Have you heard about the next episode of HBO’s Big Love, set to air on Sunday (March 15, 2009)? It’s being widely reported that the television show will be depicting the LDS temple endowment ceremony as one of the main characters faces losing her LDS Church membership. Read more about it from The Associated Press.
As would be expected by anyone familiar with Mormon culture, the LDS community is up in arms over the proposition of a public viewing of the restricted temple ceremony. The Mormon Church has issued a formal statement encouraging members not to worry and to “conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness” in the face of this new affront. Yet LDS members are quite upset, calling for boycotts and subscription cancellations of services associated with HBO and Time Warner. Joel Campbell at Mormon Times wrote some characteristically strong words about the issue:
“For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Time Warner’s Home Box Office network will cross a very bright ethical line when it airs an episode of ‘Big Love’ Sunday…
“What [Big Love producers] Olsen and Scheffer have created amounts to religious pornography. It takes something that is sacred and meant for personal reflection and commitment and throws it before the masses…
“Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe there should be any effort by government to censor HBO, but I do believe those who care about respect for religious ideals should enter the marketplace of ideas and make calm and reasoned arguments about why this show is offensive. The public should demand HBO observe higher ethical standards. HBO ought to make the ethical decision to pull the show based on its offense to members of the nation’s fourth largest religious denomination.”
The Mormon Curtain wrote that, in reporting the controversy, the Salt Lake Tribune originally published a story with an accompanying photo from the Big Love episode which portrayed the series’ character, Barb, wearing temple clothing complete with veil and fig leaf apron. The newspaper later replaced the photo with a more benign image of the Big Love cast and changed its headline from “‘Big Love’ Trampling the Sacred?” to “LDS Temple secrets? ‘Big Love’ TV episode angers Mormons.”
Mormons have long suggested that temple ceremonies should not be exposed to the public because the ceremonies are sacred. It could be that this phraseology has taken root as a natural response to the accusation from non-Mormons that temple ceremonies are secret. The typical Mormon answer to such an accusation is, “Temples are sacred, not secret.” But non-Mormons don’t understand that as a useful expression of the issue at hand.
We reason, the Book of Mormon is sacred, yet the LDS Church publishes and distributes it throughout the world without compunction. The so-called Sacred Grove, where Joseph Smith allegedly met and spoke with Heavenly Father and His Son in 1830, is today considered sacred ground; yet it is promoted by the LDS Church as a tourist attraction. Many people tramp through the spot each and every day. Both of these things (and others) are revered within the LDS community as “sacred and meant for personal reflection and commitment,” as Joel Campbell put it. Therefore, appealing to the sacred nature of the ceremony isn’t really an adequate explanation for why it is so important that the ceremony be kept hidden from the eyes of the public.
Is it unethical for HBO to portray the LDS temple ceremony on television? Is doing so “religious pornography”? Should HBO pull the show because it is offensive to some number of the nearly six million Mormons who live in the United States? What do you think?
See Also:
How many evangelicals here think it was wrong for ancient Israel to include in its religion the practice of only allowing the High Priest into the Holy of Holies? Or only Levites to officiate in the sacrificial ordinances? The activities and ordinances of the temple were sacred and holy and not intended for the entire world to openly view to satisfy mere shallow curiosity.
Openly showing sacred and holy ceremonies against the wishes of the participating faithful is very well described as religious pornography. If a home movie of a married couple engaged in physical relations was openly shown to the public by a third party, would that not be considered pornography. In this sense, it is taking something that is good and wholesome and appropriate and opening it up to viewing by all. Showing the temple endowment is the same thing.
Our motivation for keeping such things sacred is simply to comply with what we believe is the Lord’s desires. He has commanded that these things be kept sacred. There really is nothing else that would keep me from sharing this with others whom I thought would be respectful.
I am sure many evangelical people here will be happy that LDS will be “exposed” by HBO in this manner. But I find this disrespectful in the highest order. These hollywood types have no decency or civility.
I believe it was said by John Adams that “You have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn’t make saying whatever you want right.” Not everything that is legal is right or moral.
Personally, I don’t see why those not personally invovled with the religion would be so interested in the endowment. But I suppose there is no limit to the capacity of the degenerate to make a joke out of the sacred.
fof
Beautifully said, FOF.
Personally I would add one other point. The Endowment ceremony is intended to further a persons progression in eternity. It is reserved for those who are physically, mentally, and spiritually mature enough to comprehend its meaning and appreciate its purpose. For those who are not mature enough (either physically, mentally, or spiritually) it would only prove their damnation to see it. We are judged according to what we know, and to give a person more knowledge than they can handle is to condemn them (milk before meat – Line Upon Line). I believe that these ceremonies are kept from the world for this reason, so that the Justice of God does not way down quite as heavy on them.
The difference is we know what ceremonies went on in the temple. It wasn’t a you-can’t-tell-anyone-but-its-not-a-secret kind of thing.
I love the double standards. You guys are happy about HBO, freaking HBO which is a manufacturer and distributer of real pornography, doing something offensive to Mormons. Yeah, it doesn’t matter that this is the same channel that distributes Bill Maher’s trash against any and all religions, just as long as they take time to slander Mormons they’re ok in your book. And you guys wonder why we use anti-Mormon to describe people like you?
I am glad that someone has brought the temple ceremonies to the publics attention. I think that if this show prevents one more person from becoming part of the soul-sucking religion that is mormonism, than it has done humankind a favor.
FOF, non-mormons are curious to see what goes on in the temple because the LDS faith is a cult and cults do bizzare and interesting things. Why wouldn’t it be interesting to see people run around in bakers hats and green fig leaf aprons, women being made to veil their faces, the crazy pagan-like chanting, and lets not forget those stupid handshakes that are obviously stolen from the Masons.
Pay-Lay-Ale, Y’all!!!
