I am struck speechless in tongues.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
My jaw is still on the floor.
I can't even begin to say how absolutely terrifying that was to me.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
wow.
Those kids seemed extremely articulate.
I wonder where the line is drawn between "devout" and "fanatical".
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Good question.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's just a normal Southern Protestant service, basically.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It's just a normal Southern Protestant service, basically.
Not out to offend anyone but alot of the more shocking things (kids convulsing and speaking in tongues) have been around thousands of years. I still wish they did not exert an influence in Christianity.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My problem with the trailer is the talk at the end making it sound like some sort of Evangelical conspiracy has started. Brings up nasty reminders of hate groups speaking about the International Jewish Conspiracy.
So they are a little louder when preaching then most. The movie makes it look like indoctrination, but is it really any different then anyone else teaching religion to their children?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, absolutely. Many religions believe that approaching the divine with that kind of, uh, zeal is counter-productive.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, it's kind of idiotic to name the film 'Jesus Camp' and expect people to think you are being fair and evenhanded with your subject.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Agree with both those posts Saxon.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yeah, with the name "Jesus Camp" I was expecting things like...
The Summer Vacation of Tweenie Jesus.
Camp Counselor--"I'm sorry son, but you can't get your swimming badge until you get into the water. Walking across it doesn't count."
Camp Nurse--"Healing little Timmy was very nice, but don't exagerate. It wasn't plague, only poison ivy."
Camp Director, "Well the numbers aren't spectacular, but you have to admit, this is the greatest Parents Day ever!"
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I wonder where the line is drawn between "devout" and "fanatical".
I think they crossed that line. When they are comparing themselves to militant Islamic camps that "put grenades" in kids hands, and calling themselves the "Army of God." I think that definitely crosses the line into "fanatical." And fanatics scare me. They have left reason behind and are far too single minded.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Posted by Launchywiggin: I wonder where the line is drawn between "devout" and "fanatical".
This trailer provides good case study. You can see them toe the line throughout the beginning portion, and then take a flying leap over it about a minute and a half into it. I think the precise moment occurs when you have a big crowd of pre-teens chanting "righteous justice".
Of course, the trailer was designed to go that route, so I take it with a grain of salt. Especially when they focus on these kids for the first 3/4 of the video, then transition abruptly from the "righteous justice" scene straight to a shot of a mega-church with a voice-over saying "theres a new church like this every two days in America."
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Filmmaker comments and more clips.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I personally think the most terrifying thing in the movie is that they gave a microphone to a 10-year-old with the most dramatic mullet I've ever seen.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
dan: Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Hank: I personally think the most terrifying thing in the movie is that they gave a microphone to a 10-year-old with the most dramatic mullet I've ever seen.
I'd call it more of a rattail. We can definitely agree on the word "dramatic" though. Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Ahh, fanaticism. Creepy and narrow regardless of the reason.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote: I wonder where the line is drawn between "devout" and "fanatical".
I'd say that it's the point where your followers will do whatever you ask.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my old comic about the apocalypse, the hardcore Baptist part of the Divine, when He assumed human form, had as one of His most awe-inspiring attributes an ineffable mullet. It wasn't just any party in the back; it was a party beyond all human reckoning.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I really want to see this movie, despite the fact that I think it's going to be intensely difficult to watch.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
ineffable mullet
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From what I understand, evangelicalism and the Pentecostals rose right around the time the liberal modernists were taking some of the mystery out of the scriptures. I think that human beings want something to believe in, to be part of something great, and to be good people. Being agnostic or irreligious doesn't remove that need. I was reading the Washington Post this morning, and in the Style section was an article that was basically advice to mothers on how to have a balanced life and not be depressed. The article recommended good eating, daily exercise, and "spiritual nourishment, like yoga or meditation." This being the Washington Post, it didn't mention that being involved in a community group that fed a person spiritually and provided a support system of other mothers going through the same thing might be useful.
