403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : Yeah. So? » Yeah. So?

Yeah. So?

Rusty - March 12, 2009

This will probably be my response if anyone confronts me about the Big Love. Maybe follow it up with something about how it’s all symbolic and when you strip symbols of their context/meaning they naturally appear kooky. And really, even the meaning behind the endowment symbols isn’t all that revelatory to anyone familiar with Mormon theology. I imagine it similar to a couple expressing oaths of love to each other, not something they necessarily want everyone else to hear, but also not really an expression never heard before.


  1. So, what do you say when they ask you about getting your “privates washed”? (Yes, I’ve been asked that question.) Actually, I kinda like your “Yeah. So?”

    I do like your line about how stripping symbolism from its context or meaning makes it seem kooky. Good one. Thanks.

    Comment by Hunter — March 12, 2009 @ 8:02 am

  2. Certainly a very secure and balanced pov, Rusty.

    Comment by Mimi — March 12, 2009 @ 9:18 am

  3. I doubt it’s going to seem very kooky. Most people’s reaction is probably going to be “is that all it is?” It may even be a good teaching opportunity.

    I’ve been surprised at some members’ reactions to this news. Even some who don’t get angry and want a boycott are calling HBO all kinds of bad names. I think we make ourselves look silly when we do that. At worst, HBO is being disrespectful and uncaring. As far as we know without seeing the episode, they are not insulting or defaming us.

    It’s understandable that we wish that they would respect our beliefs enough to leave our sacred and private rituals out of their public entertainment offerings, but if they don’t, the worst thing we can do is throw a fit and prove to the world that we have no perspective.

    Comment by MCQ — March 12, 2009 @ 9:53 am

  4. Even some who don’t get angry and want a boycott are calling HBO all kinds of bad names.

    I consider “douchebag” a compliment in case you were referring to my post yesterday. :)

    But I agree that it could be a great teaching opportunity, a point I was going to make in this post but just forgot. Any time someone approaches us and asks us about the Church is always a good thing. Who cares if they are coming to us with false information, it’s a great opportunity to clarify.

    Comment by Rusty — March 12, 2009 @ 10:20 am

  5. If we know how to clarify.

    The post yesterday was definitely not “yeah, so?”

    Comment by Matt W. — March 12, 2009 @ 10:34 am

  6. Matt,
    Well, I guess my humor runs a little too sarcastic for some tastes. The way that I would react to anyone approaching me would be “yeah, so”. If an HBO executive approached me I’d have something to say about the way apologies work, but not much to say about the episode. So yeah, I maintain that I am in the “yeah, so” camp.

    Comment by Rusty — March 12, 2009 @ 10:38 am

  7. So, what do you say when they ask you about getting your “privates washed”?

    I say, “I have never had my privates washed in the temple”.

    Comment by Kim Siever — March 12, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

  8. My favorite conversation about the temple happened in high school. An LDS friend was sitting next to me and another non-LDS friend was drilling her on her religion. The non-LDS girl said, “So, when you get married in the temple don’t you have to, like, have sex with the priest or something?”

    My LDS friend blinked for a second then said, “Well, in our church all men hold the priesthood and could be called priests, and the bride will be having sex with her husband later that night, so I guess you could say she has to have sex with the priest.”

    I thought it was a good answer.

    Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — March 12, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

  9. Given our secrecy on the subject, non-LDS and non-endowed LDS having such thoughts as expressed in comment 8 is perfectly understandable. Personally I long for a modern presentation of the endowment without symbols whose meaning to early Masonic saints has been lost over time. Something like The Matrix movies would be great. We’ll get there someday.

    Comment by Steve EM — March 12, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

  10. My op-ed in today’s Salt Lake Trib echoes Rusty’s sentiment.

    It should’ve been “Yeah. So?” from the get-go.

    Comment by Vince Horiuchi — March 12, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

  11. This cover of the October 2007 Ensign shows a couple, supposedly going to the temple as per the cover story headline “Come to the Temple, p. 18.”

    Those are temple-garment bags they are carrying, but to non-LDS they might look like over-night bags.

    If you assume those are over-night bags, what might a non-member infer about the big cheesy grin on the man’s face?

    Comment by Bookslinger — March 12, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

  12. Hey, Vince, nice to see you here.

    Bookslinger, it looks to me like they both have cheesy grins. Are you suggesting that people assume that Mormon women don’t enjoy sex, so she must be thinking about something else?

    Comment by MCQ — March 12, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

  13. C’mon folks, I called it back at the season premiere for season 3: “There’s gonna be lies, and secrets, and discoveries, and problems. Television!”

    If you’ve got 15 seconds to spare, I thought I delivered my (oddly prophetic) take on the upcoming season with a certain panache.

    Comment by Tom Hanks — March 13, 2009 @ 5:48 am

  14. [...] asking why it’s a problem to portray the endowment, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Some were inspired to contemplate some original tangents, see here and here. Some pointed out that [...]

    Pingback by Sunday in Outer Blogness: Big News Edition! | Main Street Plaza — March 15, 2009 @ 1:27 am

  15. Rusty: I absolutely love the simile you’ve painted of the temple ceremony-cum-love letter. I will certainly tuck that gem away for discussions about the temple in the future.

    Comment by Silus Grok — March 15, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI