This always seems to come up every now and then, the desire to reemphasis the real name of the Church. One of the reasons its not as regularly used when describing the faith as some may wish is because its so darn long. I mean really “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? That’s nine words, or only eight if you count the hyphen. Whatever happened to something easy like Methodist, even United Methodist? I know the name came from the D & C, buts its not a particularly practical one for others to use in conversation repeatedly. Yes I suppose they could make the effort, but come on. Now ‘LDS’ does make it easer for repeated usage and should probably be the preferred vernacular. The Church would prefer the use of “Church of Jesus Christ” for a media short hand, buts that’s not practical either, most wouldn’t know what church was being referred to, besides which it’s a trifle heavy handed on the PR front.
Mormons not a bad term, its easily identifiable. We’ve adopted it, perhaps reluctantly over the course of time, but its now intimately tied in with our sense of history, culture and identity. I mean we still call it “The Mormon Tabernacle Choir”, and we still refer to “Mormon pioneers”. I don’t have a problem with the word or title Mormon, save that people don’t always readily identify it with Christianity, and it’s a broader term not limited to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like it or not the polygamist in Colorado City and else where are as much Mormons as we are, owing to shared heritage and formative beliefs. To say other wise is like saying Free-Will, Missionary, of Seventh-day Baptists aren’t Baptists because they don’t belong to the SBC. We as a people have got to get over our bipolarized approach to the term Mormon, “We’re not Mormon, but don’t call those Mormons Mormon, people might think there Mormon like us.”
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
"A Word of Warning"
I got permission from the poster of this article to analysis it here on my blog. The poster goes by the name Ammon, and posted the following text on an LDS MySpace discussion board. Having heard about such missives in Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" and elsewhere, I was excited by the opportunity to dissect one, both for style and content. Ammon could probably be vaguely defined as a Mormon, though he does not appear to be a member of the mainline, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather Ammon suggest this group to be perhaps the most accurate organized Church in the world, accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture, yet holding to a understanding of salvation that is more Evangelical in nature.
"A word of warning from the Lord unto the churches of the restoration...Behold, I say unto my church in Salt Lake City, Repent! and remeber my covenant people even the Lamanites. Your programs have failed in times past because you have attempted to help my people with selfish motives. The money you use on rebuilding Babylon and her places of commerace should be spent on bringing relief to my covenant sons. Are they not easy to find? I have gathered them together on reservations but because of your neglect to continue uneducated and poor. Carry them on your shoulders, offer them education and relief without expectation. And you will avoid wrath when they come unpon the gentiles as a young lion amoung the sheep.Further more I say unto you... thine endowments are a stench unto me, they are a remnant of the secret combinations of satan and his angels that he gave to man in times past. Your secret handshakes and passwords will not gain you entry into heaven, but only the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. Repent in sackcloth and ashes and come before Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you who have entered these dead temple works, because in many things my people do err because they are led by the precepts of men, but if you have true faith in my Son, your sins will be forgiven you.To the churches in Independence..Repent! and cease to bicker one with another. Come together in unity and show the world that the Book of Mormon is a source of true brotherhood and not contention and strife.Specifically unto the Community of Christ I say... Repent! Cease from trying to please the world, repent of the abominable pratices in your midst, which are not pleasing unto me. Cease to give that which is sacred unto those who are not worthy through baptism, cease to ordain women to my priesthood, why do you reject the role of mothers, the most important role for building up my kingdom and raising up princes and kings. I will not suffer long with you.Thus saith the Lord unto my churches. Amen and amen.June 5th, 2007"
Now that we've had the text let's begin to dissect it.
A word of warning from the Lord unto the churches of the restoration...
Opening reminiscent of the Doctrine and Covenants or the New Testament.
Behold, I say unto my church in Salt Lake City, Repent!
The text address a number of 'branches' of Mormonism, in a style similar to Biblical Epistles addressing the seven Church's of Asia, ect.
and remeber my covenant people even the Lamanites.
