Revealing the sacred on 'Big Love' sparks discussion about ethics

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | Sept. 23, 2009 | Brooke Adams

[Colofornian]

The LDS Church - and many of its members - objected last spring when HBO's hit series "Big Love" depicted a plural wife participating in a temple ceremony, calling the episode an offensive act that trivialized a sacred practice.

But an entire context is needed to sanctify an image, gesture, ritual or event, said Alex Caldiero, and without its unique context, the sacred cannot be violated.

"The sacred sort of protects itself against any inappropriate, any misuse or any foul play by being so protected and encased in a context," said Caldiero, artist-in-residence at Utah Valley University in Orem. "What I mean by this is, it is a multimedia event. If you've just seen an aspect of it, you've not really seen or [experienced] the entire context of the sacred."

Caldiero's comments came Tuesday during a panel discussion of "Revealing the Sacred: Is it Ever Ethical? Big Love's Temple Scene & Portrayal of the Sacred," part of Ethics Awareness Week sponsored by the university's Center for the Study of Ethics.

"Big Love," now entering its fourth season, chronicles the life of a polygamous family living in Utah. Its March 15 episode showed the endowment ceremony in an LDS temple as part of a plural wife's struggle with being excommunicated from the mainstream Mormon faith.

Days before the episode aired, the LDS Church issued a public statement criticizing media portrayals of the faith that are "false or play to stereotypes" and sometimes in "appalling bad taste." The cable show, it said, blurred distinctions between the faith and "fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices." The LDS Church officially abandoned plural marriage in 1890 and eschews any connection with offshoots that continue to engage in it.

The creators of "Big Love" said they strove to depict the temple ceremony with dignity and reverence.

Art - from film to painting, poetry and music - is all about revealing the sacred, Caldiero said, and "Big Love's" temple scene was "beautifully portrayed."

The ethical problems come when representations vilify or mock aspects of the sacred, Caldiero said. But what's being mocked is "something personal," not the sacred, he said, and even then such acts don't warrant censorship.

Other panelists said the quest for knowledge, like artistic expression, often involves intrusions on what others hold sacred, and even keep secret - whether that practice is a Mormon temple ceremony, street-gang initiations or an Inca corn-planting ritual.

"We go out and strive to gain information that can be used in revealing people's secrets, including their sacred secrets," said Lynn England, a sociology professor at UVU who studies the Tarahumara Indians of Chihuahua, Mexico. "When I reveal the sacred, I am the scientist, and I am revealing the sacred of people who are not speaking for themselves."

The issue of who has the right to speak and who can claim authority for cultural property is a growing one for Utah as it becomes more diverse, said David Knowlton, an associate professor of anthropology at UVU who focuses on Mormonism and Latin America.

Knowlton said he personally has decided not to speak about temple rituals. "Keeping things unspoken is one way of keeping something sacred," he said. But "there is no universal stance for any of this."

Jack R. Christianson, director of the Center for Engaged Learning at UVU, said having permission and input for the artistic endeavor might be an ethical approach. Loyd Ericson, an adjunct philosophy professor, focused on intent.

"The big question is not if we should," Ericson said, "because we reveal the sacred all the time" - from prayer sessions to baptism rituals.

Instead, he suggested that intent was key to ethical revelations of the sacred. "Is the intent to do harm, is the intent to explore, is the intent art, or what is the intent? All these questions then really complicate the issue when we see that it is not simply a matter of revealing the sacred is wrong, but what type of sacred, how is it revealed, the intent."

[Colofornian]

From the article: The LDS Church officially abandoned plural marriage in 1890 and eschews any connection with offshoots that continue to engage in it.

But, unofficially key lds leaders kept solemnizing a few hundred additional plural unions between 1890-1910. Nor did its practitioners dump their plural wives between 1890-early 1960s.

From the article: ...eschews any connections with offshoots that continue to engage in it.

Well, I don't know. Is Kolob Heights, the supposed new "neighborhood" of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the like, "eschewed" by the Mormon church? (I don't thiiiiiinnnnnkkkk so)

From the article: Other panelists said the quest for knowledge...often involves intrusions on what others hold sacred, and even keep secret - whether that practice is a Mormon temple ceremony, street-gang initiations or an Inca corn-planting ritual.

Wait a minute. I keep hearing from Mormons all the time about a need for continuing "revelation" -- continuing "knowledge." Well, where's the "revelations" on temple rituals? Where was the knowledge revealed with that?

From the article: "We go out and strive to gain information that can be used in revealing people's secrets, including their sacred secrets," said Lynn England, a sociology professor at UVU who studies the Tarahumara Indians of Chihuahua, Mexico. "When I reveal the sacred, I am the scientist, and I am revealing the sacred of people who are not speaking for themselves."

See. The Big Love TV show folks were simply Mormon polygamy scientists.

[Secret Agent Man]

No offense but Mormons are treated with kid gloves far more than Christian denominations and Catholics are. They don’t get to have a monopoly on their image if nobody else does. And BTW nobody else does.

[OldDeckHand]

"And BTW nobody else does."

Nobody but the Muzzies, don't you mean?

