After the Broadcast of "Big Love"'s 'Outer Darkness' Episode

In a previous post, I considered the issues at stake for Latter-day Saints in having their sacred temple endowment ceremony depicted in the HBO television series, "Big Love." Having now viewed the ‘Outer Darkness’ episode—yes, that's what they named it—I find that the episode is very revealing, not so much about the LDS temple ceremonies as about the producers’ motivations. Below, I consider what the episode's lapses in internal logic and so forth suggest about these motivations—and what the LDS will likely do about them.

(Of course, being a Latter-day Saint who has experienced the temple ceremonies myself and vowed to hold them sacred, I will not address the matter of the technical accuracy of the producers’ depiction of the endowment. However, this is the least important issue to be concerned with in considering this episode.)

About 5 minutes of this episode’s action is set within an LDS temple; of this time, the depiction of the endowment ceremony takes up 2 minutes. To be more precise, the focus of this portion of the episode is the depiction of what is supposed to be the last 1 minute and 45 seconds or so of the endowment, which in real life is the climax of the entire, roughly 2-hour ceremony. As I warned in my previous post, depiction of a tiny element of the ceremony, in isolation and without context, would lead to misunderstanding and confusion; this is so whether the producers’ depiction is technically accurate or not.

Before the episode was broadcast, the producers stated that the depiction of the endowment itself was necessary for dramatic purposes. When I saw this portion of the episode, I had two reactions.

First, without any context or interpretive framework, I failed to see what dramatic purpose was fulfilled by showing this portion of the endowment. The discussion of the character Barb with her mother and sister in the Celestial Room of the temple did further the dramatic narrative (although it was utterly unnecessary to place this discussion within the temple, a place where, in real life, people rarely reveal terrible secrets, as Barb does in the episode). However, the section of the endowment shown—especially without any context as to what was going on or what any of the purported symbolism meant—would be difficult to understand and confusing for someone not acquainted with the temple ceremony already (which of course would cover well over 95% of the viewing audience).

Second, it was clear to me that the producers were striving to be as shocking and provocative to the LDS community as possible. The real-life portion of the endowment corresponding to the portion depicted by the producers is, as I mentioned, the climax of the endowment; what occurs then is considered exceptionally sacred, to be given the greatest and most solemn respect, and never to be treated lightly or casually. Although depicting this section of the endowment would not be dramatically enlightening to the viewers as a whole, and might not even make much of an impression on them, it would be enormously offensive to the LDS.

Look at it this way. Let's say that you are visiting at someone's home, seated on one of their couches, attending a Super Bowl party or some other sedentary, television-watching social gathering. Someone passes around some cards for you to use in taking notes regarding the TV commercials you like or dislike. Someone else passes you some sort of cracker. Yet another person passes you a beverage. How offensive could this behavior be?

Quite a bit, if one were a Roman Catholic—and the cards were consecrated relics taken from a scapular (a sacred depiction of a saint worn around the neck under one’s clothing by some devout Catholics), and the 'cracker' were a consecrated Communion wafer, and the beverage were consecrated sacramental wine. In a Catholic context, the appropriation of these objects as part of an entertainment event would be outrageously, heinously offensive. What “Big Love”’s producers did was the television equivalent, as far as offending the LDS are concerned.

I have come to believe that this was intentional. That is, the producers depicted the endowment, not to further a dramatic purpose (as if that would be sufficient justification!), but rather specifically to offend the LDS.

The episode produces other evidence for this contention, because several aspects of this episode logically would not or even could not have occurred in real life:

• Once a temple is formally dedicated, admission to the temple requires the individual to possess an individual recommend signed by church officials. In a scene before the temple sequence, Barb begs her mother and sister to give her one or the other of their two recommends, because she does not possess one herself. Yet, we see Barb in the temple Celestial Room, sobbing with her mother and sister, one of whom presumably gave Barb her own recommend—without which, that person (either her mother or sister) could not have entered the temple herself. For that matter, both the mother and the sister would have been aware that lending one’s recommend to another is punishable by excommunication; temple recommends are non-transferable, like a passport, and ‘lending’ a recommend is treated as a serious offense. As faithful Saints, Barb’s mother and sister simply would not have just lent their recommend casually. In sum, the producers did need to place Barb, her mother, and her sister in the same place for dramatic purposes, but that could have been anywhere. The producers chose to place the three of them in the Celestial Room of the temple, although this would have been impossible in real life, at least as the producers depicted the meeting.

