Jesus Camp
“Jesus Camp” is a new documentary movie about the Evangelical youth movement.
I watched a brief clip from the movie this morning on Good Morning America that featured young children dancing around in camouflage clothes and face paint, yelling, “This means WAR!!”. Then, the pastor sternly told the children that if Harry Potter lived in Old Testament times he would certainly be “put to death!!!” For being a “warlock”. Would Muggles share a similar fate, I wonder?Â
Another clip showed several children prostrating themselves in prayer at the feet of a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush.
My first thought, was “Wow. Not even EFY was this hard core”. My second thought was for the children – how tragic for those sweet children to be manipulated and indoctrinated in this way. But then the pastor (the one railing about Harry Potter) explained that the children were shedding tears of joy and happiness over their spiritual conversions and personal relationship with Jesus. She said that the experiences at “Jesus Camp” provide children with a moral foundation to resist the temptations (e.g., Harry Potter) of this wicked world. I’m not sure what to say to that, other than the small clips of “Jesus Camp” I saw this morning definitely skirt (over) the child abuse line.
Unfortunately, I’ll have to wait until “Jesus Camp” comes out on DVD to see just how bad it is, since “Jesus Camp” isn’t scheduled to come to Boston.
And Evangelicals accuse Mormons of behaving like a cult? Sheesh. If they do this for secular political figures, no doubt they bow down and worship their televangelists and megachurch pastors, too, but probably behind closed doors. Or maybe they just schedule supplementary idolatry meetings during the week.
Comment by Dave — September 28, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Holy Evangelicals!
Yep, these guys are a cult.
Crazy, religious fundamentalism. Just what the world needs.
Comment by Ronan — September 28, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Let’s be fair though. These make up a tiny fraction of what Evangelicals are like. Just like you can find some Bruce R. McConkie only Mormons who despise science, think Reagan was too liberal, and think the church is too lenient on diet Coke drinkers. It’s unfair to judge the religion by the exceptions.
(Which isn’t to deny criticisms of these subgroups isn’t worthy of discussion)
Comment by Clark Goble — September 28, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Whoops. “Which isn’t to say criticisms of these subgroups isn’t worthy of discussion.”
Comment by Clark Goble — September 28, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
I would guess that many Evangelical Christians and even Pentecostals would object to being lumped with this extreme movement. I can only hope that the filmmakers have resisted using this group to draw broad conclusions about the so-called Religious Right or Evangelical Christianity.
Comment by Justin — September 28, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
BTW, the film is playing in Cambridge, MA, next week.
Comment by Justin — September 28, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
I think this shows just the beginning of something truly horrendous, and if not quelched by Evangelicals, may become the norm. For example, who could have guessed even just six years ago that Christians would find ways to justify torture and legalize it. I don’t think evangelicals are yet as extreme as they could be. I think this is just the beginning.
Comment by Dan — September 28, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
I never went to an EFY, but my understanding it was a lot of religio-entertainment, warm fuzies and a chance to flirt. Nothing like this.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 28, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Why the aversion to Harry Potter? I’ve read all 6 and can’t think of any assault on Christianity in its pages. Someone care to enlighten me?
Comment by David J — September 28, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Great post.
1. I think this is truly frightening. Nothing Latter-day Saints do can hold a candle to the “cultishness” of this activity;
2. I hope that this film is not a hatchet-job of all Evangelical Christians. My fear is that if its approach is to show this and cast aspersions based on the revulsion this film invokes on all Evangelical Christians, then it is not an honest film;
3. I also never participated in EFY and I realize that ECS was joking with the EFY statement, but to my understanding EFY is nothing like this at all. Instead it’s sitting around listening to cheesy youth-oriented religio-motivational speaking, recounting of spiritual experiences with undoubtedly some faith promoting rumors thrown (probably unknowingly) into the mix, and participating in cheesy corporate-style “team-building” activities and well-chaperoned youth dances, all of which might be annoying and/or kitsch to the Mormon intelligentsia but none of which is harmful to the kids or really “cultish” in any way;
4. I am wary of stating that despite its sinister nature that the Jesus camp crosses the line into child abuse, unless there is real child abuse such as beatings or other mistreatment going on. Remember that Belgium frequently tries to float laws that would make LDS seminary for youth illegal because it is judged to cross the line into abuse since youth are impressionable and “indoctrination” is manipulation of weaker intellects. The current catch-phrase is exploitation of the impressionable and weak. I disagree strongly with the Belgian lawmakers who seem to think that religious instruction for youth by any source other than what the particular lawmaker in question views to be a “proper” religion is exploitation of minors and abuse/manipulation that should be made illegal. I relish the opportunity to teach my children about the truths of the Restored Gospel, no matter whether some intolerant Belgian lawmaker approves or not;
5. The thing about the children prostrating themselves to a cut-out of George W. Bush was very strange. Going out on a limb (since I do not know him personally), my guess is that President Bush himself would not condone or support that behavior. That is not to say that he would or should make it illegal; rather, it’s just a statement of the obvious: that this really is very extreme.
Comment by john f. — September 28, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
re # 9: the focus of Harry Potter is witchcraft, against which there are numerous Biblical and medieval Christian injunctions (and LDS/BoM injunctions too). It’s all a bit silly, I know, but I believe that is the basis.
Comment by john f. — September 28, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
David,
#9,
As john said, Harry Potter deals with witchcraft. There are plenty of Mormons who also are against Harry Potter for the same reason. There is a rise in witchcraft around the world, and they wonder why we allow a “harnless” version into our children’s lives.
Comment by Dan — September 28, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
Thanks, Justin! I checked the official release schedule, and it didn’t have anything in the Boston area.
You know, when I first saw these five and six year olds crying and carrying on this morning, I almost ran right off the treadmill. It’s truly awful. The little girl at the end whose eyes well completely up and then overflow with tears! Heartbreaking. But then I remembered the times growing up where I felt trapped into giving a testimony, say, at girls’ camp or other situations where everyone had to cry in order to avoid looking bad. Yes, the “Jesus Camp” scenes are MUCH worse, but it brings up the question of how much is too much when it comes to teaching religion to kids.
Comment by ECS — September 28, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Incidentally, I thought the “Muggles” were the half human/half wizard people. You know, like Hermione. Turns out the “muggles” are 100% human. Oops.
Comment by ECS — September 28, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
If accurate, it doesn’t seem much different what you see on CNN in the Middle East with burning effigys and flags with holy leaders being paraded around. I wonder which of the children in that film is going to be the next abortion clinic bomber or doctor killer?
Comment by jjohnsen — September 28, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Thanks for the enlightenment, fellas. Seriously, I had no idea that people felt this way about Harry Potter, which is pure fantasy by my count.
Comment by David J — September 28, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
I have to disagree that this is some kind of fringe Evangelicalism. OK, the bowing to Bush part and some of the more Pentecostal things. But the fervour, the emotion, the utter certainty that this is all about heaven or hell…all real. Yeah, yeah, what about Primary? My chief criticism about Primary is that it’s boring. It’s nowhere near as scary.
Comment by Ronan — September 29, 2006 @ 12:29 am
We’re turning into a Nation of “nut jobs.” Welcome to the end of times approach to Salvation. We’re headed toward a massive collision with reality when movements like the aformentioned mobilize and become viable. God help us all.
Comment by David L. — September 29, 2006 @ 5:55 am
John #10, I have to say, I’ve always found corporate-team-building stuff to be genuinely cultish, both in principle and in practice. A set of activities designed to reshape people’s identities, from the outside, in order to better suit the needs of a hierarchical organization in which they are subordinates? Pretty cultish, in my book.
But I don’t like corporate mission statements, either.
I’m interested to see this documentary. Along similar lines, I’d recommend the film “Hell House,” about a religiously-themed alternative to “unholy” secular haunted houses produced by an Evangelical youth program. Really a fascinating documentary, and pretty fun to watch.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — September 29, 2006 @ 9:09 am
Try “Underworld”; it’s about Vampires battling Likens and such. Great stuff.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 11:06 am
RT: I respect your views, of course, but must admit that I think you’re silly to find cheesy corporate team-building activities “cultish”. They are lame, boring, ineffective, embarassing, uncomfortable, idiotic, overly-enthusiastic, and a litany of other pejorative adjectives that come to mind, but “cultish”? I think you give them more influence and more meaning than they really have. Getting ten branch employees to try to unwind themselves after getting all mixed-up with blindfolds on without letting go of each other’s hands, although it might not actually engender the trust that the developers of that particular game think it will, is not really capable of forcing personality change inside people to fit what the corporation needs.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 11:12 am
to #15, that is outlandish! Are you seriously comparing fundamentalist Christians to radical Islam?
While this could be one of those opportunities to side with the Mainstream Media, and cry out “this looks insanse”, I wonder if it is wise to do so. Who is to say where the MSM goes next. The more it becomes en vogue and acceptable to bash Christianity, the greater division of “us/them” become…and, like it or not, we are part of the “us”. Sure there is a lot to condemn, be concerned about, or make fun of, but let’s not forget the forum in which this is being broadcast. More and more people will express similar sentiments as those in #15 or by Rosie O’Donnell, and we’ll be seen as “just as big as a threat” to society.
Comment by Hayes — September 29, 2006 @ 11:29 am
John #21, I didn’t claim that the techniques were effective — they’re obviously not, possibly even counterproductive. My comment was about the intent of the activities, which is just exactly to reshape people’s identities and personalities to fit their organization’s leaders’ needs. If anything is cultish, that goal probably fits the bill.
The idea that the activities aren’t effective is perhaps neither here nor there; many would-be suicide cults are also ineffective. (A note that I hate the term “cult”; is there another, better term for attempts at imposing personality change from without on a group of people for the benefit of hierarchs?)
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — September 29, 2006 @ 11:54 am
RT, the entire Gospel is about promoting personality change within individuals to fit an outside goal of becoming celestial beings — or at the very least obeying God’s commandments for the sake of righteousness.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
I’m disturbed by the clips I’ve seen from Jesus Camp as well. I blogged about it at SunstoneBlog on Tuesday. See: Dear God, America Calling http://sunstoneblog.com/?p=133 It includes some links to additional Jesus Camp stuff at YouTube.com
However, I wouldn’t be so quick to call their kettle black. What is strange and cultish to one group is perfectly normal to another. Don’t you think if the cameras were turned on us at just the right time and place that we’d come off looking weird and cultish? Imagine a documentary that included footage of an endowment ceremony (especially with the penalties), and even without, its still very bizarre, as almost any first-time attendee will attest; imagine footage of baptisms for the dead, a very strange concept to even most Christians, to say nothing of Secularists; imagine footage featuring some of the hundreds of bizarre testimonies delivered from stands around the country on fast & testimony Sunday. Our most recent youth conference featured what I believe was an often bizarre and emotionally manipulative re-enactment of the Saints journey West during the 1840s. The re-enactment included angels and death and many of our youth were moved to tears. If it had been filmed, I’m pretty sure it would seemed cultish and strange to the uninitiated viewer.
Then there is our history, which is absolutely littered with weird, cult-like behavior. The war-like rhetoric proclaimed in the Jesus Camp clips pales in comparison to the war-like rhetoric of Brigham Young during the mid 1850s, to say nothing of some of the things said by Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith during the 30s and 40s. I saw some speaking-in-tongues in the Jesus Camp clips; our history is filled with that as well. They’re freaking out about Harry Potter books, we’ve freaked out about certain books as well, including, once upon a time, Lucy Smith’s history of Joseph. Then there are the Polygamy chapters, the Blood Atonement rumors, the Council of Fifty, and on and on…
I’m not saying we whip our youth into quite the degree of frenzy these particular Evangelicals appear to be doing, but we probably indoctrinate them as to the evilness of certain sins, and the truthfulness of our ways, every bit as much as these Evangelicals.
I just think it is too easy to grimace and point out the weird pointy hat on our neighbors heads, and not notice the weird underwear beneath our own clothes.
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 29, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Matt, I’m not so sure God would disapprove of “indoctrinating” our kids as to the “evilness” of sin. Rather, I think God approves of teaching children about sin and that God expects them to resist it and obey the commandments.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Okay, Matt, your point is well taken. Latter-day Saints are just as bad as Jesus Camp-goers.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Matt, do you really think that Latter-day Saints don’t notice their weird underwear? Do you really equate our choice to wear a certain type of underwear (after all, no one’s forcing you; if you think they’re weird, take them off and then start a blog against the Church) to the Jesus Camp? And why do people care about what kind of underwear Latter-day Saints wear? That is weird. As I asked sam b. a couple of weeks ago, are there anti-Sikh groups who tirade against Sikhs’ underwear?
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
John, that’s not what you think. I just know it’s not. The gospel is about helping people decide that they want to change and about working from within to create that change, whereas the corporate togetherness activites are designed to produce undesired change from without.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — September 29, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
john f., I agree with you of course. But we’ve often gone to some creative ends in the way we’ve taught (or indoctrinated, depending on your point of view) our children about sin. Our history is very colorful in this regard, especially Brigham-era history. But even the recent past is not without its moments. Read the Miracle of Forgiveness by Kimball. Read To Young Men Only by Packer. The other day I read an article about a Stake President who told his congregation that men should not be changing their daughter’s diapers, for fear of possible sexual misconduct. No, this was not a joke.
And I’m not so sure certain “sins” we preach against now won’t look archaic in the future, if they don’t already (i.e. tattoos, piercings), to say nothing of folk sins like Coke and even, I’d argue, R Movies. (But please, lets not debate the merits of these commandments.) My point is just that what seems perfectly normal to one group (i.e. tattoos and R Movies), seems bizarre to another. Our surprise at Evangelicals demonization of Harry Potter is a perfect example.
Don’t you think the world would think it very strange if they saw a documentary where one primary-aged kid after another walked to the front of the chapel and repeated, almost as if it were a script, “I know this Church is true, etc.” They know? No they don’t. You don’t think this would be seen as a form of indoctrination by most people?
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 29, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
john f., my post #30 was a response to your post #26.
Your follow up posts, #28 and #29, are emotionally-charged and not very productive.
My point, once again, is to show that “weirdness” is in the eyes of the beholder.
To outsiders, sacred underwear is weird. You ask why they should care? I don’t know, why do you care about these Jesus Camp people? Do they scare you a little with their rhetoric? I don’t blame you. But don’t you think it should have scared others when our temple ceremony used to include incendiary oath-like rhetoric about avenging the deaths of Joseph and others?
You seem to be a little defensive over beliefs you hold sacred. I imagine the Jesus Campers would feel the same way if they read some of these posts.
Are LDS the same as the Jesus Camp people? I’m not saying that. After all, how would I know? But I don’t think we’re as different as some of the posts I’m reading here seem to imply.
By the way, many Evangelicals seem to be a little freaked out by Jesus Camp. An article I reference at my Blog Post from the L.A. Times about the divide happening within the Evanglical community over this movie is well worth the read.
In any case, if I can get away for a couple of hours this afternoon, I might be seeing this documentary in the theatre.
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 29, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Sorry, I meant to comment on your Sikh example…
I don’t think the comparison is apt. Sikhism is a foreign religion. Their wearing religious underwear is probably less strange than many Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim beliefs. Take the Burkha, for example. To Americans, what is strange in a foreign religion is called “culture”.
However, Mormons are born and bred Americans. Sacred underwear is outside the norm, and therefore weird, to mainstream America. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, its just is the way things are. The same could be said re other American religions “strange” beliefs or customs, be they moratoriums against electricity, dancing, or blood transfusions.
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 29, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
RT (#29), I see your point and agree. I was not comparing the Gospel to corporate team-building techniques as a method of showing that corporate team-building techniques are good and Gospel-like. I wasn’t really intending a comparison at all. But I endorse your restatement of my # 24.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Matt, without arguing the merits of the things you listed in # 30 (because you asked not to), I will just question whether those things (piercings, tattoos, coke, r-rated movies) are actually taught as “sin”? For example, even though I was raised in a home where the Word of Wisdom included coke, I never got the impression that drinking Coke was actually sinning; rather, I got the impression that it was disregarding advise of the Brethren.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
What disturbed me most by “Jesus Camp” was that it involved very young children. Children who don’t have the reason and experience to question whether they really should be prostrating themselves in front of a GWB cardboard cut out.
Comment by ECS — September 29, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
Well, I just got back from a screening of Jesus Camp. Very interetsing. At times it made me sick to my stomach. (And no, that was not hyperbole.) It should probably be required viewing for all. I’m very curious what my fellow Mormons would think.
There are parts of the documentary that remind me of Mormonism, and parts that do not. My comments in the previous posts was to compare or draw parallels between Mormons and Evangelicals, not to literally equate the two. I think we can learn much about ourselves by looking at others.
Now, having said that, the Evangelicals in Jesus Camp reminded me of Mormons in the following ways:
1.) The self-confidence and certainty that they have the unmitigated “truth”.
2.) The urgent importance of spreading that truth around the world.
3.) The sense that the world is a scary, evil place. The sense that information from the world cannot be trusted, especially if it contradicts the doctrine.
4.) The sense that this is a chosen generation, that this is a kind of “winding up” of the “last days”, that Jesus’s return is immanent.
5.) The spiritual burnings-in-the-bosom that they feel as confirmation of their truth.
The above list may seem benign, I don’t know. But something about seeing another faith express the exact same opinions with such fervent certainty is very jarring.
One of the major differences I see between Mormons and Evangelicals regarding the above list is the manner in which each group promotes those opinions. I have no doubt each group feels equally as strong about their exclusive truthfulness re the above five points, but the Evangelicals are much louder, outwardly arrogant, and in-you-face about them than Mormons. To its credit, Mormon culture frowns on such pomposity. I’m grateful we are less militant and strident then the Evangelicals, but even if we say essentially the same things “quietly,” I still wish we could be far more humble about the certainty of our own beliefs.
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 29, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
Matt, the reason most Latter-day Saints are Latter-day Saints is because they feel or have felt a spiritual confirmation that the true Gospel is found in the Church and its teachings. Without that certainty, people would not be in the Church. Are you suggesting that people abandon this certainty in favor of a sort of agnosticism about where saving truths are found? If so, what is the point of being LDS? One might as well choose one of the easier Truths, such as Lutheranism, where nothing is really demanded of a lay believer except faith.
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Matt,
Thanks for that report. Sounds like a fascinating film.
I agree that Mormonism and Evangelicalism have much in common (as they do with other conservative religions: Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc.). I also think that your observation concerning tone is correct. Yes, all children who are raised in a religion are indoctrinated, but I have to say that I do not feel that my own kids are being brainwashed, which is how I would describe Jesus Camp. I think there is a difference, although I will admit that it may be hard to quantify it; needless to say, I do not believe my oldest is learning such militant, frenzied fervency at Primary. If he was, I wouldn’t send him.
Mostly he’s bored and wants to go home and play with his toys.
I have to say, too, that comparing Brigham Young’s speeches with Jesus Camp is comparing 19th century apples with 21st century oranges.
Comment by Ronan — September 29, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
I think the biggest difference between Mormonism and Evangelicalism is in how the two treat people who choose not to follow the religion. How are children treated at this Jesus Camp who stray from the path?
Comment by Dan — September 29, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
sorry, I should also add, we are generally more tolerant of other religions. At least that is what our prophets and Apostles tell us to be like. Some aren’t.
Comment by Dan — September 29, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
But Dan, Brigham Young is reported to have said some mean things in his time! And members were mad about Joseph Smith getting murdered! Can’t you see we are mean and intolerant of the other?
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
john,
Right, that was well over 100 years ago. What do our prophets today talk about? It seems to be going the opposite direction evangelicals are taking.
Comment by Dan — September 29, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
yeah, i was being facetious
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
ah sorry, didn’t catch it. my bad.
Comment by Dan — September 29, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
Yes. Both are radicals in my book. When a fundamentalist Christian believes that someone assisting in abortion should be murdered, this is no different ot me than a fundamentalist Muslim that believes an American should be killed for low morals.
Comment by jjohnsen — September 29, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
I’m a convert.
I grew up in the midwest.
I went to a Jesus Camp 20 years ago – and yes they do exist in that part of the country. Acutally, Jesus Camp happens in many mega church Sunday school these days in those regions – I know from family members.
The movie is much more extreme than the camp I went to – but the crying, tongues, and so on happened as well. I brought a deck of cards, was reprimanded and when I got home found out they wanted to kick me out that day. We had to submit and kiss the pastor (God’s representation on earth – to thank Him for our good Christian family) for every letter we recieved from home. I didn’t want to get caught without a moving testimony on the last day/ceremony of camp. I cried right along with the rest of them by inhaling onion bit in the palm of my hand.
Even if this goes on in small populations – the lifetime memories of the indoctrinations hang on.
This is even more scary in light of the recent detainee bill giving excess Presidential powers. Many will dismiss this thought – but consider it…if/when/should our nation becomes a “Christian Nation” under Republican chosen leadership either now, or in the future from some individual brought up through Patrick Henry College, Generation Joshua, Moeller, Haggee and so on – those not of the national faith will (yes, will) be considered enemy combatants.
Comment by anon — September 30, 2006 @ 10:37 am
I’ve been watching the release cities for a few months now – the list has dwindled to about 1/3 (including cutting off our major Repulican state/city). A liberal theatre was to show it – but it was mysteriously been taken off the list of viewings a few weeks before opening 9/13.
Pressure from the far right/election campaigning have moved this out of many theatres so not to inflict any pre-vote damage. Three million citizens here need to travel 2 hours to the nearest theatre to view this movie.
Comment by anon — September 30, 2006 @ 10:44 am
The family down the street are born again Christians, the mom is a former Mormon. They sent their kids to Christian camp (aka Jesus Camp?) this summer.
Those kids are the best kids in this southern Utah neighborhood. They’re the first ones I call to babysit, to do any work for me. Their mom is a true Christian, funny, fun, never overbearing. Just good people all the way around.
I don’t know if they did anything like that this summer, but if they did, it seems to have had a positive effect/affect.
I used to attend the Pentacostal Church. Their meetings were supremely interesting and alive and weird. For a 12 year old kid, immensely entertaining, especially when some fat lady started screaming and rolling around in the aisle.
I never bought into it, though. I could see that they were forcing emotional and physical trauma on themselves and calling it the spirit. It was just more interesting than sacrament meeting.
I believe the media can pick and choose what they want to represent and they wanted to show these people looking crazy, but I don’t think the majority are as cultish as they appeared to be on this show. They could do the same thing with us, you guys. Don’t believe everything you see on TV.
Comment by annegb — October 1, 2006 @ 8:49 am
The pastor was interviewed on Good Morning America, and she(!) clarified that the kids were not worshiping the cardboard cutout of Bush. They were praying to God on behalf of the president, and would have prayed for whoever the president happened to be. LDS people pray for the leaders of the nations, too. They do so with less obvious emotion (unless you’re talking about Girls Camp testimony meeting) and without visual aids, but it is the same idea. I was taught on my mission that it was appropriate to “build on common ground” rather than to tear down someone else’s religion. I think that’s good advice.
In my opinion, “Jesus Camp” is to Evangelicals what “The Godmakers” is to Mormons. Inaccurate smearing to make a weird but basically harmless religion seem like a dangerous cult. Mormons, who have been on the receiving end of this, should know better than to pile on.
Comment by Beijing — October 1, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Beijing, it seems like you ought to be telling that to Christians who produce, distribute, sell, and watch “The Godmakers,” not to us. Evangelicals are the ones who “went negative” and have been doing so for many years. So now they can reap what they’ve sown and be portrayed as wacko cultists who brainwash their children.
Comment by Dave — October 1, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Beijing,
Have you ever actually seen the Godmakers? I read the transcript while on my mission in Romania, to get a sense of what Romanians were going to ask me who had seen this movie. I will say right now, there is no comparison between the Godmakers and Jesus Camp. Jesus Camp was done with the blessing of the pastor of this camp, and intended as a pretty realistic view of the goings on there. The Godmakers is a lie and intended to be one. It was created by one who was excommunicated twice for sexual sins. He got so mad and is so full of hatred that he distorts the truth to the fullest degree possible to try and take down the church. I don’t speak kindly of Mr. Ed Decker because his movie made one of my investigators have to make a choice between his family or the church.