Have we seen "The Passion of the Mohamed"? Nope. How about, "Oh Mohamed?" (parts I, II and III)? Nope. Mohamed Superstar? Never happened. Has Kevin Smith made a single movie about Mohamed, or even had Mohamed in any of his dozen-theologically themed movies? Eh-he. Lastly, when's Dan Brown going to write "The Mohamed Code"?

[Boogieman]

I hate to nitpick, but I think Kevin Smith only made one theologically themed movie, most of them don’t have anything to do with religion.

[Boogieman]

The fact that Mormons have “sacred secrets” is disturbing to me. Didn’t Jesus say to proclaim the gospel openly, to anyone who would listen? I don’t remember anything about keeping his message and commandments secret.

[OldDeckHand]

"I hate to nitpick, but I think Kevin Smith only made one theologically themed movie, most of them don’t have anything to do with religion."

Yeah, but I was on a roll. And, how many of his movies - while not theologically themed - contain jokes at the expense of Christians, and specifically Catholics?

I watch a lot of movies, and I can't think of one joke about Mohamed, or anything to do with Islam. The one guy to tackle the subject in a direct and serious way, Theo Van Gogh, ended up with his throat slit.

[Boogieman]

True, you point was good, and I admit there are a few Catholic jokes in his other movies. He had a Catholic upbringing, so that is one reason he probably focuses on them, but certainly I can’t see him or any other liberal director making Islam the butt of a joke any time soon.

[John.Galt2012]

That’s because people who make jokes at Islam’s expense typically end up dead.

[John.Galt2012]

I find it both ironic and naive that the progressives are reaching out to and embracing the Islamic nations as if they will be granted some special consideration down the road for their actions today. They will still be stoned in the streets.

[TruthHound]

Excuse me, but “sacred secret ritual” has “CULT” written all over it.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Dude do you even have time to be a Christian? All you do 24/7 is bag on Mormons. Sad existence.

[fishtank]

I think an exercise of a spiritual gift is valid for Christians.

Pointing out error is just one way to do this.

[Elsie]

Didn’t Jesus say to proclaim the gospel openly, to anyone who would listen?

Ah... there's the rub!

You see; evil men have REMOVED parts of the gospel from the BIBLE you Protestants and Catholics now have.

Joseph Smith was the channel through which the gospel was RESTORED®.

You can read the Book of MORMON for yourself and find the restored portions.

--MormonDude(At least that's what most folks would think. Actually; there is NOTHING in the BoM that is any way related to the SACRED things we do in the Temples.)

[Elsie]

Excuse me, but “sacred secret ritual” has “CULT” written all over it.

Ya THINK!!??

---

 

 

     

• Single charismatic leader.
• People always seeming constantly happy and enthusiastic. Especially if you discover that they have been told to act that way for the potential new recruits.
• Instant friends.
• If you are told who you can or cannot talk to or associate with.
• They hide what they teach.
• Say they are the only true group, or the best so why go anywhere else.
• Hyped meetings, get you to meetings rather than share with you.
• Experiential rather than logical.
• Asking for money for the next level.
• Some cults travel door to door during times when women are home alone. They think that women are easier to recruit and once they have the woman then it will be easier to snare the husband or partner.
• Saying that they have to make people pay for it because otherwise they will not appreciate it. This is of course a very silly reason, plenty of people are able to appreciate things which they did not pay for.

   

[Elsie]

All you do 24/7 is bag on Mormons.

Stand up for them, then!!

PROVE these nasty ol' ANTI's are wrong, Wrong - WRONG!!

[aruanan]

You see; evil men have REMOVED parts of the gospel from the BIBLE you Protestants and Catholics now have.

Joseph Smith was the channel through which the gospel was RESTORED®.

Funny, this is exactly what the Muslims say about the Bible*, except in Joseph Smith's place they posit Mohammed.

*I don't mean that I have heard that they say that. I have actually heard them say that.

[Boogieman]

That sounds about the same as what the Muslims say about the Bible. Even if one were to believe the story, what makes Joseph Smith a better candidate for a post-Jesus messenger than Mohammed?

[Boogieman]

My thoughts exactly. Carried to it’s logical conclusion... if the Bible has been altered we have no way of knowing how or which parts are altered, so we wouldn’t be able to rely on any part of it. So Christians must be following false doctrines no matter how careful they are. Makes me wonder why Mormons want to associate themselves with the label Christian, if by their own logic, all Christians are heretics.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

All you do 24/7 is bag on Mormons.

Stand up for them, then!! PROVE these nasty ol' ANTI's are wrong, Wrong - WRONG!!

I have a life. Believe it or not I have other things to do than to make others feel small about their faith. Oh wait a minute. I guess that's a spiritual gift now. lol.

[aruanan]

Makes me wonder why Mormons want to associate themselves with the label Christian, if by their own logic, all Christians are heretics.

For the same reason that Mohammed founded his religion on a Christian and Jewish background: they were expropriating the mojo of the dominant religions of their time and place to give legitimacy to their creation, to give their followers a sense of superiority by telling them that they now knew the real story behind all those other stories and what parts had been cut out, and to simultaneously undermine the authority of what was being appealed to for legitimacy.