Mormon

Episode 9: Big Love and Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamy Part 1

by admin •  • 29 Comments

Today’s episode is on HBO’s “Big Love” and Mormon Fundamentalist polygamy.

Panelists include: John Hamer, Ann Porter, Tom Grover and host John Dehlin.

Extra Readings Referenced in Podcast:

  • “What To Expect When You’re Expecting a Co-Wife: Why American Muslims don’t care to legalize polygamy” from Slate online magazine
  • “Big Love Has Big Plans” from the Deseret Morning News
  • “Polygamists Unite! They used to live quiety but now they’re making noise” from Newsweek
  • “The Polygamy Files: The Tribune’s blog on the plural life” from the SLC Tribune
  • MormonStories Podcast, Interview with Anne Wilde in 5 parts
spacer Standard Podcast [ 1:12:23 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Post navigation

← Episode 8: A Review of “States of Grace” and “Orthodox Paradox”
Episode 10: Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamy Part 2 →

29 comments for “Episode 9: Big Love and Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamy Part 1

  1. spacer
    Andy Salazar
    August 8, 2007 at 10:37 am

    I will listen to the podcast, and read these articles, unfortunately I dont watch Big Love or have HBO ( maybe thats actually fortunately) so I cant comment directly about the show, but after listening to the writers talk about the show and having seen the first episode, I have to say that I think that the writers presonal opinions and lifestyle are definately being reflected on the show, which I presonally dont neccessarily consider a good thing.

    Reply
  2. spacer
    Nick Literski
    August 8, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Interesting, Andy. Exactly what “presonal [sic] opinions” of the writers do you object to?

    For that matter, what do you actually know about the writers’ “lifestyle,” as you call it? Do you object to what time they set their alarm clocks? Their choice of breakfast cereal? What cars they drive? The location, size, or decor of their homes? A “lifestyle” includes quite a multitude of things, after all. Can you be more specific—and for that mattter, tell us how this aspect of their “lifestyle” is reflected on the show?

    Reply
  3. spacer
    Andy Salazar
    August 8, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    they are life partners.

    Reply
  4. spacer
    Andy Salazar
    August 8, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    I beleive that they have an agenda.

    I’m a writer and have made some small films, so I know that most writers draw from thier personal lives. I aint shocked about that.

    But some writers live one way and tell stories that may or may not have anything to do about them.

    I think these guys have an agenda and those are the types of writers and stories that I dont care for, writers that are trying to get thier point across through thier stories. I think they shouldnt bother trying to disguise it with entertainment, write an essay about their bad childhoods as mormons or being gay…it would be more direct and probably more cathartic anyways.

    Reply
  5. spacer
    capt jack
    August 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Andy:

    So you don’t agree with writers on a show you’ve never seen, and you don’t agree with them because they’re gay. Does that sum it up?

    I’d ask you if you make it a blanket rule to reject art by those whose lifestyles you don’t approve of, but you’ve already answered my question when you wrote “those are the types of writers and stories that I dont care for, writers that are trying to get thier point across through thier stories.”

    Not for nothing, but what do you read? As the main point of writing is for a writer to get his point across through stories, refusing to read “those types of writers” leaves you with things like cereal boxes and instruction manuals.

    Reply
  6. spacer
    capt jack
    August 8, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    As for Big Love, I missed the first season and am totally addicted to the second one. There are a few things that are “off”: Lois’ southern accent is one of them.

    Another is their “Mormon-speak”. When Bill ordained his son Ben, he said he was conferring upon him the priesthood “in the name of the Messiah”; in nearly 40 years in the church, I never heard of anyone–except John the Baptist–using that phrase. Since fundamentalists are big on proper protocol for ordinations, I doubt they’d use the phrase either. Their use of the term “Holy Spirit” also seems, for lack of a better term, clunky. I’ve always heard Mormons talk about the “Holy Ghost”, or “the Spirit”, but never “Holy Spirit”.

    But those are minor complaints, really, as the rest of the writing and character development seems spot-on.

    Andy shouldn’t worry about the writers’ agenda too much; the only male character that seems to be into other men–Roman’s son Albie– is a creep.

    Reply
  7. spacer
    Equality
    August 9, 2007 at 9:18 am

    John and the other panelists:

    I just want to post a comment and let you know that I am preparing for my own consumption a large portion of crow. I was a bit critical of the first episode of Mormon Matters. I am listening now to this episode, however, and am absolutely blown away. What a great panel. What a great discussion. I have been studying Mormonism fairly intensely for nearly 20 years (first from an academic, outsiders’ perspective as part of my religious studies curriculum in college, then as an “insider” convert, and now as a “disaffected” member with nominal membership in the church). I have learned in one hour today a host of things I never knew before (one example–that Apostle Richard Lyman’s “adultery” was actually with someone he considered a plural wife; I had read that he had had an “affair” with his secretary).

    The discussion of the 1886 John Taylor revelation and subsequent ordinations, I think it is fair to say that there is at least as much historical evidence to support the argument that the revelation and ordinations actually occurred as there is to support, say, the restoration of the Melchizidek priesthood (at least we have a date for the Taylor revelation and ordinations). As the panelists pointed out, it is a faith claim for the fundamentalists, but it seems to me it requires no greater faith to believe in the Taylor revelation and ordinations than it does to believe in the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the delivery of the gold plates by the angel Moroni (or Nephi in the early accounts), the priesthood restorations, etc.