Read: American Indians.
Your programs have failed
The Indian Placement program and other efforts to better the Native Americans.
in times past because you have attempted to help my people with selfish motives.
Bad motives are often the cause for divine reputation in scripture
The money you use on rebuilding Babylon and her places of commerace should be spent on bringing relief to my covenant sons.
Use the money being spent on the redevelopment of downtown Salt Lake to help the Indians.
Are they not easy to find? I have gathered them together on reservations but because of your neglect to continue uneducated and poor.
Extends prophecy's found early in the Book of Mormon to there present state. The genitals would kill many 'Laminates' and drive them from their lands. Here the text suggest that this was part of God's plan, to bring the 'remnants' to reservations, where they could be best aided by his Church, in preparation for last days events. Yet the Indians by and large are still in a deplorable state of readiness, having not be adequately aided by the Church.
Carry them on your shoulders, offer them education and relief without expectation.
Help them unselfishly...
And you will avoid wrath when they come upon the gentiles as a young lion amoung the sheep.
If you do God will turn the wrath of the future reinvigorated Laminate peoples away from their Christan benefactors. Some parallels to Passover.
Further more I say unto you... thine endowments are a stench unto me, they are a remnant of the secret combinations of satan and his angels that he gave to man in times past. Your secret handshakes and passwords will not gain you entry into heaven, but only the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. Repent in sackcloth and ashes and come before Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you who have entered these dead temple works,
Rejects the more esoteric and 'works' oriented theological innovations of Joseph Smith. Perhaps these are written off as the works of a fallen prophet. Endowment, ect. is works oriented not grace oriented and is to be rejected. Endowment consists of fragments from dark and secret works of Satan, parallels here to anti-Masonic fears of Joseph Smith's time, and passages in the Book of Mormon condemning 'secret combinations'.
because in many things my people do err because they are led by the precepts of men, but if you have true faith in my Son, your sins will be forgiven you.
God will forgive those of righteous heart who have been blinded by the works of men.
To the churches in Independence..Repent!
Now addressing the Community of Christ church, the former RLDS.
and cease to bicker one with another.
Referring to large theological divisions within that church.
Come together in unity and show the world that the Book of Mormon is a source of true brotherhood and not contention and strife.
C of C needs to return to proper recognition of the Book of Mormons scriptural statues, something now in dispute within that body.
Specifically unto the Community of Christ
Here Church being referenced is specifically identified, something not done in references implicitly oriented towards LDS Church above.
I say... Repent! Cease from trying to please the world, repent of the abominable pratices in your midst, which are not pleasing unto me.
Calling on C of C to reverse current trajectory in becoming like a mainline protestant church, such as the Episcopalians whose Sunday school literature they sometimes use.
Cease to give that which is sacred unto those who are not worthy through baptism,
Perhaps the C of C does not have rigours enough standards for their baptismal candidates.
cease to ordain women to my priesthood,
Something the fmr RLDS Church has done since the mid 1980's.
why do you reject the role of mothers,
This article takes said ordination of women as exemplative of a larger rejection of traditional or 'God given' women's roles.
the most important role for building up my kingdom and raising up princes and kings. I will not suffer long with you.Thus saith the Lord unto my churches. Amen and amen.June 5th, 2007
Standard closing, and presumptive date of revelation.
Conclusion: Well I have no definitive conclusions to present here as generally understood. I just wanted to analyse the thing. Mostly interested in its use of style and language that would be recognizable to Latter-day Saints as having scriptural aspirations. Ammon will probably comment below.