“Openly showing sacred and holy ceremonies against the wishes of the participating faithful is very well described as religious pornography. If a home movie of a married couple engaged in physical relations was openly shown to the public by a third party, would that not be considered pornography. In this sense, it is taking something that is good and wholesome and appropriate and opening it up to viewing by all. Showing the temple endowment is the same thing.”
Why does it matter what non-Mormons do with your ceremony? It seems like Mormons do not like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Remember the thread about Mormons baptizing by proxy Jewish holocaust survivors?
Before anyone goes down the rabbit trail of “HBO is blurring the lines between LDS Mormons and Fundamentalist polygamists” let it be known that the character Barbara Hendrickson is the one character that is still technically LDS and a polygamist. The rest are either rank-and-file monogamous LDS Mormons or polygamist never-been-LDS Mormons. Barb is the one who will be shown doing the endowment. Anyone who watches the show knows that the distinction is made frequently and part of the drama of the show is the interaction between non-LDS polygamists and LDS Mormons and their church. When it says the lines are blurred, the LDS PR department is crying foul when no foul exist. The Salt Lake Mormon church does not like any talk of polygamy and their church in the same breath even if the discussion is accurate. It is obvious Big Love has theological consultants. In my estimation it is the most theologically oriented and astute show on the air.
The depiction of the endowment will have a context so the writers are not showing it for the sake of showing it. It that way the depiction is not gratuitous. The lines have not been blurred; that is a red herring. So, yeah take issue with Big Love for showing your ceremony but don’t cloud the issue.
From a practical standpoint, I wonder how this will affect LDS youth/teenagers who have never been through the endowment ceremony. Especially because it’s something they prepare for, but are not told what exactly will go on in the temple during the ceremony. I mean, will this completely ruin the whole experience for them? I guess what I mean is, there is so much power endowed (yes, that pun was intended) on things when they are secret (sacred, and yes, secret) and mysterious. If the secret aspect is removed, won’t it make the ceremony less powerful and have less of an impact later on? That being said, I seriously doubt that LDS families are going to sit down together and watch the episode all together, little Bobby and Susie looking on. But still, if teenagers or adults who have not yet been through the temple even see the HBO picture in a newspaper, won’t it lessen some of the LDS authorities’ spiritual power over its members lives?
“Brainwashedmormon”, let’s up the ante. If it was Playboy that had publicly exposed the LDS temple ceremony for purely commercial interests alongside its real pornographic filth, we should still be allowed some nuance: I am happy over part of the outcome (the general public gets better informed about Mormonism and inoculated), yet I wouldn’t approve of the motives behind the publication.
As for HBO being HBO, we of course don’t condone the kind of raunchy filth they distribute. Exposing the LDS temple ceremony doesn’t give them a free pass for that (and if we ever did give someone such a free pass, you’d be right to grill us for it).
But Mormons aren’t primarily complaining that it’s HBO who is exposing the embarrassing ceremony. The primary complaint is that they’re doing it at all. And that’s what we’re reporting and addressing, the kind of arguments Mormons are making against the exposure of the ceremony. Mormon arguments on this issue are self-defeating, as Sharon pointed out, and there needs to be more thoughtful and robust support for the assertion that exposure of the ceremony to non-Mormons is inherently wrong. We’re just not buying it.
Embarrassing ceremonies should be seen as embarrassing. Shameful rituals should be seen as shameful. Masonic borrowings should be seen as borrowings. And if such things are secretive, they should be publicly disseminated, especially if doing so will be a public service, no matter how sacred you feel they are. As Christians we often try to contextualize by accommodating social mores and taboos, but we are not always bound to, especially when being countercultural sheds light on the truth and is for the public good.
Neither Sharon nor I take delight in the mere fact that HBO is upsetting you Mormons. The enemies of our religious enemies are not automatically our friends. But in light of the good that God can work through the public exposure of cultic, secretive ceremonies, we are grateful.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
I have made my thoughts on these issues more clear here and here.
A Mormon friend told me today, and I quote, “The endowment serves to keep the weeds out, which is a great reason to bring back the throat slashing.”
He’s referring to the pre-1990 symbolic throat-slitting and disembowelment gestures.
I had expected this article sooner. Opportunists scavenging scraps of the news wire like vultures!
Let us make something clear. It is not up to Mormon Coffee to suggest what OUGHT to be sacred or ‘secret’ to another religious group. What OUGHT to be- is an environment where religious people are not scorned for what they hold sacred–even if it advances your ‘theological’ or ‘entertainment’ purposes- this post breaks ranks with ethical considerations–forget HBO…you can expect that from Hollywood–you aren’t suppose to get that from ‘Christians’.
Sharon states,
“We reason, the Book of Mormon is sacred, yet the LDS Church publishes and distributes it throughout the world without compunction. The so-called Sacred Grove, where Joseph Smith allegedly met and spoke with Heavenly Father and His Son in 1830, is today considered sacred ground…”
We don’t expect you to agree with our beliefs, Sharon, we only request that you RESPECT THEM! It is so easy to question the sacredness of one’s belief-system when you do not hold it sacred. Any respectful person understands this!
“Is it unethical for HBO to portray the LDS temple ceremony on television?”
Would you appreciate HBO portraying YOUR beliefs OUT OF CONTEXT for ratings? Probably not. Hypocrisy is alive and well on Mormon Coffee.
More importantly, I doubt God appreciates this degrading of HIS purposes. I would fear God more than LDS on this one, folks.
To anyone who has this show scheduled on their DVR–shame on you!
So Amanda, you would be OK with a public show exposing the ceremony if it was in the context of a broader presentation on historic Mormonism?
I doubt that would satisfy Mormons. The watershed issue for Mormons doesn’t seem to be whether the ceremony is shown in instructional, educational, illuminating broader context for non-Mormons, but rather that the ceremony is being showing to non-Mormons at all.
In other words, no negative or critical spotlight allowed.
How is this not demanding an exemption from public scrutiny?
As I wrote before,
Megan,
“But still, if teenagers or adults who have not yet been through the temple even see the HBO picture in a newspaper, won’t it lessen some of the LDS authorities’ spiritual power over its members lives? ”
Any person baptized by proper priesthood authority has the gift of the Holy Ghost to discern truth and wickedness when they see it. I suspect many youth, including adults, who listen to the spirit will not be watching the program…I know I won’t.
I’m really disappointed in your main concern: freeing LDS youth from the spiritual stranglehold of the leaders–instead of how incredibly disrespectful this is to LDS people! Do you not get that? Do you honestly not get that? Our sacred practices are only for those who desire them, whether they grew up on the church or not. Consider the Mormon ‘adviser’…who sold their soul for respect they will never receive–no one had a strangle-hold on him/her.
The more adversity and scorn the church receives, the more I am convinced of its origin: Christ who suffered adversity and scorn at the hands of men. I am willing to endure all kinds of ridicule for His sake, and consider it a badge of honor.
I’m surprised any of you feel comfortable commenting on this thread this way, then pretend to desire friendships with LDS… so disingenuous…SO FAKE!
I think the issue is that Mormons believe JS was a prophet and, therefore, everything that came as a result of his leadership is the way it is supposed to be. The problem arises when changes are made by subsequent Church leaders that supersede the purported revelations of God to JS. The Mormon temple ritual is scrutinized by followers of Jesus Christ to show evidence that JS was not a prophet if indeed what he established needed to be changed. I know the temple ritual has changed so that it is more palatable. The reasons for change are usually so it’s easier for non-Mormons to accept as something “sacred” to the Mormon. Hey, if Mormons want to say it’s sacred to them, then what’s the big deal?: you see, it is sacred to Mormons. But, whether or not something is sacred or secret is not really the point: the point is whether or not the temple ritual is something that God has designed to help us reach the so-called “celestial kingdom,” where we will then become gods. Personally, after having been an active RM, temple-going member, I no longer believe in the temple ritual. I no longer believe in it, because there is nothing–ritual or act–that could ever be needed in addition to what Jesus Christ did for me on the cross before being raised from the dead. After being justified by faith, we become children of God–a change in relationship–and then starts the work of sanctification, or being made holy as God is holy. This process is the work of God, and He is faithful to complete it–it’s not a work that I could ever do. This life is Spirit-empowered living–NOT temple-empowered living. With that said, I hope that I have allowed the Mormons to the right of believing the temple is a “sacred” place for them, even though I don’t believe that. Jesus takes us all the way on His merits: there is no need for a temple endowment to complete the Work on the Cross. And, that’s why it’s important that we discuss this topic.
Peace and Blessings!
I haven’t seen the show at all but it sounds like it is full of all manner of offensive material. Having said that, the reason the mormon temple ceremony is so hush hush is because of how bizarre the events are that happen within the walls. Having been through it myself, I remember how “off” it seemed at the time. We had been built up to expect such a great blessing from it and instead the whole thing was just so incredibly profane. Little wonder that mormons make people wait a year and go through classes before they can “claim their blessings” in the temples. Give a new convert to Christianity any teaching that might ever come up, and while they may not get it totally, it won’t freak them out. Take a new mormon convert into a temple after a month, without all the buildup, and people would leave in droves.
There is plenty that is generally unethical about ‘Big Love’ from what I hear and HBO in general, but there is nothign inherently unethical about protraying a religious ceremony if done factually.
One thing the LDS church has to ‘face up to’ is the internet. In the past the only outside sources about the temple ceremony were disgruntled ex-LDS, books they had written or inspired someone else to write and seminars given by these people. Then the distribution logistics were difficult because they would then have to either advertise the book or seminar, or try and find out who is investigating the LDS church and then get the material to them somehow. This later predicament was done quite efficiently in Finland when the Lutheran priest heard about of of his congregation listening to the LDS missionaries he rang the head office who then sent literature out to the priest who then gave it to the person. The literature was from an ex-LDS member who was being paid by the Finnish Lutheran church to write disparraging things about the LDS church. He got most of his information and writting style from Ed Decker.
These days with the internet, all one has to do is write what they know about a topic and its then in the public domain generally uncersured and uncensurable. So the temple ceremony is out there whether the LDS like it or not. Yes its sacred and they are asked to keep it that way by not talking about it with people who would not understand it without the proper introduction. But its there and everyone who wants to can access it. Now its going into the big arena on TV. I myself would be interested in watching the show just to see how they portray it. They say it has context, etc, so it may just fit in with what they want to say. They will not be showing the whole ceremony (that would be more than the allotted time for the episode) and I wonder which ceremony they will show – the latest, one of the older ones, or an ‘apostate’ version that the FLDS use (if they have one – does anyone know if they do or not?).
I, myself, hold it sacred NOT secret and because of the internet domain would be willing to discuss the ceremony on a one on one basis if that person has a genuine interest to understand it and its context and they show a reasonable amount of respect towards the ceremony and my beliefs. In that way, the person would most likely walk away with a greater understanding of how sacred and important it is and what its meaning is. But that is my view.
But the internet is an issue for the LDS church and I think from the statement from the church referenced above is taking this into consideration as well as falling back on the statement by JS saying that this is the true church and no matter what happens it will go on until the Second Coming. This (ie the TV show) could be a small stumbling block, or it could be a good missionary tool.
Aaron,
You aren’t outsmarting anyone, “So Amanda, you would be OK with a public show exposing the ceremony if it as in the context of a broader presentation on historic Mormonism?”
The endowment is only in context when received by a worthy member earnestly desiring to enter into that covenant IN THE TEMPLE. Any other forum by any other individual with a less-than-wholesome agenda (such as HBO’s entertainment agenda, and your philosophical agenda) is OUT OF CONTEXT…this is reminiscent of those demanding to see the golden plates! You don’t make demands of God! You humble yourself, and God shows you His mysteries on His OWN terms.