• In the scene before the temple sequence where she begs her mother and sister to supply a temple recommend, Barb says that she wants to ‘take out her endowments,’ that is, to experience the sacred ceremony and bring down its accompanying blessings upon herself. However, as any Saint with temple experience could tell you, one can only ‘take out’ one’s endowments once, with a special recommend. However, Barb is trying to go through on her mother’s or sister’s recommend. Barb’s mother and sister had clearly been through the temple previously. A person who returns to the temple after her own endowment must go through the temple ceremony as a proxy for someone who has passed away. (I went through the temple for my own endowment in August of 1978. When I went through the temple in January 2009, I went through on behalf of Robert L. Barham, who was born in January 1879 in North Carolina, and who died some time ago. This is normal temple practice, which the “Big Love” producers and their advisors presumably know.) This is not just a fine point. Even if Barb were to go through the temple on a swiped or loaned recommend, she would not be receiving the temple blessings for herself, but as a proxy for someone else. She would receive no endowment blessings for herself, and she would know this ahead of time. Thus, depicting Barb as trying to ‘take out her endowments’ is not just dramatic license. Rather, it is dramatic lying. Presumably, the producers brushed away these considerations to justify putting Barb in the temple, for reasons other than dramatic effect or accuracy.

• Certainly Barb would know that excommunication cancels all temple blessings. Thus, even if she were trying to take out her endowments and receive those temple blessings, Barb would know that this would be a totally futile exercise.

• In the church court scene, the bishop asks Barb whether she is wearing her temple garments; Barb responds by asking whether the bishop is inquiring about her underwear. There are two problems with this scene from a logical point of view. First, in the episode, Barb has just gone through the temple on a borrowed, hence invalid, recommend; she has not been through the proper interview process to obtain a valid recommend at all. As far as the bishop knows, Barb has not been through the temple, even under false pretenses (an excommunicable offense in itself, by the way), and so Barb should not be wearing the temple garments; thus, the question of whether Barb is wearing these garments would not even arise.

• Second, although it is no doubt titillating to most of the viewing audience to think of the bishop asking Barb about her underwear, this rings particularly false for an LDS audience. Yes, LDS who have been through the temple do wear a special garment, which is an outward expression of an inward commitment (as one LDS leader put it; read here or here). However, this is not considered regular underwear or lingerie. It is considered to be ceremonial clothing, which temple patrons are required to wear throughout their lives; it is accepted among the LDS that the bishop will inquire, during a bi-annual recommend interview, as to whether or not the LDS temple patron is fulfilling his or her covenants by wearing the garment. Thus, Barb’s reaction is false for someone who is concerned about receiving temple blessings, although it certainly serves to ridicule the church in the eyes of those who do not know the temple or its customs.
  

Other aspects of the episode also demonstrate that the “Big Love” producers are seeking to irritate, embarrass, or ridicule the church:

• In that ‘begging for a recommend’ scene before the temple sequence, the producers have Barb’s mother state that ‘it was only a few years ago’ that the temple ceremony was changed, and that previously temple patrons were threatened with disembowelment if they spoke about the temple. This is a frequently encountered libel. I went through the temple endowment for the first time in August of 1978, and most recently (as of this writing) in January of 2009. At no time during this period have I ever encountered in the temple any sort of language that threatened temple patrons with disembowelment or any other physical punishment for revealing the temple ceremonies. Anyone who has been through the endowment, who holds a valid temple recommend, and who thinks they heard otherwise is welcome to bring up the matter with me within the temple itself (the only place where I can discuss specifics). The producers are simply spreading false information here, although their falsehood surely puts the LDS church in a bad light.

• During the episode, the polygamist cult’s prophet’s son specifically refers to the LDS church in derogatory terms, as haughty and condescending.

• Bill the polygamist portrays the LDS church as unwilling to bring forth a letter that purportedly gives a version of history that embarrasses the church, even though producing the letter would save the life of a kidnapped child.
  

All in all, it is clear that the producers wish to offend and insult the LDS church. The depiction of the endowment is clearly a slap in the face to the church, and it is only that; it serves little or no dramatic purpose, and the producers bend logic and the reality of church procedure in order to show their depiction of the endowment. The producers also go out of their way to depict the church in negative terms, as I illustrate above.

So, having said all this, what will the LDS do about it all? Other than spread the truth and correct falsehood, precisely nothing. The LDS church leadership has already said that it will not call for any kind of boycott, and it encourages the membership to respond with “dignity and thoughtfulness.” (See their statement here.) Simply put, the Church has bigger fish to fry: spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as they understand it.

