No love for “Big Love”
From time to time the LDS Public Affairs Department responds to media coverage of the church by posting on lds.org what it calls statements of correction or clarification. The section, formerly called “Mistakes in the News” and now entitled “Comments on the News,” features statements on everything from the church’s position on stem-cell research to the church’s position on polygamy to the church’s position on polygamy. Most of the statements, in fact, deal with polygamy and make two points (both of which are debatable):
First, the church discontinued polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates any members who enter into its practice.
Second, there is no such thing as “Mormon polygamists” or “Mormon fundamentalists,” and groups that presently practice polygamy should not be referred to in the press as “Mormon.”
The latest statement on the church website, posted on October 17, makes similar points in responding to a forthcoming (summer 2006) HBO series entitled “Big Love.” Here is the statement in its entirety:
HBO’s “Big Loveâ€
Various media outlets, 17 October 2005The Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement in response to media inquiries regarding the upcoming HBO show “Big Loveâ€:“Polygamy was officially discontinued in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890. Any Church member adopting the practice today is excommunicated. Those groups which continue the practice in Utah and elsewhere have no association whatever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and most of their practitioners have never been among our members.
“The Church has long been concerned about the continued illegal practice of polygamy, and in particular about reports of child and wife abuse emanating from polygamous communities today. It will be regrettable if this program, by making polygamy the subject of entertainment, minimizes the seriousness of that problem.
“Through its Los Angeles Public Affairs office, Church representatives have asked the producers at HBO to consider a disclaimer at the beginning of the program, dissociating the practice of polygamy today from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The producers have said they are willing to consider that request.â€
Three’s Company, Time, 16 October 2005
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118360,00.html
This page, written by a member who is critical of the show, indicates that there will be LDS characters and LDS-ish dialogue in the show, so the church’s request for a disclaimer is understandable. Based on the church’s past success in this area, I will bet that the show producers will add the requested disclaimer to the show.
One of the show’s co-creators has responded to the church’s expression of concern about making light of polygamy by maintaining that “[t]his show is not really about polygamy, in the same way that The Sopranos is not really about the Mob.” This could be a third talking point for the church.
Parsing the statement, observe that while polygamy was “officially discontinued” in 1890, it was not actually discontinued in 1890. So the statement is technically correct but, on the whole, misleading to anyone who doesn’t already know the full story. Statements like that don’t do much to enhance the credibility of the LDS Public Affairs Department.
Comment by Dave — October 19, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
Thanks for the heads-up Justin.
“[t]his show is not really about polygamy, in the same way that The Sopranos is not really about the Mob.â€
niiiice.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 19, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
The idea that the church can legislate who is and isn’t a Mormon galls me, especially since the church has begun to officially discourage the use of the word. “Mormon” isn’t an official name of the church, so I can’t understand why we shouldn’t be able to describe people who live the 19th-century version of our religion using that term.
The fundamentalists are every bit as Mormon as I am, or even as Gordon B. Hinckley is. Granted, they aren’t LDS–but they’re definitely Mormon! They loves them some Brigham Young…
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 19, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
RT,
Here is the definition of Mormon.
Comment by Eric Russell — October 19, 2005 @ 10:15 pm
RT – since the term Mormon in popular mindset does apply to LDS, I think it makes sense to worry about this.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 19, 2005 @ 10:25 pm
I think I tend to agree with those who wish to limit Mormon to the LDS. It is like Catholic. Let’s say someone decided to start a breakaway pre-Vatican II church outside the purview of Rome. The shouldn’t be refered to as Catholics. Catholic Fundementalists? Still too much, I think.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 19, 2005 @ 10:45 pm
I would agree that a disclaimer at the beginning of the program is a good idea. I am quite a fan of HBO shows, so I can’t wait to see this one.
Comment by Dallas Robbins — October 19, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
Dave,
What would you have the church say instead? Remember it has to be short.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
Here’s a better discussion of the issues related to the term “Mormon.”
It’s worth remembering that, in the eyes of the Mormon fundamentalists, we’re the ones who broke away–not them.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — October 20, 2005 @ 12:37 am
I’m with RT.
J, there are plenty of pre-Vatican II affecianados (like Mel Gibson), but they are still “Catholic.” Same with Jews — you can be ultra-orthodox or super secular, but you are still a Jew. Same with Muslims.
Now, most people have heard me vent my frustrations about our reticence to call ourselves Mormons. So, to have us complain about “others” calling themselves “Mormons” when we seem to prefer calling ourselves “LDS” is, well….it gets on my goat a little.
(BTW, call yourself LDS if you want, but you may as well call yourself B.I.G. Seems like if we want to reclaim “Mormon” we should use it more. LDSblogs.org — for shame!)
Comment by Ronan — October 20, 2005 @ 7:26 am
Ditto on the support for RT. “Mormon” describes a movement, not a specific church.
Comment by Kim Siever — October 20, 2005 @ 10:06 am
Ronan, I am a huge proponant of using the term “Mormon” as both a noun and an adjective. I do typically use LDS when refering to a specific church edict, e.g., “the LDS press release.”
The disparity between Mel Gibson and the example I sight is that Mel still falls under the auspice of Rome. If it is not Vatican II than what about Nicea or Trent or whereever. The term Catholic refers to the Roman Church. Now I imagine that we could call protestants, Catholic offshoots or something, but it does seem to fit. I think the same can be true with Mormon.
ps, I agree with the LDSBlogs.org Saddly we were not quick enough and all the Mormon URLs where taken.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 20, 2005 @ 10:55 am