“How is keeping this ceremony secret respectful of those who would appreciate making a more informed decision as to whether or not to join or stay in the Mormon Church?”
First of all, you can stay in the church and never go to the temple. So let’s eradicate that falsehood right away. As to the rest of your statement: circular logic. Missionaries don’t ask people to go to the temple–they ask them to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
“Insisting that I comply to the demand of Mormons to keep the ceremony secret is essentially insisting that I treat the ceremony as more sacred than the people who would be positively affected by open exposure to the ceremony.”
Aaron, you are confusing. What is your need to know about a ceremony you do not want to participate in? Can you not let things alone, and respect the desire of LDS to keep their practices sacred? If you truly are curious about the endowment, you know the proper channels to learn more about it–and it isn’t from Hollywood or Mormon Coffee. So quit it with the victim hood role–you aren’t convincing anyone!
It will always remain a ‘secret’ to those who refuse to humble themselves before God and acknowledge its’ sacredness. So in that way, I suppose it is a secret–to you, and others by your own choices. God is demanding this remain in a sacred context–not LDS. And all we are insisting is that you reasonably respect what is sacred to others. The things of God are for GOD to teach and instruct—not HBO or Aaron Shafavoloff, or the devil. So be honest…your intentions are FAR from humble curiosity and interest–and more along the lines of exploitation at the expense of others. You will not see the consequences of this show airing like the LDS community will. I’m truly disgusted.
Arthur,
So i guess there would be nothing wrong with portraying an intimate relationship with you and your wife (assuming you are married) so long as it is FACTUAL? Or teenage girls distributing nude pictures of their unaware classmates so long as it is FACTUAL?
Amanda,
Have you been to the temple to receive your endowment? If you have I would be interested in hearing your reaction to the process and if you would have preferred more detailed information about what will be required of you before going through with it. I think this can be done without discussing specifics.
Personally, I was a Mormon for 29 years and spent more time in the temple then I care to admit now. I think the desire to keep it away from the general public is more from the obscure, “Gadianton like” rituals, trying to protect the “we are Christian too” image the LDS church is pushing.
They chant “sacred not secret” but I don’t think they are fooling anyone. The only reason it is not secret is because some have already exposed it through various means so the secret is out. There is something inherently wrong with an organization that refuses to properly inform its member of a “special blessing” and what is required of them to receive it until they have already fully committed to it. I applaud anyone who has the strength and courage to stand up (in front of your family and leaders) and walk out of the endowment room when they ask if there is anyone not willing to go through the ceremony (not knowing what lies ahead of course).
Keep in mind that there is no way they will be able to show the entire temple experience so more then likely they will show a brief part of the endowment, possibly part of the washing and anointing and the celestial room (from the picture). I doubt all of your sacred signs and tokens will be on public display…just one or two.
I hope Google is ready for the swell in “Mormon temple” searches Sunday night.
Amanda, I will let the words of an ex-Mormon Christian speak to your comment:
Aaron…AMEN TO THAT
What a great letter…that could have been me writting those words.
Aaron,
That isn’t a response…that is propaganda. It doesn’t reflect faithful members’ perspective–and there are millions of us. I doubt your blog has the capacity to list all the testimony ever given over the pulpit in the church regarding temples- I remain unmoved and certain that your position is vacuous at best.
And winner number 2 of the Vacuous Position Award goes to….
Soy yo,
I don’t see how my being endowed or not is relevant to the topic. This is about respecting what other people find sacred–and not selling it for an agenda…no matter how much you disagree with those practices. Going down Tangent Lane and visiting every shop selling anti-mormon propaganda is missing the point.
I’m sorry you are so ashamed of God. Make no mistake, I do not fear for myself…but I wonder if you fear for yourself given your blatant apostasy. You did make a promise of your own free will and choice to respect the proceedings–so just that alone would place you in an unworthy category as far as honesty and virtue are concerned.
authors,
(You have got to be kidding me! you are censoring [filtered profanity or slur] Give me a break!)
Moderator’s note: Don’t try to get around the filter or you’ll get a “card”. More on the a-word here.
I wonder how non-Mormon masons feel about their sacred rituals being lifted by Joseph Smith? I can honestly state that “Joseph started it”. He is the one who showed masonic rituals to non-masons which then became a standard part of Mormonism. Big Love is outing a Mormon ceremony that was stolen from free masonry. Seriously, how can Mormons claim to have dibs on a ceremony that they ‘incorporated’ from masonry? It seems like the Masons should be the ones to be ticked off.
SoYo wrote
There is something inherently wrong with an organization that refuses to properly inform its member of a “special blessing” and what is required of them to receive it until they have already fully committed to it.
that pretty much hits the nail right on the head…..as long as the LDS cling to the sacred=secret formula (against all biblical counsel), don’t expect this debate to cool at all
nice work Sharon, AARON, SoYo
GERMIT
Amanda: pound the table and shriek, but it’s hard to defend the kind of secrecy you hold up as respect…..you don’t have a biblical precedent, that I can see.
Amanda, I’m sorry that you feel angry towards me, this format, and others on here who are in favor of LDS temple ceremonies being exposed. Yes, I am in favor of the ceremonies being “made public”. I am far more concerned with people (teenagers among them) being freed from an untrue belief system. As far as respecting the temple ceremony, I don’t respect it because I believe it is unbiblical, and serves as a huge psychological power over Mormon’s lives. So much is tied to the temple. If you don’t wear your undergarments or follow the Wow, no temple for you. If you don’t get married in the temple, you don’t get to the CK. Do you see how this could serve to control people psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually, especially when there is such an element of secrecy until members are deemed “worthy” enough? Even worse, the ceremonies are tied to people’s salvation when the NT is clear that ceremonies do not save people. I will tell you how I do respect your temple ceremonies: I respect the fact that they are important and sacred to you, but that does not mean the topic should be off-limits to non-Mormons. I don’t like or watch HBO, but if some good can come out of this show exposing one of the temple ceremonies, then I am happy. As far as pretending to want friendships with LDS people, I actually have a few….in real life. I would never say to my LDS friends in person, “Tell me about those secret ceremonies of yours.” That conversation wouldn’t go very far. But, this blog is an open forum where Christian and Mormon issues can be discussed and everything is on the table, so I think this subject is appropriate to this blog. The fact that this subject is open for discussion should not lead to shock or or a sense of betrayal. Why shouldn’t we discuss an issue that so deeply affects Mormons’ salvation, and the biblical ramifications of such ceremonies? As far as comparing temple ceremonies to a husband and wife having sex, I think that is a real stretch. LDS ceremonies include many people, husband/wife relations include only two people.