    I think one reason the revelation had such traction, as Tom observed, is that the revelation simply provided a gloss of additional authority for things that were already being taught, and taught repeatedly and quite forcefully, by the apostles. It wasn’t some new and different thing–rather, it served as an exclamation point on what Brigham Young, John Taylor, Jedediah Grant, Orson Pratt, et al. had been teaching for thirty years, and with increasing fervor in the 1880s. I could (but will spare you) trot out quote after quote from the Journal of Discourses in which the apostles are saying that polygamy will never leave the earth, that the church will not and cannot reject it, that no man can be exalted who does not accept the principle, etc. So, it should come as no surprise that the 1886 revelation would get traction, or that the Manifesto would be met with suspicion and disbelief.

    Anyway, thanks for a great great podcast.

    Reply
  8. spacer
    Nick Literski
    August 9, 2007 at 9:47 am

    #3:
    You mean there are people who’ve watched Big Love who don’t already know the writers are gay?

    #4:
    Every writer has an agenda. Otherwise, they wouldn’t write. Also, it would be a rather dull world if writers never used stories to get a point across. I guess that carpenter-turned-rabbi from Nazareth should have followed your advice. Dispense with those “parables!” Just tell it straight, or write it as an essay! It would be more direct!

    Feel free, btw, to tell us all how you think Big Love has some secret “gay agenda.” Especially since you’ve only ever watched one episode. Heck, I’ll even give you a small hint, just to help you out. If you really pay attention to comments here and there, you’ll see the heir apparent to the uber-fundamentalist Colorado City style group’s leadership is a closeted homosexual. And he’s SUCH a positive message about gay men—after all, he’s quite capable of intimidation, blackmail, revenge, etc.! It must be those gay writers promoting their “gay agenda!” LOL!

    Reply
  9. spacer
    Nick Literski
    August 9, 2007 at 9:51 am

    #6:
    When Bill ordained his son Ben, he said he was conferring upon him the priesthood “in the name of the Messiah”; in nearly 40 years in the church, I never heard of anyone–except John the Baptist–using that phrase. Since fundamentalists are big on proper protocol for ordinations, I doubt they’d use the phrase either.

    Why would fundamentalists who are “big on proper protocol” follow the protocol of the LDS church, which most of them consider to be apostate? It made perfect sense for Bill to use the specific language from the D&C. It was much more in keeping with Mormon Fundamentalism than imitating modern LDS-ism would be.

    Reply
  10. spacer
    Ben There
    August 9, 2007 at 9:53 am

    capt jack: have you had much involvement with Mormon fundamentalists, e.g., FLDS folk from southern Utah, northern Arizona? Many of them have a distinct southern accent, much like Lois.

    I find much of the show to be incredibly accurate with respect to fundamentalist beliefs and traditions, though occasionally the terminology is a bit off ( for example, the characters often say ” have a testimony for something”, whereas we would of course say we “have a testimony of something.”)

    Reply
  11. spacer
    Nick Literski
    August 9, 2007 at 9:56 am

    BTW, Andy. Are you going to answer my question, and tell me about the writers’ “lifestyle?” You’ve told us that they are writers and that they are partners, but you really haven’t described their “lifestyle” at all.

    Reply
  12. spacer
    Andy Salazar
    August 9, 2007 at 10:59 am

    biscuit. I just got into work. Give me a moment. I know your all ready to go, but heck let me settle into the morning here.

    If you go to NPR and listen to thier interview they talk about their childhoods and exposure to the mormon culture.

    I’m in a good mood this morning and really dont want to get into it with some dude on the internet, and really I liked the concept of Mormon matters podcast to learn about whats going on in todays headlines, not to argue about this kind of silly stuff.

    Reply
  13. spacer
    Ben There
    August 9, 2007 at 11:47 am

    Well said, Nick. I am impressed with how much the creators of BL have put into learning the fundamentalist ways, both “normal” fundamentalist, as well as FLDS-style fundamentalists.

    The peep stone and hat revelation with Alby in the last episode probably went over the heads of at least 99.44% of viewers. Of course this was a reference to the translation of the BoM, as was the “witness” who was called Martin Ferris (heh heh). The real FLDS and fundamentalists have no such peep stones and hats that I am aware of.

    Reply
  14. spacer
    Ben There
    August 9, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Andy: whatever lifestyle issues you are getting at, the fact of the matter is that BL presents a unique view into the world of Mormon fundamentalism. Of course it is within the context of a soap opera TV drama with intrigue and plot lines and such. But aside from some small details, they have done a very fine job. As for an agenda? Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that a show about Mormon polygamists is being aired to increase support for gay marriage? How do you make this leap of logic?

    Reply
  15. spacer
    capt jack
    August 9, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Interesting comment about the accents, I never knew that. The ones I’ve seen interviewed on TV seemed to have a run-of-the-mill Utah accent..

    Nick, as far as the ordination protocol goes, are you saying when doing priesthood ordinations they do it “in the name of the Messiah”? I honestly don’t know, but from everything I’ve read it seems their ordinations are fairly similar to mainstream Mormon ordinations.

    Reply
  16. spacer
    Nick Literski
    August 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    I’m just saying that it’s not out of character for Mormon Fundamentalists to attempt to do things in some mythical “original” way, as supposedly given by Joseph Smith. The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of the Last Days, located in Manti, claims to give the Endowment as originally done by Joseph Smith, despite the fact that there is very little documentary evidence upon which to reconstruct such a thing.

    Keep in mind also that Bill is an “independent” fundamentalist, not ascribing to any particular church or group. He’s doing his own thing, and it seems consistent that he would be following what he saw as scriptural patterns.

    I agree with you though, that there are always a few reasons to chuckle when we notice the writers or set designers have missed the boat on some detail (crucifix on the wall, anyone??). spacer

    Reply
  17. spacer
    capt jack
    August 9, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    My own–admittedly limited–knowledge of fundamentalists has them diverging in a serious way after the Manifesto and especially after the Second Manifesto of 1904. They really get hostile after Heber J Grant became p