I, on the other hand, have just one more thing to add to this discussion. It involves a statement from the temple ceremonies themselves. I offer it to the producers of “Big Love” as food for thought. These producers have gone out of their way to treat the LDS temple ceremonies, and the LDS people, with great disrespect. They should be told that a portion of the temple ceremonies is relevant to such behavior.

The producers of “Big Love” claim that they had the assistance of anonymous experts who assisted them with their depiction of the endowment. Perhaps they can ask these experts if I am correct in stating this, the one sentence of the temple ceremonies that I am willing to reveal publicly. It is a sentence that explains why the LDS have to do precisely nothing to settle accounts with the producers of “Big Love,” because we are assured that the ultimate Authority on the temple ceremonies will take care of that—for, in the temple, we are told this:

“God will not be mocked.”

"Big Love" and the Mormon Endowment Ceremony

Today (Sunday 15 March 2009) HBO is broadcasting a depiction of a Mormon temple ceremony, the endowment, during an episode of its television series about Utah polygamists, “Big Love.” The endowment is sacred to the LDS, or Latter-day Saints (as Mormons like myself call ourselves), who vow not to disclose details of these ceremonies outside LDS temples. One wonders what the general viewing audience will make of the ceremony, and of the controversy concerning the producers’ decision to depict the endowment. Below, I consider the meaning and importance of the LDS temple ceremonies, their antiquity, secrecy issues, and why the LDS are so concerned about the depiction of the temple endowment ceremony in “Big Love.”

The Meaning and Importance of the Temple Ceremonies

The temple endowment embodies the most sacred tenets of the LDS faith. The heart of the endowment involves the temple patron making sacred covenants to pursue a life distinct from the lifestyles of the world, to follow a challenging ethical code, and to live in accordance with all the commandments of God. In turn, taking the LDS temple ceremonies as a whole, God covenants with the patron that those who fulfill all the temple covenants shall be ‘endowed’ with the same kind of life, capacities, and existence that God has, including divinity itself. In the LDS scriptures, this is written of those who receive marriage, under proper authority, in the temple (known as ‘temple marriage’ or ‘celestial marriage’), and fulfill their covenant obligations to live a worthy life:

… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their
exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which
glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
[Note: That is, those blessed in this way may continue their family
relationships, and continue to have offspring, in the
hereafter.—MEK-R]

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from
everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all,
because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they
have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (The Doctrine and
Covenants [D&C] 132:19-20)

Everything in the temple endowment is symbolic of making and keeping the covenants required to obtain these great blessings.

The Antiquity of the Temple Ceremonies

The LDS believe that the temple ceremonies ultimately have a divine source and a long, long history. Many Saints believe that these practices and teachings were conveyed by Jesus to his apostles after his resurrection, during the so-called forty-day ministry of which, mysteriously, so little is said in the New Testament—although what is said is quite intriguing (see, in the New Testament: John 20:30 and 21:25). Several LDS scholars have traced evidence of these doctrines in the writings of ancient Christian authorities, such as the second century Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria, who wrote, “the Word of God [i.e., Jesus] became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (See Note 1, below.) My reading of the Christian Gnostic writings of the first through third centuries (see Marvin Meyer, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures) suggests to me that one can find, in these writings of now-extinct but once-vibrant Christian churches, evidence for sacred Christian ceremonies in the ancient world that reflected doctrines like those shown in the current LDS endowment.

One popular misconception is that the LDS temple ceremonies were somehow swiped from the ceremonies of Freemasonry. As it happens, I am both a Latter-day Saint and a Freemason, and I have experienced the LDS temple ceremonies and the Masonic initiatory ceremonies many times. The relationship between the LDS and Masonic ritual is a complicated matter that I plan to explore in writing at least one book over the next year or so. However, to put it simply, it is just not true that the LDS temple ceremonies were taken from Freemasonry. There are extremely superficial similarities between the two sets of ritual, but they differ in their structure, meaning, intent, execution, major concepts, and almost all of their essential symbolism. People who say that the one derives from the other, I would surmise, have not experienced both.

Why the Secrecy?