Amanda, it actually has everything to do with it. You have not been there so you don’t really know what you are defending.
You said:
”I’m sorry you are so ashamed of God. Make no mistake, I do not fear for myself…but I wonder if you fear for yourself given your blatant apostasy. You did make a promise of your own free will and choice to respect the proceedings–so just that alone would place you in an unworthy category as far as honesty and virtue are concerned.”
Ashamed of God I am not. I love and worship God now more then ever. My relationship with Him has grown exponentially since leaving the LDS church and discovering the power and life available through His grace.
Did I promise to not reveal the secret (read sacred) goings on of the temple? Yes. Did I make that promise before actually being shown and going through the things I was supposed to keep secret? Yes.
It is like someone coming up to you and saying, “Don’t be offended but…” While you might say ok, you have no way of knowing what is going to come out of the person’s mouth next so your promise to not be offended is easily broken when you hear what comes next. Should you really be held to that if what happens next is so offensive that you cringe at just the though of what you experienced?
Talking about honesty and virtue and the LDS church is a can of worms I don’t think you want to open.
Until you go through the temple yourself, you will never understand. I’m ok with the “evil apostate” label. My family has actually called me worse.
Germit,
It is my turn to say nice post. You summed it all up, “you don’t have a biblical precedent.” End of story, shut out the lights, …”you don’t have a biblical precedent.” I can’t seem to be able to type that enough, “you don’t have a biblical precedent.” Wow it just rolls of my fingers, “you don’t have a biblical precedent.”
Wait, “you don’t have a biblical precedent” in case you missed it. There realy isn’t anything else to be said.
You don’t have a biblical precedent. Sorry, I coundn’t help myself.
Amanda: sorry for the ‘dog-pile”, but I’m sure you can get some lds friends to reply back with you
since you brought up the analogy: God does not mind talking about sex, it’s to be done privately, but IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT, we share that info with our kids just as soon as they are of age to hear it. Woe to the parents that hold back that education, or leave it to the schools to do it. There is nothing “shrouded” about it, even though the acts themselves are private. God does not mind people knowing what is going on, and this does not HAVE to lead to porn. God ordained and secretive just don’t mix. At least they shouldn’t.
you seem to be the flavor of the week here at MC
hoping you opt for openness in all your worship
GERMIT
PS to Gundek: I KNEW you could be naughty…….I’m still laughing at my boy Gun-dog snapping off…..
It amazes me that LDS are up in arms about this up coming episode when you can find all the temple ceremonies online. They have been there for all the world to see for many years now including actual audio.
We’ve had “Big Love” screen here in Australia.
I don’t watch it, but I’ve seen snippets, so I understand the plot scenario (one husband with three(?) wives and several adult children).
Are the characters presented as being part of a Mormon community?
Amanda wrote “Any person baptized by proper priesthood authority has the gift of the Holy Ghost to discern truth and wickedness when they see it.”
Seems to me that LDS teaching relies on water baptism in order to get the baptism of the Holy Ghost (in other words, faith in the system). If I understand correctly, Amanda’s logic is No Baptism = No Holy Ghost = Be vulnerable to the untruths of HBO.
So, what was going on in Acts 10:44-48? These folks got the baptism of the Holy Ghost before baptism by water; to quote;-
“44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
As Gundeck so delighted in MrGermit’s comment, “You’ve got no Biblical precedent”.
LDS can’t expect the world to be ethical and respectful just because they’re offended by HBO. Grow up. Life’s not fair. Deal with it. If HBO has a show about a Hindu wedding, that does not mean they’re mocking it. LDS is just upset because their public relations and marketing departments can’t control this. Seekers are not supposed to find out about the weird stuff until they’ve been “courted” for a while.
Biblical precedent for “secrecy” or a better term- selective access? How about there being in the temple a place where only one person can enter- once a year. Those who were not Israelite were not allowed in the temple. The sacred items- ark, menorah, staff, etc. were seen by very few. Just because we know now what happened in the ancient temple does not mean outside people of the day were allowed any access to such knowledge. I am actually stunned that people claim there is no precedent for this concept.
Aaron- there is nothing embarrassing or shameful about the endowment. It is God Himself that you shame in such statements.
A person immersed in the world will not recognize or appreciate that which God holds dear or which deserves reverence. Reminds me of the words of Nephi: “For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet.”
How about the Savior Himself: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.” Is there anything you would withhold from others due to its holiness? If not, yours is not the religion of which Christ spoke.
It is truly amazing how well people who call themselves Christians justify treating other people with such disrespect. The willingness to injure others is astonishing. Great efforts are exerted to define the theological criteria for being a “Christian.” Yet the same people turn around and think nothing about stomping on the religious feelings and dignity of their neighbor. Talk about straining at knats and swallowing camels.
What matters to God? Everything I read in scripture suggests that what matters most to God is how we treat those around us. This comes before all intellectual or theological considerations. Consider Christ’s response when asked which was the greatest commandments- “Love the Lord thy God and Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
But people choose to justify unchristian treatment of others because their “love” of their neighbor is of a “higher order.” “I know what is good for my neighbor.”