"A word of warning from the Lord unto the churches of the restoration...Behold, I say unto my church in Salt Lake City, Repent! and remeber my covenant people even the Lamanites. Your programs have failed in times past because you have attempted to help my people with selfish motives. The money you use on rebuilding Babylon and her places of commerace should be spent on bringing relief to my covenant sons. Are they not easy to find? I have gathered them together on reservations but because of your neglect to continue uneducated and poor. Carry them on your shoulders, offer them education and relief without expectation. And you will avoid wrath when they come unpon the gentiles as a young lion amoung the sheep.Further more I say unto you... thine endowments are a stench unto me, they are a remnant of the secret combinations of satan and his angels that he gave to man in times past. Your secret handshakes and passwords will not gain you entry into heaven, but only the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. Repent in sackcloth and ashes and come before Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you who have entered these dead temple works, because in many things my people do err because they are led by the precepts of men, but if you have true faith in my Son, your sins will be forgiven you.To the churches in Independence..Repent! and cease to bicker one with another. Come together in unity and show the world that the Book of Mormon is a source of true brotherhood and not contention and strife.Specifically unto the Community of Christ I say... Repent! Cease from trying to please the world, repent of the abominable pratices in your midst, which are not pleasing unto me. Cease to give that which is sacred unto those who are not worthy through baptism, cease to ordain women to my priesthood, why do you reject the role of mothers, the most important role for building up my kingdom and raising up princes and kings. I will not suffer long with you.Thus saith the Lord unto my churches. Amen and amen.June 5th, 2007"
Now that we've had the text let's begin to dissect it.
A word of warning from the Lord unto the churches of the restoration...
Opening reminiscent of the Doctrine and Covenants or the New Testament.
Behold, I say unto my church in Salt Lake City, Repent!
The text address a number of 'branches' of Mormonism, in a style similar to Biblical Epistles addressing the seven Church's of Asia, ect.
and remeber my covenant people even the Lamanites.
Read: American Indians.
Your programs have failed
The Indian Placement program and other efforts to better the Native Americans.
in times past because you have attempted to help my people with selfish motives.
Bad motives are often the cause for divine reputation in scripture
The money you use on rebuilding Babylon and her places of commerace should be spent on bringing relief to my covenant sons.
Use the money being spent on the redevelopment of downtown Salt Lake to help the Indians.
Are they not easy to find? I have gathered them together on reservations but because of your neglect to continue uneducated and poor.
Extends prophecy's found early in the Book of Mormon to there present state. The genitals would kill many 'Laminates' and drive them from their lands. Here the text suggest that this was part of God's plan, to bring the 'remnants' to reservations, where they could be best aided by his Church, in preparation for last days events. Yet the Indians by and large are still in a deplorable state of readiness, having not be adequately aided by the Church.
Carry them on your shoulders, offer them education and relief without expectation.
Help them unselfishly...
And you will avoid wrath when they come upon the gentiles as a young lion amoung the sheep.
If you do God will turn the wrath of the future reinvigorated Laminate peoples away from their Christan benefactors. Some parallels to Passover.
Further more I say unto you... thine endowments are a stench unto me, they are a remnant of the secret combinations of satan and his angels that he gave to man in times past. Your secret handshakes and passwords will not gain you entry into heaven, but only the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. Repent in sackcloth and ashes and come before Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you who have entered these dead temple works,
Rejects the more esoteric and 'works' oriented theological innovations of Joseph Smith. Perhaps these are written off as the works of a fallen prophet. Endowment, ect. is works oriented not grace oriented and is to be rejected. Endowment consists of fragments from dark and secret works of Satan, parallels here to anti-Masonic fears of Joseph Smith's time, and passages in the Book of Mormon condemning 'secret combinations'.
because in many things my people do err because they are led by the precepts of men, but if you have true faith in my Son, your sins will be forgiven you.
God will forgive those of righteous heart who have been blinded by the works of men.
To the churches in Independence..Repent!
Now addressing the Community of Christ church, the former RLDS.
and cease to bicker one with another.
Referring to large theological divisions within that church.
Come together in unity and show the world that the Book of Mormon is a source of true brotherhood and not contention and strife.