Comment by Dan — October 1, 2006 @ 9:54 am
I think Beijing is right, but, again, “The Godmakers” depicted adult worship. Adults have (hopefully) developed the ability to reason and choose their religious experiences. “Jesus Camp” depicts the emotional manipulation and exploitation of very young children.
Furthermore, the pastor depicted in the movie actively supports “Jesus Camp”. She has appeared at many screenings of the movie, and has stated that she believes it is a fair and accurate portrayal of the childrens’ experiences at her camp “Kids on Fire”. Mormons don’t support “The Godmakers” as an accurate portrayal of their religion.
Comment by ECS — October 1, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
ECS,
How can Jesus Camp be an “inaccurate smear” as Beijing calls it, if the pastor of that camp wholeheartedly agrees with, and promotes, this documentary?
It is not an inaccurate smear, which The Godmakers most definitely is.
Comment by Dan — October 1, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Hi, Dan -
Beijing is right in the sense that Mormons shouldn’t be so eager to “pile on” in denouncing other religions.
Comment by ECS — October 1, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Ah, well with that I am in agreement. The only difference is that Jesus Camp presents an accurate picture of this camp and evangelicals. The worry is that a group like the evangelicals have political power and influence and the intolerance they breed at camps like this is not good for our country.
Comment by Dan — October 1, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
ECS,
We’re piling on because we’ve been told for decades by these same people that we’re crazy cultists. Human nature to have some revenge!
Comment by Ronan — October 1, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Takes one to know one, I guess
Comment by ECS — October 1, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
I think Matt is right on in his attitude that uses this film to see how others might see us. It was made with an agenda and cut to be as incindiary as possible. We are peculiar and to some extent enjoy it. Matt (posts 25, 30 and 31) points out how this is interpreted by non LDS and how easily distorted it can become. Some people then tried to defend Matt’s examples for why they aren’t strange. But, that just reinforces the point. The fact that some LDS practices have to be defended and explained shows just how non mainstream they are, and thus how vulnerable they are to misinterpretation/smear.
Jesus-Camps have been around for while. Kids grow up, choose what they like and don’t like, just like LDS kids. The more extreme and senseless, the more will fall away. There is no threat. Not until it becomes mainstream like Islamists in the ME. I don’t see this knocking binge drinking out of #1 current mainstream teenage rage. I say leave them alone. Pity those evangelicals who are going to be painted with this movie’s brush. Generalizations are never fair
Comment by Sam — October 1, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
john f. (#37), I have serious reservations about the so-called “spiritual confirmation” you speak. That your fellow Latter-day Saints are having spiritual experiences, I have no doubt. That the Jesus Campers are also having spiritual experiences, I am as equally convinced. That these spiritual experiences are somehow confiming the “truthfullness” of each religion is where we part company. A spiritual experience is a spiritual experience — it is not an indicator of truth claims, especially for something as wide and deep as the suppossed truthfulness of an entire body of largely speculative doctrine.
Yes, I am arguing that people abandon close-minded certainty in favor of open-minded humility. Certainty closes doors and leads to dogmatic ignorance. Jesus Camp is amazingly sober evidence of the dangers and myopia of certainty. Where has certainty got fundamentalist Muslims? Many of the problems in the world today are directly related to religious certainty. That Mormons are somehow immune to certainty’s pifalls makes reason stare.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 1, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Ah, Matt, but we’re actually right! They just think they are.
Comment by Ronan — October 1, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Ronan (#38), I agree the tone may be different. “Brainwash” is partly in the eyes of the beholder. I think a lot of people would consider the way we teach our children “brainwashing.” Again, when you see child after child walk to the podium on F&T Sunday and proclaim “they know the church is true,” how can this not be subtle form of brainwashing? Seriously, someone explain this to me?
Many people who have left the Church have had to go through corrective steps not unlike people who have been brainwashed by terrorists and really fundamentalist churches. I wouldn’t expect many faithful Mormons to think they are brainwashing their children. The reason is obvious. Certainly, the adults in Jesus Camp (many parents are interviewed) absolutely do not think they are brainwashing their children when they teach them that dinosaurs did not exist, that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that global warming is a political lie cooked up by liberals.
Again, please understand I’m not equating Mormonsim with, say, the FLDS or the Jesus Camp people… but I do believe a subtle form of “brainwashing” is happening. This isn’t to say we aren’t also teaching our kids a ton of good things. This isn’t a black and white thing, its a gray thing.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 1, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
john f. (#41), lame joke. B. Young was not “reported” to have said some highly questionable things, he did say them.
