Lawyers no doubt can argue that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of a HBO "Big Love" TV episode to depict the LDS temple endowment ceremony (see: "HBO, Mormons Square Off…"). Despite this legal protection, however, one can also make an argument that such an action is immoral, especially by professional standards. In fact, exposing the details of LDS temple ceremony is a severe violation of professional standards of morality.
In the golden age of movies (prior to 1967) the so-called Hayes Code set very high standards of conduct. Although these standards were somewhat paralyzing to the industry, they had the advantage of being specific, concrete, and very protective of high standards of moral behavior. This code was abandoned in favor of the more abstract MPAA rating system. Even the latest film code, however, suggests that religion should not be demeaned and that film should not be used to incite bigotry. Such standards, however, may be too high for an industry with a predilection for sexual provocation and violence. In fact, the nationally prominent LDS psychologist Brad Bushman (University of Michigan) has argued: "violent media cause an increase in aggressive behavior " in the viewing public. The TV/movie industry as it currently exists is too often harmful.
The point: Unfortunately, the modern TV/movie industry lacks a reputation as an exemplar of ethics for the viewing public.
Perhaps HBO might argue that the TV/movie industry is really just an alternate form of journalism using actors to expose the truth. Fine. Here are a couple of important journalistic standards from the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics:
-- … Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
-- Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
The point: Public discussion of LDS temple ceremonies by any form of media simply panders to a gratuitous curiosity, and such discussion is an unjustified intrusion into privacy.
Perhaps HBO might argue that the TV/movie industry is really just an alternate form of research inquiry that needs the freedom to explore. Yes, but NOT without standards.
Some forms of academic inquiry into human life have the potential to harm. Universities doing human research have Internal Review Boards (IRBs), usually based on the guidelines in the "Protection of Human Subjects" from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Such guidelines clearly establish the rights of participants to protections of privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent. Participants also are to be protected from unnecessary risk.
The point: Although IRB protections primarily apply to scientific research, they also apply to any form of inquiry that has the potential to do either physical or psychological harm. The TV/movie industry should take note.
Maybe HBO provides a service of popularized anthropology through its dramatic programming. Obviously, there is a need to explore the Mormon culture and the human condition is there not? Yes, but NOT without standards.
Academic observers of human beings (such as anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists) sometimes must face the dilemma of whether exposing private cultural practices is justified by the needs of inquiry and research. The American Anthropological Association has a code of ethics that states:
III.A.2
Anthropological researchers must do everything in their power to ensure that their research does not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or perform other professional activities. …
III.A.4
Anthropological researchers should obtain in advance the informed consent of persons being studied, providing information, owning or controlling access to material being studied, or otherwise identified as having interests which might be impacted by the research. …
Mormons are NOT the first culture that has been at risk of having its sacred ceremonies exposed. For example, Native Americans have faced this problem for many years.
Murray L. Wax has been an important leader in establishing the ethical standards in anthropology and sociology. The following comes from his 1991 article entitled, "The Ethics of Research in American Indian Communities" (in American Indian Quarterly, 15:431 – 456) :
… [I]n research among traditional communities, [a] primary step is often necessary: securing the approval of one or several political bodies, the tribal council, the health committee, or leaders or representatives of a population of kith or kin.
… [T]he group may suffer if sacred knowledge were to be handled faultily or revealed to the wrong persons; and this would imply that only the community, as a whole, or those instructed to speak for it could grant consent.
… [I]t is incumbent upon scientists not merely to refrain from violating confidences but to assist actively in establishing mechanisms for protecting ritual secrecy and privacy. … [W]e need to … [establish] within professional associations (and their journals) systems whereby those who expose ritual secrets would be subject to sanctions.
The point: The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its associated Council of Twelve (Apostles) are the religious bodies from whom approval would be required to publicly discuss the specifics of LDS temple ceremony. Unauthorized exposure of sacred rites (in any culture) has the potential to harm social institutions and peoples. Such unauthorized exposure is worthy of appropriate sanctions in accordance with national law.
Unfortunately, the TV/movie industry too often behaves as if it is exempt from standards, even though it promotes itself as professional.
HBO's "Big Love" may very well reveal some of the LDS endowment ceremony. Its right to do so, however, is NOT founded upon the ethics established in other fields that analyze human behavior.
The field of medicine has a beautiful summary of its code of ethics that all non-physicians would be advised to know: primum non nocere. This Latin phrase is intended to remind physicians (and all of us) that the first principle of ethics should be: Do No Harm. "Big Love" should NOT be exempt from such a rule.
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
18 comments:
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Anonymous:
I won't be watching, but that is besides the point.
I too am offended that they will be airing what they understand to be the sacred temple ordinances. I am offended that people watching will take it to be truth and that they will think whatever these people air is what we actually do in the temple. Even if they got it correct, I am offended because those are things that are sacred to me and should not be paraded around in front of people who do not believe or understand what they are about. Going to the temple takes great preparation spiritually to be prepared to understand the symbolic and sacred ceremonies. I doubt people watching a show like that will be spiritually prepared to understand what the ceremonies are about. Even if they are portrayed accurately, which is doubtful, they would be out of context and probably portrayed in a negative light.
While this is offensive, I do not feel that it is in any way a threat to our religion. The official church statement on this is very accurate. There is no evidence that the extreme views of this small group will impact the growth of the church in any way. Thank goodness!
Interesting points from SPJ. I hadn't really made that connection. Certainly the writers aren't really journalists in that strict sense, but I think in terms of decency in general those 2 things are good standards to hold.
Anonymous: Your comment manifests little more than "I was too lazy to read and understand your point, so I'll just make an anonymous comment and run like a chicken."