C of C needs to return to proper recognition of the Book of Mormons scriptural statues, something now in dispute within that body.
Specifically unto the Community of Christ
Here Church being referenced is specifically identified, something not done in references implicitly oriented towards LDS Church above.
I say... Repent! Cease from trying to please the world, repent of the abominable pratices in your midst, which are not pleasing unto me.
Calling on C of C to reverse current trajectory in becoming like a mainline protestant church, such as the Episcopalians whose Sunday school literature they sometimes use.
Cease to give that which is sacred unto those who are not worthy through baptism,
Perhaps the C of C does not have rigours enough standards for their baptismal candidates.
cease to ordain women to my priesthood,
Something the fmr RLDS Church has done since the mid 1980's.
why do you reject the role of mothers,
This article takes said ordination of women as exemplative of a larger rejection of traditional or 'God given' women's roles.
the most important role for building up my kingdom and raising up princes and kings. I will not suffer long with you.Thus saith the Lord unto my churches. Amen and amen.June 5th, 2007
Standard closing, and presumptive date of revelation.
Conclusion: Well I have no definitive conclusions to present here as generally understood. I just wanted to analyse the thing. Mostly interested in its use of style and language that would be recognizable to Latter-day Saints as having scriptural aspirations. Ammon will probably comment below.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Jesus Camp (2006)
This is a paper I wrote for a class last semester on documentary film, thought I might include it here for discussion.
Examining Jesus Camp
Nate Dredge
Comm 494
Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s documentary Jesus Camp is a well made expose of an evangelical American subculture. It is important to point out however, that the people, practices and beliefs depicted in this film, are just that, A evangelical American subculture. Someone not well versed in the varieties of American Evangelicalism, might come away from this film viewing it as representative of the movement as a whole, this is off course not true. Jesus Camp gives us a look at a particular bread of charismatic Pentecostalism, one that accepts women preachers such as Becky Fischer, embraces speaking in tongues, is militantly anti-abortion, and is within the orbit of Republican national politics. This association of conservative evangelicalism, with Republican party politics has become so commonly held in our national psyche, that the film is able to say some things about this larger national group by examination a chosen sub-set. So while much of the politics of the film are not interchangeable with Evangelicalism as a whole, it is representative of a sizeable constituency within the movement. With this constituency having grown to immense political prominence, particularly within the years of the second Bush presidency, Jesus Camp can be said to be particularly relevant to the time of its production.
The aim of the film can be seen as a political one, while the actions of the individuals depicted in the film appear non-coursed, and indeed the vast majority of the participants in the project later stated they felt ther depiction there-in to have been fair, the movie is constructed rather blatantly along political lines. Counterpoint to the Republican subjects of the documentary is provided in the framing of the film, which features radio personality Mike Papantonio, of the decidedly liberal Air America network, opining on his fears regarding the aforementioned powerful constituency. Papantonio comes in and out of the film several times, each time commenting negatively upon the group of which Becky Fischer and Ted Haggard are presented as representative. However Papantonio comes across as a balanced and removed observer, objective in a way the documentary’s other participants are not. Papantonio, who describes himself as a Christian by upbringing, can disparage against the methods and teachings of Fischer and her ilk as being, “not the Christianity I grew up with”, but rather a warped, or a just ‘not quite right’ variant there of. Papantonio is always shown to be fair and reasoning, while the others in the film are depicted as so wrapped up in their little world as to be removed from true reality.
The final scene of the film, when Becky Fischer takes here vehicle through a car wash while listening to a reverend preach conservative social politics on the radio, is subtle invocation of Papantonio’s, and by extension the filmmakers, views of their subjects religion. The car wash constitutes a ‘warped baptism’, one removed and not truly purifying of the individual that experiences it, as such it is reprehensive of Papantonio’s views of Ms. Fischers faith. This false baptism climaxes when the wash doors open reveling a Pier One Imports and a freeway, a decidedly commercial landscape. This commercial landscape of chain stories, highways, and billboards with simplistic Christian sentiments emblazoned upon them, are repeatedly displayed throughout the film, and wedded to the vision of the America Ms. Fischer and her co-religionist are trying ‘to protect’. This wedding of politically conservative and eccentric evangelicalism, with a bland corporatist Midwestern environment is cemented in these images overlay with Becky Fischer’s comments about loving and wanting to preserve there way of life.