Having read the comments of some media commentators who wrote about the “Big Love” episode (titled ‘Outer Darkness’) in advance of its broadcast, the sense I get is that a lot of these people—and a lot of the viewing audience—have or will come away from this episode wondering what all the fuss is about. The temple ceremonies as shown in the episode clearly do not involve human sacrifice, sexual experiences, or illegal or immoral behavior of any sort; nor do temple patrons learn the date of the Second Coming, or the location of the Holy Grail. Given this, viewers might ask, ‘why are the LDS so concerned about keeping all this secret?’

The saying has been current for many years among the LDS that the temple ceremonies are ‘sacred, not secret.’ It is not that it is so important to keep the information itself secret; for well over a century, it has been possible for anyone to look up information about the temple ceremonies (some more accurate, some less so), and such accounts are available today in every conceivable medium. The LDS concern is not to keep this information secret, but to honor it as sacred. Thus, the LDS do not present the temple ceremonies to those who have not proven their spiritual readiness to receive them (through obedience to divine commandments); the LDS do not bandy about information regarding these rituals casually. It is not because there is super-secret information to be kept from the world in these ceremonies. It is because the LDS reserve that which is sacred for special times and places.

Why the LDS are Concerned About the “Big Love” Depiction of the Endowment

The producers of “Big Love” state that they have taken special pains to be accurate in their depiction of the endowment. However, one can be meticulously ‘accurate’ in this or that detail, and yet grossly inaccurate in conveying the whole—easy to do with something so complex as the endowment. These rituals take about two hours to perform. Within the 50 minutes or so of their television episode—much of which will be occupied with other dramatic events—the producers will have to cut a great deal of material from the endowment, which is really only comprehensible in its full context. The concern of many LDS is that focusing on select details—such as temple clothing, or isolated aspects of the ritual—will just create more opportunity for misunderstanding and ridicule. People who do not know the background of the distinctive ceremonial clothing of the Catholic priest or nun, the Orthodox Jew, the Sikh, or the Wiccan, might find much to ridicule there, should they be sufficiently small-minded to do so. The LDS have reason to be concerned, as well.

On the whole, modern American society does not understand well the idea of treating some things with special respect: we live in a world where nothing is considered sacred in the society at large. However, this speaks to the spiritual emptiness and the lack of spiritual literacy in modern American society. Consider this: to a Roman Catholic, the communion wafer and wine are sacred. [See Note 2, below.] These materials are not casually passed about, to be used for everyday nutrition, or as materials to be played with. Believing Roman Catholics would not wish to see, say, an artist use consecrated communion wafers or sacramental wine as materials in an artistic project. To the believer, sacred objects are not to be dealt with as objects for media events. This is how the LDS feel about their temple ceremonies.

Are the producers of “Big Love” being disrespectful to the LDS faith by depicting the temple endowment? Each faith defines for itself what ‘disrespectful’ means. Within some Islamic groups, it is strictly forbidden to make pictorial representations of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. It would certainly be disrespectful to these groups to broadcast images of Mohammed. Similarly, it is disrespectful to the LDS to broadcast ceremonies that are so sacred to them that they vow not to discuss various details outside of the temple itself. Of course, the entertainment industry has not shown itself to be much concerned about slaps against the LDS or their faith, which have been ridiculed or depicted insultingly in shows ranging from the lowbrow “South Park” to the highbrow Angels in America. Overall, popular entertainment simply does not ‘get’ the LDS faith, and that which it misunderstands it ridicules. This is what the LDS are concerned about.

Conclusion

My hope is that those who view the depiction of the endowment on “Big Love” will do so with the understanding that the reality behind the depiction is sacred to the LDS, that the true endowment reflects the greatest aspirations of the human spirit, and that this reality deserves respect from people of every religious position and belief.

Please Note: In comments on this post, I will not be able to respond regarding the accuracy of this or that aspect of the depiction of the endowment on “Big Love,” nor will I answer questions about the specific content of the temple ceremonies. (I shall delete comments that purport to ‘expose’ the content of the temple ceremonies.) I would encourage discussion of the ideas I have presented above, which touch more on issues like the treatment of sacred topics in the modern world.



Note #1: This translation is given on p. 26 of Robert L. Millet and Noel B. Reynolds (eds.), Latter-day Christianity: 10 Basic Issues (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), who source the quote in note 13 (p. 54) as “Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, I.” A source more readily available to readers of this blog would probably be Clement of Alexandria, “Exhortation to the Heathen,” Chapter 1, available in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 2 (“Fathers of the Second Century”), p. 174, left column, continued paragraph, which translates this passage as: “the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.”

Note #2: I am grateful to Kathleen Schmid Koltko-Rivera for mentioning this comparison to me.