By the way, I find it fascinating that 99.9% of LDS critics never look into the actual text of the Book of Mormon, but are very eager to sit and watch demonstrations of the endowment. So very lazy and shallow. Juvenile. Weak minded.
fof
“By the way, I find it fascinating that 99.9% of LDS critics never look into the actual text of the Book of Mormon, but are very eager to sit and watch demonstrations of the endowment. So very lazy and shallow. Juvenile. Weak minded.”
By the way, I find it fascinating that 99.9% of LDS have never even watched the actual show Big Love, but are very eager to sit and pass judgment on the context of the show. So very lazy and shallow. Juvenile. Weak minded.
FOF,
Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall ever reading about LDS temple worship the way it is today in the Book of Mormon. Looking into the actual text of the BoM does no good if there is nothing there to support Mormon doctrines like the temple.
Wait, it does talk about Gadianton and the secret oaths and covenants.
Helaman 6:26
26 Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman; but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit—
Is that the reference to actual Book of Mormon text you were looking for?
Amanda,
You said the following:
“The more adversity and scorn the church receives, the more I am convinced of its origin: Christ who suffered adversity and scorn at the hands of men. I am willing to endure all kinds of ridicule for His sake, and consider it a badge of honor.”
If adversity and scorn is an indicator of correct teachings and divine origins, then it should follow that paganism is correct. Between 1480 to 1700, tens of thousands of people in europe lost their lives for holding onto pagan belief, and not converting to christianity. Even children as young as two years old were accused of witchcraft and burned alive.
The abrahamic religions have a long standing condemnation and persecution for gentile/pagan religion. From wikipedia:
“The Hebrew Bible condemns sorcery. Deuteronomy 18:11-12 calls it an “abomination” and Exodus 22:18 prescribes “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”[4], and tales like that of 1 Samuel 28, reporting how Saul “hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land”[5] suggesting that in practice, sorcery could at least lead to exile.
In later Jewish history, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach – Pharisee scholar and Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the First Century B.C. – is reported to have on a single day sentenced to death eighty women in Ashkelon, who had been charged with witchcraft.”
The hebrew god had these instructions reguarding pagan objects
Deut 7: 4-5
“For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”
Here is an example of scorn of pagan objects.
“Deuteronomy 7:25
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
7:26
Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
Killing of entire gentile cities.
QUOTE FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD: Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Show no mercy to the Goyim.”
2:30
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
2:31
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
2:32
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
2:33
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
2:34
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: ”
I am sure there are other examples of adversity and scorn from one faith to another, some of which could have nothing to do with the LDS faith or any of the abrahamic religions.
From my own personal experience of being married to a TBM the “magic PJ” are a complete turn off and put up a HUGE barrier between husband and wife. I wish I go back in time and say NO when I was asked if I minded her doing the “temple” stuff. Now I get to live with the aftermath.
Philippians 1:21
For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Arthur,
Apparently, having been a LDS does not make a person immune from naivite’ regarding church doctrine. Who ever said that every truth or doctrine was outlined in either the Bible or Book of Mormon? It is a goofy argument, in my opinion, that since the temple endowment is not identified and explained in the BOM that this somehow proves one of the two false- either the BOM or the ordinances. Why does the endowment have to be referenced in the BOM? Must God do things the way you want Him to?
The comparison that you and others make between Gadianton Robbers and the Temple is also quite goofy. They really are silly observations. What are the motives and intentions that the Gadianton robbers hide? Something about murdering innocent men, women, and children and something about plunder. The connection to the temple couldn’t be clearer. Ha Ha Ha!
The devil has counterfeits for almost everything sacred.
You misunderstood my point, or I didn’t make it clear. The fact that critics will spend significant time watching re-enactments of the endowment yet never read the Book of Mormon shows their true colors. They seek quick and cheap titillation, not real understanding.
fof
FoF,
I was the one who mentioned the Gadianton oaths. I brought them up because that was what ran through my mind over and over again the first time I went through the temple.
I never said I thought Gadianton was participating in temple worship. I look more at how the act of participating in secret oaths and covenants is not looked upon in a good light and actually said to have come from Satan. I found nothing in the current LDS temple endowment to make me thing the secret oaths and signs I made came from a different source then those of Gadianton. Do modern LDS go around killing and plundering? Of course not, but that does not mean there could not be another purpose to keeping them from the general public.
The idea of “the fullness of the Gospel” in the Book of Mormon has been kicked around enough so I don’t think we need to go down that path again. I think 29 years of activity in the Mormon church puts me in a pretty good place to see both sides and “understand” the issues at hand. For what it is worth, I stopped counting how many times I made it through the Book of Mormon but I would guess it is over 15.
I’m off to bed…
Enki,
your comment about not talking about the temple outside of it is not exactly true. Before I went to the temple my stake president sat down with me (actually, we took a walk down his street) and explained to me most of what happens in the temple including the initiatory work. I went through the temple in 1989 so it was before the changes to shorten the ceremony. He did leave a few things out, but what he explained to me is all found in the scriptures in one form or another – but not directly indicated as part of a temple ceremony.
As for your question about discussing it in the temple – most of it can be and is discussed within the temple, especially with those who are going through for the first time – if they had any questions about their experience.
At least that was and has been my experience. It is possibly different in other temples and for other people because of the people and their ‘inhibitions’ in that area.
Martin,
The characters in Big Love are a mixed bag. The main family, the Hendricksons, live in Utah (in or near Salt Lake City) and are non-LDS. They are “Mormon” in that they believe in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith is a prophet. One of the wives (the one who will be doing the endowment) has an LDS background and is still technically a member though she is inactive. Much of the Hendrickson’s drama takes place with Mormon fundamentalists from “Juniper Creek” which parallels a real fundamentalist community by the name of Short Creek.
