So what’s the big kerfuffle about HBO’s Big Love showing an LDS Temple Wedding? Personally, I think I deserve to see one. Its time we knew if peyote is involved.
I have been to invited to enough LDS Temple wedding receptions to well-appreciate the enigma of celebrating a wedding to which I am persona non-grata. And I have calmed more than a few parents also rejected by the sanctioning authority of an offspring’s marriage.
CJ, an old friend of mine who did me proud serving in Iraq happens to be a non-Utah Mormon, ain’t none too happy about it.
However, HBO has gone over the line with its decision to air an episode depicting our sacred temple ceremonies. Notice I said sacred and not secret. There is nothing secret about what we do in the temple and every worthy person in the world is capable of taking part themselves.
But the fact is that these ceremonies are very sacred and do NOT belong in the public spotlight. It is a flagrant attack on our religion to disrespect our beliefs in such a way. The network relied on excommunicated members and critics of the church for their research into the subject and never asked for church permission in airing this episode.
CJ was army intelligence. It was his quodian resposibility to select which Iraqi families would get a late-night no-knock home invasion.
CJ’s clarity about the righteousness of both still troubles me.
#1 by Becky on March 14, 2009 - 9:31 pm
After reading many comments on local news sites, I checked out YouTube and found pieces of the actual temple ceremony including the clothing and the exact words and actions. Anyone who is curious can see pretty much everything on YouTube. Sacred or secret, it doesn’t much matter now.
#2 by cav, on March 15, 2009 - 7:58 am
If Peyote of mushrooms had been involved, I’d more likely be leaning toward believing. I mean God gave us both of those, and by extension…It is Good.
So much for my Sunday morning sermonizing.
#3 by Obama the Paul [Mero] on March 15, 2009 - 8:51 am
Ha. I love the righteous warrior thing! Killing thousands of innocent Iraqis is a good thing, but sharing details of a secret religious ceremony – details which make an already spooky religion look even more spooky – is a crime of huge proportion. What a bunch of hypocritical freepers.
#4 by lucidity on March 16, 2009 - 11:43 am
I love CJ’s equivocating. Our rituals aren’t secret, they’re sacred. That’s why we have to keep them secret. But not because they’re secret! Because they’re sacred.
The Catholic church has sacred rituals too, but strangely enough, they don’t mind if non-Catholics watch them. Which puts the LDS church in the same “secret teachings” category as Scientologists.
#5 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 19, 2009 - 11:38 am
Lucidity: Your statements, though true, are not sufficient for an indictment of the practice. My response: So what? Perhaps you wouldn’t mind sharing the specific details of your intimate life, because those should not be sacredly secret, either. If not, we can just as relevantly say that Lucidity’s bedroom practices are put in the same “secret rituals” category as Scientologists.
Obama the Paul: You are judging CJ’s actions according to your own conclusions, conclusions CJ obviously didn’t reach. Had he perceived that he was “killing thousands of innocent Iraqis” without appropriate justifications, he likely would not have been complicit. Either way, the two behaviors fit within very different behavioral categories, and the denial or acceptance of one does not require absence or presence of the other to maintain consistency.
Cav: “It is good” is more a reference to the necessity of certain elements in our ecosystem. Besides, the “it is good” statement usually refers to the perfect state of the Earth before the expulsion from Eden, not its fallen state after, or to the conditional “it is good within the realm of its specific positive use” concept.
Becky: The paparazzi could publish pictures of me weeping at my grandfather’s funeral and widely disseminate them in public forums, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be offended at their republication in profit-based media.
I agree that CJ’s perspective on his behavior in Iraq is not palatable to my ethical sensibilities. But it is not an invalidation of the belief that our personal lives, even when practiced in large, consensual social bodies, should not be subject to public ridicule simply because they are different from the norm. It is not entirely surprising that a group of people who have supported the privacy rights of Muslim groups show no such compassion towards the Mormon church, which is a miniscule global minority in comparison. Shame on you, Cliff, for employing double standards in your personal vendetta.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#6 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on March 31, 2009 - 10:50 pm
Go Dwghit! You tell these hypocrites! More and more since finding this sight I am becoming convinced that Cliff is in fact a douche bag!
Why exactly do you deserve to see a temple marriage? Why does it bother you so that you are invited to a reception, but not the marriage ceremony? People have thier own beliefs, and if the LDS people beleive that the marriage ceremony should take place in thier sacred temple, and you can then not attend the actual ceremony then so be it. Get over it you frickin pussy!
Everyone but dwight, that has posted comments to this, another stupid fuckin story wrote by a charachter I refuse to believe is real, because of the oxymoron that he represents, just hates the Mormons for some reason or another. It’s obvious you all have some vendetta, or at least resentment for the Mormon faith.
I think it’s sad. Especially from liberals, who usually defend the rights of minorities, and any other group to live as they wish. You people however have shown that you only care about the rights of other people when it is convenient, or easy for you to do so. The moment a group you dislike wants to protect something they hold sacred, you all forget about defending the rights of others, and instead you all criticize those who feel they are being wronged. Real classy.
#7 by jasonthe on March 31, 2009 - 11:32 pm
No offense, Mr. “Blank”-is-a-Douchebag, but should you really be using the word “fuckin” in a tirade defending the sanctity of temple ceremonies?
Just curious.
#8 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 1, 2009 - 2:53 am
Not LDS. I’m not really even defending the sactity of temple ceremonies. I’m defending the rights of those who believe what’s sacred to them should not be exploited.
No offense, but think before you type. Did I ever say I held temple mariage to be sacred? No moron, I said those who do believe it sacred have the right to protect it.
Look’s like I found another douche bag! They’re everywhere on this site!
If you want to critique what I wrote above, why not point out that I used the word “fuckin”, then sarcastically wrote “real classy” to everyone else.
I can criticize myself better than you can criticize me.
Now get lost douche number two.
#9 by Becky on April 1, 2009 - 4:18 am
Anonymous CIADB!!!!!!!!!!!,
Classy? You’re talking classy? Sorry, guy, but if that’s your aim, you’re missing the mark as soon as you type your pseudonym. I fear you’re starting to give douche bags a bad name.
#10 by Kevin Owens on April 1, 2009 - 10:39 am
Sometimes the vulgar need to be talked to in language they can understand. Most of the time, however, taking the high road will suffice.
#11 by Becky on April 1, 2009 - 11:29 am
Does my language bother you, Kevin?
#12 by Moribund Republic on April 1, 2009 - 11:37 am
Douchebags are hot and squishy, then they go cold and useless, often full of vinegar.
With proper sanitition they can be used again. If that is what you need, upon realizing your ideas are “not so fresh”.
#13 by Moribund Republic on April 1, 2009 - 11:37 am
Oh yes, and don’t forget that douchebags are also hosers!!
#14 by Kevin Owens on April 1, 2009 - 11:44 am
No, Becky, I’m not bothered by your language. My earlier comment (10:39AM) was defending CIADB’s use of vulgarity in his argument against vulgarity, followed by a disclaimer that vulgarity is usually not the best way to make an argument.
#15 by Becky on April 1, 2009 - 11:49 am
Thanks, Kevin.
#16 by Moribund Republic on April 1, 2009 - 11:52 am
Is the honey pot dirty? Just use douchebag. Douchebag to the rescue!! Reuseable, with a fresh clean scent. For the times when your way has become, not so fresh.
Complete with gentle applicator!