Explicitly the film is about the experiences of children at Becky Fishers ’Kids on Fire’ summer camp in Devils Lake, North Dakota. While a good number of children are depicted in the film, it keeps its focus through following a few in greater detail then the rest. Foremost among those followed are Levi, Rachael and Victoria, with there families and associates providing additional commentary. While this is the straight forward subject matter of the film, as stated before the implicit meaning is in the packaging. The framing once again is important for this, because of the political aspects of the film. The sense of time in the film is very much built around the resignation of moderate supreme court justice Sandra Day O’Conner and the fight to appoint conservative justice Samuel Alito to fill her set. As Papantonio points out in the film, Fischers emphasis on a youth ministry serves duel theological and political purposes, that combine in fostering the creation of an youthful ‘army for the Republican party’. As the Tory children toward the end of the film (after there instructive period at Becky Fischers camp), mix with politically influential preacher Ted Haggard and travel to Washington D.C. to protest abortion, Papantonios point seems to be born out. This is also the subjective meaning of the film, Fischer and her associates dress in religious jargon something that is mostly political in social impact.
That any group socializes and instructs its young so as to perpetuate its traditions and world view is not something that in itself is liable to cause much controversy. Jesus Camp however manages to infect a slightly sinister tinge to this process as practiced by Becky Fischer and others. To make this affect in advocating a implicate sense of disconcertion on the part of the audience, it is important that its point of critique extend beyond the political. Politics is subjective, viewers opinions on the issues vary, but if an audience can be brought to think that some indoctrination method is harmful to the participants, they are more likely to reassess and think critically about what is being presented. This can be aided a little through slight and subtle tweaks with the material, such as the use of the foreboding music when showing the camp at night. More effective however is to see the effects of the process on the subjects. We are presented with many scenes in Jesus Camp of impressionable young children reacting with strong emotions to there experiences at the camp and else where. That these children have internalized and taken what they have learned at face value is manifest in many ways. The young girl speaking of ‘dancing for the flesh sometimes’ shows the assimilation of a rather heavy, sexually laden and adult conception of sin, incorporated into her perceptions of what many of her piers would doubtless view as harmless childhood play. The emotional devastation and fear shown on the faces of children called out for hypocrisy and sin by their leaders, should be enough to convince many viewers that they are witness a type of spiritual abuse, and that the kids are being harmed on a psychological level.
The movie is subtle in its implicit advocacy by its seeming neutrality. The interaction of the crew with the subjects is minimized, we don’t even hear the film makers during interviews,something that should naturally take us out of the cinema verta aspects of the work. It is perhaps not a wonder that so many of the participants in the film, failed to view the finished project in a negative light, despite implicate criticism within the context of the film. They are presented as they are, nothing explicitly negative is said. The theologically an politically committed subjects of the piece see things within a filter of belief not shared by the audience at large. It is through a purportedly objective viewing of the subjective worldviews of the participants of Jesus Camp, that the audience sees these figures within a context evoking fanaticism. The movie I think dose have a proverbial ax to grind, but it is skillfully handled and for the most part wilded in a manner that does not seem overly reactionary. As a film it displays a masterful understanding of construction and subtle implication, it allows its subjects to do its advocacy for it in a thought provoking manner.
Examining Jesus Camp
Nate Dredge
Comm 494
Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s documentary Jesus Camp is a well made expose of an evangelical American subculture. It is important to point out however, that the people, practices and beliefs depicted in this film, are just that, A evangelical American subculture. Someone not well versed in the varieties of American Evangelicalism, might come away from this film viewing it as representative of the movement as a whole, this is off course not true. Jesus Camp gives us a look at a particular bread of charismatic Pentecostalism, one that accepts women preachers such as Becky Fischer, embraces speaking in tongues, is militantly anti-abortion, and is within the orbit of Republican national politics. This association of conservative evangelicalism, with Republican party politics has become so commonly held in our national psyche, that the film is able to say some things about this larger national group by examination a chosen sub-set. So while much of the politics of the film are not interchangeable with Evangelicalism as a whole, it is representative of a sizeable constituency within the movement. With this constituency having grown to immense political prominence, particularly within the years of the second Bush presidency, Jesus Camp can be said to be particularly relevant to the time of its production.
The aim of the film can be seen as a political one, while the actions of the individuals depicted in the film appear non-coursed, and indeed the vast majority of the participants in the project later stated they felt ther depiction there-in to have been fair, the movie is constructed rather blatantly along political lines. Counterpoint to the Republican subjects of the documentary is provided in the framing of the film, which features radio personality Mike Papantonio, of the decidedly liberal Air America network, opining on his fears regarding the aforementioned powerful constituency. Papantonio comes in and out of the film several times, each time commenting negatively upon the group of which Becky Fischer and Ted Haggard are presented as representative. However Papantonio comes across as a balanced and removed observer, objective in a way the documentary’s other participants are not. Papantonio, who describes himself as a Christian by upbringing, can disparage against the methods and teachings of Fischer and her ilk as being, “not the Christianity I grew up with”, but rather a warped, or a just ‘not quite right’ variant there of. Papantonio is always shown to be fair and reasoning, while the others in the film are depicted as so wrapped up in their little world as to be removed from true reality.
The final scene of the film, when Becky Fischer takes here vehicle through a car wash while listening to a reverend preach conservative social politics on the radio, is subtle invocation of Papantonio’s, and by extension the filmmakers, views of their subjects religion. The car wash constitutes a ‘warped baptism’, one removed and not truly purifying of the individual that experiences it, as such it is reprehensive of Papantonio’s views of Ms. Fischers faith. This false baptism climaxes when the wash doors open reveling a Pier One Imports and a freeway, a decidedly commercial landscape. This commercial landscape of chain stories, highways, and billboards with simplistic Christian sentiments emblazoned upon them, are repeatedly displayed throughout the film, and wedded to the vision of the America Ms. Fischer and her co-religionist are trying ‘to protect’. This wedding of politically conservative and eccentric evangelicalism, with a bland corporatist Midwestern environment is cemented in these images overlay with Becky Fischer’s comments about loving and wanting to preserve there way of life.
Explicitly the film is about the experiences of children at Becky Fishers ’Kids on Fire’ summer camp in Devils Lake, North Dakota. While a good number of children are depicted in the film, it keeps its focus through following a few in greater detail then the rest. Foremost among those followed are Levi, Rachael and Victoria, with there families and associates providing additional commentary. While this is the straight forward subject matter of the film, as stated before the implicit meaning is in the packaging. The framing once again is important for this, because of the political aspects of the film. The sense of time in the film is very much built around the resignation of moderate supreme court justice Sandra Day O’Conner and the fight to appoint conservative justice Samuel Alito to fill her set. As Papantonio points out in the film, Fischers emphasis on a youth ministry serves duel theological and political purposes, that combine in fostering the creation of an youthful ‘army for the Republican party’. As the Tory children toward the end of the film (after there instructive period at Becky Fischers camp), mix with politically influential preacher Ted Haggard and travel to Washington D.C. to protest abortion, Papantonios point seems to be born out. This is also the subjective meaning of the film, Fischer and her associates dress in religious jargon something that is mostly political in social impact.
