons square off over airing of sacred rite - washingtonpost.com

[Wingnut]

It's not only here, but other places as well, that I've read speculation from members of the Church that this episode is in some way retribution by Tom Hanks for Prop 8.

(1) Tom Hanks is a happily married straight man.

(2) I'm sure he has better things to do with his time than sitting around thinking "What can I do to stick it to the Mormons today? Hmmm...maybe I'll air their most sacred ordinances on television! Yeah, that'll show 'em!"

(3) Tom Hanks is one of 22 producers of the show, and there are five producers that have more episode credits than Mr. Hanks has.

(4) Tom Hanks is a very talented man. He happens to not agree with a political position of the Church. So what?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Barb, goes through the endowment ceremony as she faces losing her membership in the Mormon church.

Now that puzzles me. How would someone facing losing their membership be in a position to go to the temple?

I have never heard of this TV show so I assume it's something we don't get here in the UK.

[Hemidakota]

Looking into the externalities....Who is Tom Hanks again? :)

Edited March 11, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Gwen]

what we already know of the show there is an error already pointed out in post #2 of this thread..... i'm sorry, if their great consultant got that wrong who knows what else he can't remember accurately. lol

in my opinion and caution to all of this: we as endowed members need to be very careful getting pulled into this trap. i figure it will be much like the picture already released, some accurate some glaringly wrong..... what tends to happen in those situations is when pointing out that it wasn't 100% accurate like the producers claim it will be ppl will ask.... well what was wrong about it? now not only do you expose what is accurate and what is not you are beguiled into the situation of correcting it. leave them to question what was and was not accurate, it is not for you to correct, do not entertain the conversations. if we play this game we will expose our sacrad ordinances more than hbo ever could. in the process you may even break covenants.

if ever asked about it my canned response (which is the only way to handle situations like this is a canned response) will be.... i did not watch it, nor will i ever not even out of curiosity. i will not watch any programing that braggs it will "expose sacred ordinances or rituals" of any religion, including my own. i have seen the picture from the tv guide. it isn't as accurate as the program claims it is. therefore i can't imagine the rest of it was anymore accurate. if you want to know more of my religion why not ask me or better come to church with me. i wouldn't trust hbo to be my teacher on any religion, they create fictional stories, that's their profession. and they are good at it."

[Wingnut]

what we already know of the show there is an error already pointed out in post #2 of this thread..... i'm sorry, if their great consultant got that wrong who knows what else he can't remember accurately. lol

The fact that the apron was blue in the photo instead of green could just be lighting or exposure on the photo for all I know.

[Gwen]

lol and if that's the case then if nothing else they got the lighting wrong..... in various lighting mine has never looked blue. lol

my point is this is nothing more than a trap to get us talking...... to get us as close to the line of our covenants as possible..... make something "common" and see if we won't violate our covenants. maybe the producers don't sit around saying "how can i mess with the mormons today" but we do know of someone that does. you can bet his influence is prevalent. the game of mingling fact with fiction has been one of the most successful ploys used since the beginning of time. i will not play. i will not get into a debate as to what is accurate and what is not. i will not discuss the details of the temple on such irreverent terms.

[Elphaba]

Now that puzzles me. How would someone facing losing their membership be in a position to go to the temple?

I wondered the same thing.

I haven't watched the show since last season, and am not familiar with the story line, so I don't knw when Barb re-joined the Church. But wouldn't she have had to wait at least a year before going through the temple.

Also, I don't know if this would really happen, but as part of the repentance process required to be re-baptised, might not she be excommunicated first for having lived in polygamy?

Even after she once again is a member in full standing, is it possible she would get a TR given her husband is still a polygamist?

I don't know the answers to any of the above, but I agree with Willow: The timing here is way off.

But then, this is Hollywood.

Elphaba

[Vort]

You don't need to believe in a deity to recognize how miraculous our ability to emphasize is.

I assume you meant "empathize" rather than "emphasize". Since I don't understand what the term "miraculous" can mean to an atheist, I'm having difficulty understanding your point.

Changing gears, I have a question: Olson wrote: 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?

I.e. "Jewish history is replete with examples of assaults on its leaders, so she empathized with my plight."

[lilered]

I guess I am not one that believes in some type of conspiracy at play. Instead it is simply the devil slowly at work defiling anything sacred. We all should realize that while he may win some battles, he will not win the war. Thus, we need to worry ourselves about holding onto the rod and perfecting ourselves. God will take care of the rest, he always has, he always will.

[Hemidakota]

Big Love network apologizes to Mormons | Entertainment | Television | Reuters

[Elphaba]

HBO, Mormons square off over airing of sacred rite - washingtonpost.com

From the article:

"Obviously, it was not our intention to do anything disrespectful to the church, but to those who may be offended, we offer our sincere apology," the premium cable chanhnel said in a statement issued Tuesday.

An apology to those who are offended is not an apology at all; it is a passive/aggressive attempt to pacify those ignorant Mormons by apologizing to them, wich is passive, and then dismissing their being offended by choosing to air the show anyway, which is aggressive.

It's the same as saying "I'm sorry you're feelings are hurt.“ In fact, he is not sorry at all; rather, he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and so he turns it around and blames her for feeling hurt.

If he were truly sorry, he would not only admit he was wrong, he would do whatever necessary to eliminate his actions that hurt her in the first place. Or, if he truly believed he had done nothing wrong, he should not have apologize at all, as false apologies are veiled insults that demean the person for feeling hurt in the first place.