And I don’t think comparing 21st century Evangelicals and 19th century Mormons a case of apples and oranges. It proves that Mormons (to say nothing of prophets and apostles) are just as capable of saying outrageous and incendiary things, or of making false claims as Evangelicals. Besides, we quote 19th century prophets (to say nothing of scriptural prophets 20 centuries or more ago) all the time when they have something good to say which supports our 21st century worldview. We can’t have it both ways.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of 20th century examples that are closer to home. However, citing examples just isn’t fun. I have no wish to pile on the leaders or the Church; I just want to point out the beam in our own eye. I admire all of these men for the good they do. I’ve enjoyed some of the talks over this conference weekend. However, if we can’t look upon ourselves, our leaders, and our Church with a critical eye, I feel we are reduced to mindless sycophancy.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 1, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
BTW, just so I don’t sound like a total hater, let me say I enjoyed Elder Ballard’s talk yesterday, and the talk by the brother (forget his name) who spoke on the subject of honesty. Wonderful words by both men.
Also loved the choir, as usual. Their rendition of We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet was fabulous.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 1, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Sam (#58),
That is basically my point. We are a self-described “peculiar people.” Lavina Fielding Anderson has jokingly refered to Pres. Hinckley’s presidency in part as a kind of “We’re Not Weird” campaign.
Back to the documentary… I’d be curious about the agenda and the cut of the film. It was made with the full participation and partnership of the Jesus Camp people. They saw and approved the final cut. They are not suggesting that the film paints a false picture of their beliefs or their methods. From what I’ve seen they appear to be saying, “This is the way we are, if you can’t accept it, who cares.” In other words, I don’t think this is a Michael Moore hatchet job. But I may be wrong.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 1, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
This article doesn’t make it sound like everyone depicted in the movie is happy with it. It sounds like at least an open question as to whether it is fair to generalize about all evangelicals based on this one movie.
Perhaps the Godmakers is the wrong analogy. Maybe it’s more like generalizing about the LDS based on the excesses of the FLDS, except that the evangelicals don’t have a clear line between which of them are mainstream and which are a splinter group, whereas the LDS can point to excommunication as the separator.
And oddly enough, Michael Moore is linked to the movie, though indirectly.
Comment by Beijing — October 1, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Brainwashing doesn’t have to be bad. Intolerance is worse. The combination of the two dangerous.
I’m kinda glad I was ‘brainwashed’ in some aspects of my youth.
I freely admit that I’ve been ‘brainwashed’ (ie: sheltered+taught+taught again+again+peer a bit of peer pressure) in many aspects of my upbringing.
When I was finally taken outside my comfort zone those unchallenged assumptions I always held were tried and tested. Some of them make more sense than ever, others were revealed as peculiar. I’m actually grateful that I was indoctrinated so heavily against such things as alcohol, sex and obesity. By the time I made my own choices I was mature enough to make them for myself and reconfirm/deny them. The dangers didn’t sneak up on me and my agency was preserved past some insecure mid-teenage years.
Post #64. If those in the movie feel that they are portrayed correctly, great. It makes sense. They know the camera is there, they projected the image they feel they want to be seen. You may also be correct that the director thinks it is wonderful as well. It may be a sincere production that is peculiar, if not outright alarming to outsiders.
I’m sympathetic to Jesus Campers. They are kids; if its like Youth Conference, 1/3 are faking it already and the rest like what they are doing. They aren’t harming anyone. Unless they are taught to justify violence, then at worst they aren’t going to be very popular at school. If what they are learning is loony, then it can’t stick unless they are kept insulated from the world in secluded small towns in Southern (and to some degree Northern) Utah where there are no competing ideologies/ideas to lure them away.
If it is good for them, and helps them in society, than it will and should survive.
Politically and publicly I think it would be smart for those in the LDS community to live and let live. Policy-wise they vote on exactly the same as LDSs on issues that are important to the LDS community. They are also politically convenient because they make the LDS look comparatively progressive.
Also, any criticism of their wierd ways will probably be viewed as hypocritical even to those who are familiar with the LDS church.
Comment by Sam — October 1, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
Sam,
I fear that this may actually be the direction of Jesus Camps in the future, that indeed they are taught that violence against those who are not followers of Jesus will be alright. After all, before the Second Coming, the world will be full of violence. Perhaps, like other Rapturists, they will look forward to the violence before pre-Second Coming, and maybe even add to it.
Comment by Dan — October 2, 2006 @ 6:02 am
Thanks for the references, Beijing.
Sam (#66), some excellent points. Your thoughts on “brainwashing” echo a conversation I had with my wife last night. I’d like my kids to avoid the potential pitfalls of sex and drugs/alcohol in their teens, but I wonder how best to go about it. I do not believe their salvation rests upon their virginity or their life-long abstinence from alcohol; however, I do believe their happiness and mental and physical health will rest upon their ability to abstain as youth/teens, and then to continue abstaining, or at least carefully participating in moderation, when they become adults. This is a difficult concept to teach. It is far easier to brainwash with black and white rules that are backed by Draconian eternal consequences, than teach by principles that are often open to personal interpretation. It takes a tremendous amount of trust and a major leap of faith.