That any group socializes and instructs its young so as to perpetuate its traditions and world view is not something that in itself is liable to cause much controversy. Jesus Camp however manages to infect a slightly sinister tinge to this process as practiced by Becky Fischer and others. To make this affect in advocating a implicate sense of disconcertion on the part of the audience, it is important that its point of critique extend beyond the political. Politics is subjective, viewers opinions on the issues vary, but if an audience can be brought to think that some indoctrination method is harmful to the participants, they are more likely to reassess and think critically about what is being presented. This can be aided a little through slight and subtle tweaks with the material, such as the use of the foreboding music when showing the camp at night. More effective however is to see the effects of the process on the subjects. We are presented with many scenes in Jesus Camp of impressionable young children reacting with strong emotions to there experiences at the camp and else where. That these children have internalized and taken what they have learned at face value is manifest in many ways. The young girl speaking of ‘dancing for the flesh sometimes’ shows the assimilation of a rather heavy, sexually laden and adult conception of sin, incorporated into her perceptions of what many of her piers would doubtless view as harmless childhood play. The emotional devastation and fear shown on the faces of children called out for hypocrisy and sin by their leaders, should be enough to convince many viewers that they are witness a type of spiritual abuse, and that the kids are being harmed on a psychological level.
The movie is subtle in its implicit advocacy by its seeming neutrality. The interaction of the crew with the subjects is minimized, we don’t even hear the film makers during interviews,something that should naturally take us out of the cinema verta aspects of the work. It is perhaps not a wonder that so many of the participants in the film, failed to view the finished project in a negative light, despite implicate criticism within the context of the film. They are presented as they are, nothing explicitly negative is said. The theologically an politically committed subjects of the piece see things within a filter of belief not shared by the audience at large. It is through a purportedly objective viewing of the subjective worldviews of the participants of Jesus Camp, that the audience sees these figures within a context evoking fanaticism. The movie I think dose have a proverbial ax to grind, but it is skillfully handled and for the most part wilded in a manner that does not seem overly reactionary. As a film it displays a masterful understanding of construction and subtle implication, it allows its subjects to do its advocacy for it in a thought provoking manner.
God vs. Gods
Okay, here’s a few thoughts on the God vs. Gods thing. Ancient Israel had a problem with the idolatry, so the prophets where continually tasked to exhort the populace towards exclusive worship of their covenant God Jehovah or Yahweh. It was important to delegitimize the polytheistic worship of multiple god’s then common in Canaan. Further, since Elohem was operating mostly out of the picture, according to a common Mormon reading of the Old Testament, the pre-incarnate Christ was the only God with which they where to have anything to do. When the other members of the Godhead (Holy Ghost, The Father) were re-introduced during the New Testament period, emphasis on their unity of purpose was gradually confessed to one of substance. Hence the Trinitarian concepts of God codified in the creeds of the time of Constantine.
My friend Tom Sheepandgoats tells me that (like Glen Beck) New York state radio personality Bob Lonsberry is quarky and LDS.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Is God's Love Conditional? Or, An Excuse for Me to Write About Mormon Civil Liberties
This 2003 Ensign article from Elder Russell M. Nelson has surely caused a great number of people some concern. This is how I responded to the issue on another blog, though here slightly toned down to better suit the tone I have in mind for this blog (plus I've had a few more minutes to refine my thoughts):
This is an odd article. Elder Nelson spends some time citing scripture to indicate that God’s love is ‘conditional’. He stresses that the doctrine of God’s unconditional love is a false one inspired by the devil. Elder Nelson then references a few verses indicating the God’s love is, in fact, unconditional, or in his own parlance that ‘God loves the sinner’. He then sums the thing up stating : “The full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional—predicated upon our obedience to eternal law.” So why doesn’t he just say in the text of the article (and in its title) what the summation seems to indicate, that the full blessings of God’s love are contingent upon obedience, not that God only loves the obedient? My guess is that Elder Nelson, like many other members of the church, is more concerned theologically with getting to a desired end result ( i.e. personal righteousness (read obedience + grace*) and exaltation for church members)), then complete intellectual honesty/openness and respect for the process. In other words, better to motivate through fear if it works, classifying any possible ‘slight misdirection in the details’ as of little importance. I needless to say, am not a big fan of this approach. However I do recognize its effectiveness, and that it may be born from frustration with the inherent 'inefficiency's' of the alternative system.
On my mission I served in a stake that was notoriously strict, it went above and beyond church policy in terms of its stances on the drinking of caffeine, what constituted appropriate activates for the youth, ect. However compared to the boarding stakes it had higher temple attendance, conversion rate, ect, ect. I think the perceived effectiveness of hard-line stances, and motivation through fear, such as I perceive Elder Nelsons comments may be endorsing, makes it very difficult to convince ’bottom line’ motivated proponents of such, that these stances and polices could be destructive to individual members ( i. e. causes excessive and unwarned guilt, ect). Members thusly hurt might be considered a sort of ’collateral damage’ if they are even thought about or recognized at all. However it might be pointed out that the Church’s ’higher standard’ also serves as one its greatest sources of attraction for both life long members and converts. I think a political metaphor here might be apt, some think that a suspension of some civil liberties might be apt to better further the war on terrorism, while others believe such infringements undermined the very Constitution and free society that we seek to protect. I for one am generally more comfortable with the latter approach, though would make some minor concessions (politically) given they were subject to proper judicial oversight. I would like to here other peoples thoughts on this, meaning the theological aspects explored here, but you can weigh in on the Patriot Act as well if you would like to.
*Though not necessarily in the same way most protestants understand it.
This is an odd article. Elder Nelson spends some time citing scripture to indicate that God’s love is ‘conditional’. He stresses that the doctrine of God’s unconditional love is a false one inspired by the devil. Elder Nelson then references a few verses indicating the God’s love is, in fact, unconditional, or in his own parlance that ‘God loves the sinner’. He then sums the thing up stating : “The full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional—predicated upon our obedience to eternal law.” So why doesn’t he just say in the text of the article (and in its title) what the summation seems to indicate, that the full blessings of God’s love are contingent upon obedience, not that God only loves the obedient? My guess is that Elder Nelson, like many other members of the church, is more concerned theologically with getting to a desired end result ( i.e. personal righteousness (read obedience + grace*) and exaltation for church members)), then complete intellectual honesty/openness and respect for the process. In other words, better to motivate through fear if it works, classifying any possible ‘slight misdirection in the details’ as of little importance. I needless to say, am not a big fan of this approach. However I do recognize its effectiveness, and that it may be born from frustration with the inherent 'inefficiency's' of the alternative system.
On my mission I served in a stake that was notoriously strict, it went above and beyond church policy in terms of its stances on the drinking of caffeine, what constituted appropriate activates for the youth, ect. However compared to the boarding stakes it had higher temple attendance, conversion rate, ect, ect. I think the perceived effectiveness of hard-line stances, and motivation through fear, such as I perceive Elder Nelsons comments may be endorsing, makes it very difficult to convince ’bottom line’ motivated proponents of such, that these stances and polices could be destructive to individual members ( i. e. causes excessive and unwarned guilt, ect). Members thusly hurt might be considered a sort of ’collateral damage’ if they are even thought about or recognized at all. However it might be pointed out that the Church’s ’higher standard’ also serves as one its greatest sources of attraction for both life long members and converts. I think a political metaphor here might be apt, some think that a suspension of some civil liberties might be apt to better further the war on terrorism, while others believe such infringements undermined the very Constitution and free society that we seek to protect. I for one am generally more comfortable with the latter approach, though would make some minor concessions (politically) given they were subject to proper judicial oversight. I would like to here other peoples thoughts on this, meaning the theological aspects explored here, but you can weigh in on the Patriot Act as well if you would like to.
*Though not necessarily in the same way most protestants understand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)