Big Love’s disclaimer needs a disclaimer
Tapestry Against Polygamy, which describes itself as a “non-profit organization located in Salt Lake City, Utah that advocates against the human right violations inherent in polygamy and provides assistance to individuals leaving polygamous cults,” is not happy about the HBO show “Big Love” (Guy Murray’s post here provides background on the show). It is even less happy about the disclaimer that HBO is planning to run during every episode, calling it “misleading.” Tapestry’s director, Vicky Prunty says, “The LDS church may not practice polygamy now, but they still believe in it, and their apathy towards polygamy suggests they look forward to a time when polygamy will no longer be against the law.”
According to the Tapestry press release dated February 27:
Tapestry Concerned About HBO Disclaimer
Big Love, a new HBO series about a modern-day polygamist, will begin on March 12th. Tapestry Against Polygamy is asking HBO to remove a disclaimer from the first episode of Big Love. The disclaimer reads as follows:
According to a joint report issued by the Utah and Arizona attorney general’s offices, July 2005, ‘approximately 20,000 to 40,000 or more people currently practice polygamy in the United States.’ The Mormon Church officially banned the practice of polygamy in 1890.
“The disclaimer is misleading,” says Vicky Prunty, director of Tapestry Against Polygamy. “The LDS church may not practice polygamy now, but they still believe in it, and their apathy towards polygamy suggests they look forward to a time when polygamy will no longer be against the law.” Tapestry believes there are more than 100,000 practicing polygamists in the United States today.
In 1890, under military and political pressure from the United States, the LDS church issued a “Manifesto” that polygamy should no longer be practiced. However, the LDS church continues to publish and revere the revelations received by its founder, Joseph Smith. One of Smith’s revelations, published as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, declares that polygamy is a divine principle leading to the highest degree of glory. In the revelation, God commands women to accept polygamy under threat of damnation and destruction.
Because Joseph Smith was so adamant about polygamy as a divine principle, Mormon fundamentalists tend to regard the 1890 Manifesto as a rejection of God’s commandments. When excommunicated from the LDS church, many such fundamentalists form polygamist communities in Utah and elsewhere. Polygamists tend to have many children. The second, third, and succeeding generations from Mormon fundamentalist groups may never have been members of the LDS church, but they almost always trace their beliefs back to Joseph Smith and Section 132. New converts to Mormon Fundamentalism often come out of the mainstream LDS Church…..
“As far as we can tell,” says Prunty, “the LDS church has turned a blind eye toward the polygamy problem. Its leaders remain silent while Mormon fundamentalists campaign to legalize or decriminalize polygamy. The church routinely turns down opportunities to help women and children who escape from polygamist communities.”
According to a Deseret News article (a similar Salt Lake Tribune article is available here), LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle rejects the accusations:
“The statements concerning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made by representatives of the Tapestry organization do not fairly represent the doctrine of the church,” LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle said.
“For decades, the church and its leaders have spoken out against the illegal practice of polygamy and most recently, the reports of child and wife abuse emanating from polygamous communities today.”
Tuttle said President Gordon B. Hinckley has addressed the LDS Church and polygamy in previous addresses, stating “categorically that this church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.”
“The role of the church in this matter is to raise its moral voice, which it has done repeatedly….It is not to usurp the responsibilities that appropriately lie with the Legislature and law enforcement.”
So there, tapestry.
Comment by john f. — February 28, 2006 @ 11:46 am
While I’m somewhat sympathetic to aspects of the Tapestry group, sometimes they really do come off more as an anti-Mormon group.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 28, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
I say . . . let the Big Love Fest begin. Fess up . . . how many of you are actually going to watch it? I confess, I am. Who knows . . .maybe it will be an interesting show
Comment by Guy Murray — March 1, 2006 @ 1:31 am
Does the LDS chuch believe that polygamy is a sin? I understand they are against it, but is that based on the fact that its against the law, or based upon the fact that they consider it a sin. Or both?
Comment by Rachel — March 1, 2006 @ 9:49 am
Rachel, to my understanding, polygamy is currently a serious enough sin that it will get you thrown out of the church. I don’t know how the church could do a better job of explaining that they see it as a sin.
For that matter, since there is very little press converage on the church’s part of individual church proceedings, I have real doubts that the excommunication of polygamous members is intended as a PR stunt.
Comment by John C. — March 1, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Well, I am a little confused because I thought that we did still belive in it, even though we don’t practice it. I mean, we talk about it happening in the afterlife… so doesn’t that mean that we still do believe in it to some extent? I don’t want it to be part of doctrine personally, but this group may not be totally off the mark. We may no longer practice it, but does that mean we have rejected the idea of it all together?
Comment by Aimee — March 2, 2006 @ 2:06 am
Aimee,
I think that it is safe to say that the fate of the oft-temple married appears obscure. There appears to be sufficient variation in practice that clear rules are hard to draw. Also, of course we believe in it. People did it and we don’t (usually) call them bad people for having done it. But we do not and we do believe that those who do incur God’s wrath, not his pleasure (at least, those who say they do it in His name).
Tapestry’s point appears to be that the church really wishes it could do it, but this nasty business of remaining legal is all that prevents them. I don’t see that as accurate portrayal of the circumstances.
Comment by John C — March 2, 2006 @ 11:55 am
There is also a practical dimesion to this matter that is easy to lose sight of. “Tapestry” is essentially a “single issue” interest group, with a similarly focused agenda. I doubt any large organization, be it the LDS church, or the state governments of Arizona and Utah, with the many competing demands made on them for resources and attention, will ever be seen as “doing enough” (from their view).
Comments?
Comment by DB — March 3, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
The new Entertainment Weekly review gave the show an A-. Not bad. One interesting line from the review, “Just one commandment: Thou shalt not call them Mormons.â€
Comment by Eric Russell — March 4, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
This is probably going to end up drawing more attention to LDS beliefs and practices. Right or wrong there is a widespread belief in the Church that at least some people in the CK will be polygamous. It is also clear that a form of plural marriage is practiced in the Church in that if a man is widowed he can be sealed to his second wife. We don’t discuss the implications for the hereafter, but it is easy to assume what will happen.
Comment by a random John — March 5, 2006 @ 12:24 am
I am *personally* against polygamy but don’t understand why it is illegal. Consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever kind of personal relastionships they desire.
There are many abuse problems (financial fraud, physical and sexual abuse) within polygamous groups that need to be resolved, more than anything else. Perhaps because these groups are so marginalized and in hiding, they can get away with such horrible behavior. If they were brought out of hiding, through the legalization of polygamy (which, come on, it should be a Constitutional right), these problems would decrease dramataically.
Comment by Jen — March 10, 2006 @ 9:57 pm