Dan (#67), you may be right. Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith would probably agree with you. MMM is our own dark chapter of what happens when the volatile mix of brainwashing and intolerance and acceptance of violance against the enemies of Zion are combined.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 2, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
Sam refers to the 1/3 who fake it during Youth Conference. There was at least one faker at Jesus Camp that admitted to watching Harry Potter movies at his friend’s house. He said it with an embarrassed, though unapologetic, smirk. There was a faint echo of applause in my theatre.
I’m not sure everyone (the believers and the fakers) get through the brainwashing phase unscathed. There is one blond boy with a Dutch-boy haircut, maybe 10 years old, who seemed particularly caught in the crosshairs of the passion play happening around him. In a very touching and sad moment he admits to maybe not believing in God and wondering why he has so much doubt when everyone around him seems so confident. He is seen off and on throughout the film trying as hard as he can to feel the spirit. I’ll be very curious where he ends up 5, 10, 20 years from now. My heart broke for him each time I saw him. It is lonely and hard to be a Sincere Doubter surrounded by legions of Happy Believers.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 2, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Matt (#61, et al.),
You ask how a little kid bearing testimony can not be seen as a subtle form of brainwashing–can you offer a definition of “brainwashing?” Because that seems to make all the difference; where is the boundary between teaching and brainwashing (and not just in the religious sphere)? If your definition of brainwashing is teaching, or even inculcating certainty, then Primary may well be “brainwashing,” but I’m not terribly concerned, because so is public school and so are a whole lot of cartoons I used to watch as a kid (G.I. Joe, anyone?).
If it is more insidious than that (and the connotation certainly is), then discussions of brainwashing really can’t go anywhere until we know what we’re talking about. And presumably that applies to the kids in Jesus Camp, too (although on that subject, not having seen the movie or even any trailers, I’ll not have anything to say, valuable or in-).
Comment by samdb — October 2, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
samdb (#70),
It’s a good question. “Brainwashing” is a pretty loaded term. I’m not that comfortable using a term we usually associate with highly fundamental and extreme political and religious cults (or for describing what happened to people like Patty Hearst or Elizabeth Smart) for mainstream Mormonism. The gap between Mormonism and these extreme examples is obviously far and wide.
I agree that there is a fine line separating where teaching ends and brainwashing begins. I’m not sure that I can shed much light on that line. A quick skim through the Wikipedia definition of “brainwashing” is instructive as it shows how controversial the idea is.
I’m sure there are people far more critical than I who can demonstrate how Mormonism is a form of brainwashing, etc. I’m more comfortable talking about what I feel uncomfortable about than determining whether it fits the classic definition of “brainwashing” or not; in fact, I’m happy to strike the word from this discussion.
Kids bearing testimony that they love their family; that they love their teachers and the Church; that they’re grateful for their blessings, etc. seems eminently worthwhile. These are things I believe a child can testify to.
But can they testify to such things as “knowing the church is true,” or “knowing President Hinckley to be a prophet of God”? I don’t think they can. And why should they? Or more to the point, what good does it do? I just don’t see it.
It seems like repeating such a mantra is designed to build allegiance to an institution. It feels forced to me. When this kind of repeated mantra is packaged with repeated warnings about what happens to someone who doesn’t believe the Church is true, and/or with repeated promises or rewards for those who do believe the Church is true, I get uncomfortable. This isn’t the same as teaching kids about history or mathematics or science in school. All of the above are more widely believed and backed by fairly verifiable evidence. Futhermore, there are no penalties for not believing these concepts.
What I’ve been arguing for all along is a little more humility about our beliefs about the unknown, to say nothing of the penalties. When it comes to our kids, I’d advocate giving them a little more free agency and time to develop their own beliefs. It is wonderful to teach them about love, faith, repentance, forgiveness, charity, service, and all of the other things they learn in Primary. Repeating that they know the Church is true (when they don’t) doesn’t seem as instructive and worthwhile. Shouldn’t we be teaching them to think critically, combined with looking to heaven for spiritual guidance to such answers? I realize we do some of this too, but we seem too anxious to give them the questions and answers at the same time.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 2, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
#71. Your suggestions regarding how to raise children both require much more trust and risk on the part of parents. Also, a lack of clear penalties puts a lot more pressure on a parent to lead by example.
Is it any wonder that we as a people gravitate toward easier alternatives: taking advantage of peer pressure, insulation, and speaking in absolutes?
Reading between lines and embracing the true freedoms offered by the Gospel takes a ton of interdependence, work and integrity. Critical thinking in the religious arena takes a lot of development and sometimes painful spiritual honesty. Slothful servitude with the promise of an insurance package against a bad post life outcome is an easy rut to fall into.
But listening to Church leaders, I feel they are always trying to get us out of said rut. They constantly are trying to push us past our slothful tendencies because they won’t make us happy here.
Comment by Sam — October 2, 2006 @ 7:13 pm