The internet disinhibition effect produces a lot of poor contributions to dialog like yours.
Amy Boyack:
I think we agree that the HBO program will not produce any serious harm to our Church. Even so, I think HBO is out of bounds. It is inappropriate for HBO producers to think they know what will and what will not harm our Church.
Kudos Faux! Your post brings out some fabulous points here for all to ponder. As the official church statement proclaims, at best this most recent HBO episode is in “appallingly bad taste“. And, at worst, it is ugly defamation (for all the logical reasoning you have laid forth and more).
If this episode were re-enacting any other group's sacred ceremonies (Native American, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim...you name it), instead of Mormonism (and placing it in conjunction with polygamy no less), mark my words the ACLU and defamation leagues would be slapping lawsuits faster than one could channel surf! But aparently the same standards of decency, ethics and sensitivity do not apply to the Mormons. Once again, we remain "free game".
Readers may click my name to access my post: "When Hollywood Bullies Mormons".
Thanks S. Faux. Thanks for your comments. The journalistic standards that you cite are instructive -- but the folks at HBO and the producers of Big Love are unable to get it because such standards aren't even within the context of their world view that has no place for the category of the sacred.
I believe that the disconnect arises because the category of the sacred simply escapes the Hollywood crowd. However, to get a sense of the sacred, imagine publishing photos of you and your wife having sex in the newspaper. What is sacred and good and holy in one context is profane and evil and pornographic in a different context. Those who believe that virtually nothing is off limits, that everything must be open to public inspection, have missed what is essential to context to give meaning to acts and performances. The Temple ordinances can only confusing and look silly outside of the covenant context in which they find meaning. It is like the act of bouncing a ball and throwing it into a hoop that looks silly on its own, but earns millions of dollars in another context.
HBO is proffering pornography by pilfering and profaning what is holy in the appropriate context. However, such folks are missing the most valuable things in life. They cannot even begin to understand what they are doing and so must be forgiven.
Anonymous (#2):
Thanks for adding the point about forgiveness. We need to forgive them, because ultimately they know not what they do.
"Big Love" can demean us, but we should rise above their level.
I am not sure why the LDS would be offended. I think the temple ceremony needs to be talked about more and that initiates need to know what they are getting into "before" they go thru, so they can choose before their endowment whether they want to proceed. Yes, there is a time where they do allow a person during the ceremony to step out, but how many will have the courage to step out? I mean, when I went thru I was so shocked, I was numb... I wasn't about to walk out.
The LDS leaders need to allow initiates to be told exactly what is expected of them before going thru. It is deceptive to not let them know before hand. I know of dozens of LDS who left the LDS after going thru the temple... the blood oaths freaked them out... it was so radically different then LDS meetings on Sundays.
With today's age, the church won't be able to keep these things under cover anymore. I say open it up for discussion and allow initiates to make a choice with knowledge and not in ignorance.
God bless,
Former mormon now sold out for Jesus
The "blood oaths" are apparently misunderstood by you, as they were by some members as well. (By the way, they weren't "blood oats" at all.)
Further, you avoided the question of the sacred in all of this, and seem to feel whatever you think is fine should be accpeted by all as the best standard. I disagree. :)
gloria:
I agree with you that people should be properly prepared to attend the temple. I disagree, however, with the argument that people are generally unprepared. In the United States (at least) much preparation is available, if people will take advantage of it. There are plenty of Church books that give a good background. There are temple preparation courses. There are Church leaders with the duty to prepare individuals and answer questions.
The primary shock of the temple for Latter-day Saints is the change from Sunday meetings, which are rather devoid of external symbols (except for the sacrament), to temple meetings filled with symbolism and metaphor.
Also, I think gloria, you mischaracterize what happens in temples. But, I am sorry you had a bad experience with it. The temple ceremony has undergone various revisions over the years, removing some aspects that had become outdated. Thank goodness for an evolving Church (speaking as a Darwinian).
BHodges: Sorry, I am having a hard time deciphering your response. The "you" in your comment must be referring to "gloria." But I cannot find anything about "oats" in her response.
Oats= oaths, a typo.
I do not have HBO and have never watched "Big Love," although I think I must.
I did not hear about this until this morning, when I climbed into my car in an Anchorage Wal-Mart parking lot, spotted two Mormon missionaries nearby, turned on the car and the radio came on to NPR's "Talk of the Nation."
The first words that I heard were, "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
I put an illustrated account on my blog, which you can find here:
http://wasillaalaskaby300.squarespace.com
Bill:
I enjoyed reading your post, and I found myself wishing you had stopped to talk to the missionaries. I invite you to do so in the future. It is easy to request a visit. See: Mormon.org.
You seem like an independent thinker, and so I also invite you to read my post on: "Joseph Smith's Views on Independent Thinking."
Do the producers of Big Love realize that they have made a copyright infringement by using the temple ceremony. The church owns the copyright on the endowment script, the temple clothing, etc. Not only did Big Love infringe on our freedom of religion they also did not ask permission to use the temple endowment and therefore, have broken the law! It would be the same as downloading a song from the internet and not paying for it!
Anonymous:
I am not a lawyer, and so I cannot say there was a copyright infringement or not. HBO might argue they were merely making "fair use." The temple segment of the show was not very long.
Regardless, I would argue that there was an ethical violation based on existing principles from a variety of disciplines that have had to deal with similar issues in the past, as per my essay above.
I think the preparation to go the temple is the responsibility of those that desire to enter. It must needs be that those who wish to make the covenants in the temple be informed of their decisions all of which can be done in a non-demeaning and non-defaming way. If an individual is properly prepared they will have no problem with the ceremonies of the temple. It is those that are not prepared that generally have the most difficulty understanding "the point".
Post a Comment