HBO's apology is the same thing. It insults the Church’s members by saying it is “obvious” the show’s creators did not intend to disrespect the Church’s beliefs, when it is “obvious“ they could not have cared less about the Church members‘ feelings.

If HBO were truly sorry, it would do something to dissipate the Sant's anger about the episode. Perhaps a sincere public apology, admitting that portraying the temple rites was wrong and disrespectful to the Church would help dampen the anger. Perhaps not.

But it is folly to assume these Mormons who are offended are so ignorant they're not going to notice that HBO did not sincerely apologize at all.

Elphaba

[Vort]

Big Love network apologizes to Mormons | Entertainment | Television | Reuters

If I offend you by breaking your jaw, I sincerely apologize in advance. My fist to your face is not meant in an unfriendly way. I hope you can be mature enough to recognize that I mean no harm.

[lilered]

Elpha: Passive/aggresive attempt ?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Kinda like being a little bit pregnant ain't it?

[Maureen]

Now that puzzles me. How would someone facing losing their membership be in a position to go to the temple?

She's probably just being proactive. Only a small portion of people know her family's polygamous activities, one being her sister. In the last episode her sister is devulging to Barb's last Bishop that she is living a "plual marriage" lifestyle. Her sister may confess to her what she did, so Barb may be thinking before her TR is taken away she may find solace in the Temple.

[Elphaba]

I assume you meant "empathize" rather than "emphasize".

Thanx for the corrextion, I sinceerly appresiate it. Mie only xcuse is I got stoopid when I got oiled.

Since I don't understand what the term "miraculous" can mean to an atheist, I'm having difficulty understanding your point.

That is unfortunate.

I.e. "Jewish history is replete with examples of assaults on its leaders, so she empathized with my plight."

That is not what Olson said.

He wrote:

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.

Obviously the author is speaking of his leaders, not hers.

In fact, if it were the woman speaking, as you suggested, I doubt she'd say ". . . however minor, . . . " We all know assaults on the Jews, including their leaders, have been far from minor.

So I ask again, what assaults and what leaders?

Thanks again for catching my spelling error.

Elphaba

PS: When you put a sentence in quote marks, you are indicating the sentence is verbatim. Since Olson did not write: "Jewish history is replete with examples of assaults on its leaders, so she empathized with my plight." you should not have put it in quote marks. E.

[Elphaba]

Elpha: Passive/aggresive attempt ?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Kinda like being a little bit pregnant ain't it?

Hey Red,

You've never heard of passive/aggressive? It's a very common behavior in human beings. Not me, of course. But lots of other people are passive/aggressive. Let me think of an example:

Okay, I've got one. Since it has been incessantly discussed, you may have heard that I am always late. While it is not true, if it were that would be my passive behavior.

And because I am supposedly always late, I have aggressively caused an unwanted situation for my friends who are waiting for me, including making them extremely annoyed.

For example, my friends may worry that I am hurt, stranded, pulled over, or just blew them off because a cute fireman flirted with me. Thus, my passive behavior (being late) has aggressively put my friends in a situation they don't want to be in.

Just in case I haven't explained it well, this is from Wiki:

Passive-aggressive behavior is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible. It is a defense mechanism, and (more often than not) only partly conscious. For example a worker asked to organize a meeting might happily agree, but will then take so long on each task in the process and offer excuses such as calls not being returned or that the computer is too slow, that things aren't ready when the meeting is due to start. A colleague is forced to hurriedly complete the task, or the meeting is postponed.

Back to my always being late, it is a passive myth which was started by my friends' to make fun of me; however, their lies and calumny result in the aggressive behavior where people I do not even know accuse me of being late! What could be more aggressive than that?

Go to chat if you don't believe me.

Elph

[Vort]

PS: When you put a sentence in quote marks, you are indicating the sentence is verbatim. Since Olson did not write: "Jewish history is replete with examples of assaults on its leaders, so she empathized with my plight." you should not have put it in quote marks. E.

By context, it was obvious (I thought) that I was creating a substitute phrase. This is why I used the first person, even though I was not the one actually saying it. In other words, I was writing, "Here is an equivalent phrase that would have meant the same thing that he was saying." As I already said, I thought that was pretty obvious from context. Had I not used quotation marks, as you suggest, the sentence would have appeared to have been coming from me -- but my plight was not the plight with which the Jewish woman was empathizing.

And I'm pretty sure that is what the author meant. Since you freely admit you don't understand the author, and since my explanation makes sense, I would think you might be a bit more receptive to the possibility that it's right, rather than immediately dismiss it.

PS Note in my first paragraph above, I wrote, "I was writing, 'Here is...' " But I was not directly quoting myself in doing so, despite the presence of quotation marks; rather, I was creating a substitute phrase.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Vort

[Stampede]

Everyone needs to read this article:

MormonTimes - Letters better off not sent

[Elphaba]

I see what you mean now, and I agree with you. I appreciate the explanation.

And no, you cannot use quote marks with a substitute phrase. The quote must be verbatim.

Elphaba

[lusciouschaos]

Great article Stampede. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Fiannan]

Orson Scott Card's article is pretty good.

I am disappointed with Big Love doing this (I really enjoy the show) but it isn't unexpected. One does wonder what kinds of letters the producers have received from well-meaning LDS people jumping on them for making such a show. Also, just wait until others in Hollywood decide to write Mormons into scripts in a bad way due to the Prop.8 thing.