FoF,
The issue people have with temple ceremonies is not goofy. If temple ordinances are a big deal, necessary, and ancient then expecting to see a mere reference to them in at least one ancient witness (the Bible or the BoM) is not asking for too much. Furthermore, in the Bible, the role of the temple seems very different from the modern LDS use of it. No marriages, no handshakes, just a whole lot killing. It is all about death, (animal) sacrifice, and atonement (OK some of the offerings were grain offerings). So when the BoM comes along, and has temples in it, it would go along way to bolster Joseph Smith’s claim that the ceremonies are ancient if they are found in his ancient witness.
Still Furthermore, we do know the origin of Mormon temple practices (at least some of them) and they are not ancient. They are Masonic and are no more than 600 years old at the most. This further hurts the credibility of Mormonism’s claims. So, it is not a smoking gun to state that the temple ceremonies are not found in the Bible or the BoM. It is even a bit of a non-sequitur . It is all about building a case and for your temples it does not look good.
Enki said “About the word ’sacred’, from what I understand the word derives from the latin ’sacrum’, refering to the tail bone”
Enki,
I appreciate your etymology, and I find it quite fascinating.
However, you might agree that the modern use of words does not always agree with their origins. I don’t think (and I invite anyone to correct me), that anyone here is using the word ‘sacred’ with an association to ‘tailbone’. Rather, we’re searching for a word to convey a sense of “special”, in particular “special to God and worthy of deference”.
There are some words in English that now have very different meanings to their ancestors; for example “silly” and “protest” (as in “Protestant”).
We digress a little, but the evolving use of language is one reason why there can never be an exact translation of the Bible; translators are always weighing transliteration against dynamic equivalence.
Again, I appreciate your exploration of the origins of some of the words used here. However, I trust that you will grant them the same understanding that is meant by the people who write them, and this will, on occasion, be different from their original meanings.
Tom Hanks puts this brouhaha into perspective (and waxes prophetic) at the 3rd season premiere of Big Love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7JgK_mmEBk
“There’s gonna be lies, and secrets, and discoveries, and problems. Television!”
First let me apologize for repeatedly writing, “You don’t have a biblical precedent.” It was uncalled for and juvenile. Looking back I should have just complimented Germit for his keen observation and not made a spectacle.
FoF,
Your comparison of the exclusion of non-Hebrews from participating in the Temple or Tabernacle sacrifices to Mormon rituals in your temples does not hold water. The book of Leviticus prescribes the sacrifices to be preformed in the Tabernacle, these are not secrets. In fact Leviticus 10:1-2 show how serious God takes worship, when he reigned fire down on the sons of Aaron for using unauthorised fire before the Lord.
Your quoting of Matt 7:6 is, taken out of context. The pearls in this verse represent the value of the message of the kingdom of heaven, the Gospel. Jesus is telling his disciples to examine the people that they proclaim the Gospel to and to move on if they sinfully reject it. There is nothing about hiding secret ceremonies.
You go on to quote Jesus when he says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 22:37–38; Mark 12:28–31). Jesus is quoting from the Shema in Deut 6:4-9. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Do you not see the irony in this? This verse alone undermines all of the claims of Joseph Smith when he created the endowment ceremony. In fact I would say that the clearest thing in all of the Bible is that there is but one God.
Fof: you wrote:
How about the Savior Himself: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.” Is there anything you would withhold from others due to its holiness? If not, yours is not the religion of which Christ spoke.
there is a difference between something “withheld” and something kept secret. Jesus was not into secrecy, and that is just not the biblical standard for anything holy. We know quite a bit about what the high priests did and didn’t do, what the ark was all about, etc. and this info is available TO ALL: GOD is not keeping that to HIMSELF, granted the info will not help those who choose to reject the giver of such marvelous channels of grace. Again, your reference falls flat: secret does not equal sacred, never has and never will. Granted, HBO might not handle the disclosure of the holy in the most sympathetic of manner, but you are barking up the wrong tree to have your temple ceremonies “off limits” to all inquiry or discussion.
You will get a big AMEN on this (we need our secrecy) from anyone from a GNOSTIC background or worldview….hmmmmm.
I do like this quote of yours.
The devil has counterfeits for almost everything sacred.
I also appreciate your reminding us that GOD very much cares how we treat each other. That needs to be said, and restated, and lived out. I sure need the reminder.
Blessings on you and yours
PS: working on James today, thanks for waiting
GERMIT
David wrote “[The temple is] all about death, (animal) sacrifice, and atonement (OK some of the offerings were grain offerings).”
David,
Thanks for the background on “Big Love”.
Regarding the Temple, I seriously think that our understanding of the Bible is inhibited because we have nothing like the Jerusalem Temple in operation today. BTW you’re right to assert that the LDS Temples are nothing like the Biblical Temple, but neither are any Christian churches (though they don’t pretend to be).
The way I read it, in the ancient near east the Temple’s functions were broadly;
1 The centre of the city, providing a common meeting place for the people for them to affirm their collective identity through various festivals and activities
2 The defining architecture of the city, in the sense that the city got its “character” and reputation from the deity that was celebrated in the temple
3 The place where animals would be slaughtered and where you’d get your food (literally, your “daily bread”)
4 The repository for important documents and national treasures
5 The place for common worship, with concentric rings of exclusion (note that the ‘outer’ courts were usually accessible to all and sundry)
I wonder if the Jerusalem Temple differed from the others because of the occasional public recital of scripture. Judging from the Gospel records, it was obviously a place where people would meet and discuss scripture (Luke 2:46). I understand that the centre of learning in Jerusalem revolved around the temple, and this would be where learned men would interpret the written law on behalf of the people. I imagine that this is where the Rabbis Shimei and Hillel would battle it out over what constituted legal divorce (which is important background for Jesus’ teachings on the subject).
Some things that did not happen in the Temples were;
1 Baptisms and marriages
2 Entombments for the dead
In some pagan temples, sex was used in secret rituals, much to the disgust of the Biblical prophets.
So, in order to ‘create’ a modern equivalent, you’d have to mix together elements of the White House, National Monuments, a Super-Bowl stadium, your local grocery store, a red-brick university and the modern TV and internet media. We could say that the national gross domestic product was focussed on the Temple, so perhaps we should throw in the central bank as well.
Its in this context, I believe, that we should start to read the NT statements that associate Jesus with the “true” or “heavenly” temple. In short, Jesus fulfills in himself all of the functions and purposes of the earthly temple. Our problem in understanding this is that we don’t see this temple system in operation today.
P.S.
Nowadays, we tend to gloss over the Biblical term “in Christ”. What’s revolutionary about this is that its saying “no longer in the Temple”.
As an experiment, try substituting “in the Temple” next time you read the NT, and see what you get.
I haven’t read all the new posts this morning, but I knew comparisons to LDS temple ceremonies and OT temple ceremonies were going to be made. I think when Mormons compare the OT temple to the LDS temple they are really missing the point. The whole purpose of the OT temple and its accompanying ceremonies was to provide a way for the Israelites to be purified from their sins. There were no chairs near the altar because the temple priests’ work was never done. The Israelites’ sin was constant and pervasive. Although they sought to live righteous lives, as sinful human beings (original sin), their need for purification was on-going. God never intended for the OT temple and its priests to be a permanent solution. It was supposed to be a template, pointing the way to the day when Christ would become our sacrificial lamb. Jesus is both our High Priest AND our sacrificial lamb. Heb. 1:3 tells us that “After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Sitting down signifying completion). Heb. 7:12 says, “For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” Heb. 7:18 “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” Heb. 8:8-12 quotes Jer. 31:31-34, telling us that the old covenant (the temple and its accompanying rituals) will pass away. Just as background on the book of Hebrews, the temple was almost certainly still standing when it was written, and new, Jewish Christians felt insecure that they did not have a temple to go through. The whole point of Hebrews is that since Jesus is our great High Priest who completed the sacrifice to take away our sins once and for all, we have no need for a temple and its accompanying rituals. The temple was ordained and organized by God, but the need for one disappeared after Jesus died on the cross and exclaimed, “It is finished!” What then, is the point of the LDS temple? The Bible is clear that we do not need a temple and ceremonies to attain salvation. If Mormons want to put on their special outfits and do all their rituals, that is one thing, but when people’s salvation (ie, the LDS CK) are tied to the temple, that is a problem. For that reason, the more the rituals are exposed, the better. What a fiction that we need to go through a temple to make us right with God and help us attain salvation.
Gundek: nice work above
……since I laughed at your repetition for about 14 minutes, and don’t even feel bad about it, does this mean I’m worse than you ??
I guess I can confess in private..
GERMIT
There seems a certain inevitability in this story. It is inevitable that so-called Mormon “sacred ceremonies” will figure in the controversial HBO TV series Big Love, an every day tale of polygamists; inevitable that the Mormons would complain bitterly; inevitable that the officials of the church would not encourage a boycott of HBO but that their very public statement to that effect would trigger a “spontaneous” movement among grass roots Mormons to do just that; inevitable that the makers of the programme would be depicted as careless and inaccurate in their portrayal of Mormonism.
After all it is written somewhere – surely – that only Mormons can tell the Mormon story. of course, in that case you would never get to hear about this part of the story because it is all too “sacred” to talk about.
In an official statement church leaders have said:
“Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding,”
Now here is a conundrum. There is no indication that these leaders have actually viewed the scenes so how can they possibly know whether they misrepresent or take out of context Mormon “sacred” temple ceremonies? We are told that an expert in these ceremonies was on set to guide the directors and actors in achieving accuracy. Maybe they did just that?
Mormons take a vow not to talk about these ceremonies outside the temple. If these leaders have seen the scenes, how are they to correct them if they can’t discuss them? That’s the problem when you blur the line between “sacred” and secret. They blame you for getting it wrong, even though they probably haven’t viewed it, and will not tell you how to get it right because they won’t talk about it.
Mormons seem easily offended and one has to ask whether it is right to simply roll over every time they cry foul. What is the definition and nature of “offense” in every day life? Is there really an offense simply because someone “takes offense”? Or is offense proved as much by the intention of the assumed offender as the feelings of the one offended? Mormons really need to tell the difference between something that is offensive and something they simply don’t like or would prefer didn’t happen. They call my church apostate and that is offensive but I don’t feel the need to issue a press statement every day of the week; I get over it and get on with life. I surely wish they would with theirs.
In the real world, outside the rarified (stifling?) atmosphere of Mormondom people do shrug off so much in their every day lives and if they don’t they are considered touchy. But Mormons have always been good at playing the martyr, considering themselves “persecuted” if someone challenges their faith in Joe Smith, offended if someone tells their story for them in a way that they don’t like, victims because someone slams a door in their face. If they ever met real persecution – as millions of Christians do around the world every day – I don’t know what they would do.
Finally, there is the central issue of the series – polygamy.
“Despite earlier assurances from HBO, it once again blurs the distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices,” the church statement said.
The problem is that the characters portrayed in the series are Mormons; just not Salt Lake Mormons. One of the greatest scandals of the Salt Lake Mormon Church is their stone-faced denial of any responsibility for polygamy. They keep insisting that other Mormons are not Mormons; that there is no such thing as Mormon fundamentalism; that they alone are permitted to tell this story. But the Mormons instigated polygamy, practiced it widely for the best part of a century and abandoned it only because the civil authorities made them.
It is simply shameful that the Salt Lake church should wash its hands of something that is integral to their faith and show not a jot of sympathy for or solidarity with those who consider themselves more faithful to the original vision of Mormonism. Then they have the brass neck to complain when someone else steps up to the plate to tell the story they have disowned. But Mormons have always been good at shrugging off responsibility for their own story, refusing to own problems of their own making and then blaming others for telling the truth.