No matter how much people like to pretend that the yearning to be part of something bigger than oneself is risible and scary, it doesn't make that need go away.
Clearly it resonates. I think there is more usefulness in trying to discover people instead of looking down on them. At the end you may understand human nature better instead of reinforcing your own narrow ideas. Assuming that the millions and millions of people who are happy to be actively Christian are treading on dangerous ground seems like a dead end, intellectually, to me. It is by definition misanthropic to think that what certainly seems like a fundamental part of human nature is risible and despicable.
"Army of God" is an old, old idea. Armies are even older (I think). Maybe instead of stoking people to war, it's an attempt to channel that human impulse for war into something great instead of something destructive? It isn't rousing anything - it's sublimating it into socially productive channels.
quote:1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; forward into battle see his banners go! Refrain: Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.
2. At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee; on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory! Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise; brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise. (Refrain)
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God; brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod. We are not divided, all one body we, one in hope and doctrine, one in charity. (Refrain)
4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane, but the church of Jesus constant will remain. Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail; we have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail. (Refrain)
5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng, blend with ours your voices in the triumph song. Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King, this through countless ages men and angels sing. (Refrain)
Emphasis is mine. This rousing call to war means being having charity and voicing praise, and it promises stability and place to belong no matter what happens between nations. Come on - that's not terrifying. I think it's great and a worthy goal.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:No matter how much people like to pretend that the yearning to be part of something bigger than oneself is risible and scary, it doesn't make that need go away.
Kat, I think you're overstating your premise here. I don't know many people who "pretend that the yearning to be part of something bigger than oneself is risible and scary". What is scary is giving into that natural desire irrationally. Yes, it is a natural desire, but it is also the desire at the root of Jonestown, Waco, and Heaven's Gate. Sure there's room for debate as to what "somethings bigger than oneself" are beneficial, detrimental, or benign, but broadly painting the other side as ridiculers of the idea in itself is a straw man at best.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is by definition misanthropic to think that what certainly seems like a fundamental part of human nature is risible and despicable.
Why? Many religions, in fact, preach that things which appear to be fundamental parts of human nature are risible and despicable. You might even argue that one of the primary functions of any society is identifying which primary functions of human nature are going to be considered risible and despicable.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I saw the trailer. I don't think it's fanaticism. There were no blood sacrifices going on, no calls for actual violence in war. But it still gets called "fanaticism - creepy and narrow regardless of the reason."
What I've learned from this thread is that there are still groups that it is considered okay to mock.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well? A desire to mock those who are different is also a 'fundamental part of human nature'. Who are you to say that this is a bad thing?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, you know, mullet wearers are a kind of special case, I think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it still gets called "fanaticism - creepy and narrow regardless of the reason."
Do you believe that violence is an inherent component of fanaticism?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I have no problem with people wanting to be part of something bigger than themselves, and I agree Katharina, that it can be a very natural desire, and it's not necessarily bad.
I find it terrifying when people in religious communities decide that it is necessary to look down on other people and say that they're wrong. I find it distressing that this close minded attitude is the mainstay of many religions, even the ones that profess tolerance and acceptance. There are always things that religions are unwilling to accept, and I find this hypocritical.
And bringing up Onward Christian Soldiers, and saying it promises peace and stability between nations is silly. It promises peace between nations as long as those nations are Christian. It's not talking about accepting the idea that other people believe in other things and that doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them different.
A little personal history:
I was raised Catholic. I hated every second of it, from about, oh, 4 or 5 years old. I went to Sunday school, got all the Sacraments, and even when I was told that Confirmation was the 'choice' to become an adult member of the Church, I was told I had no choice. Once I was confirmed, I exercised my right to never return to a place that espoused so many ideas I could never agree with. My only fond memories of Church are the music, and arguing with my last Sunday School teacher about gay rights.
I like Jesus. Jesus was great. I do believe that a lot of His teachings have been twisted over the years. I also like Buddha. The closest thing I have to a god right now is Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed son of Siva from Hinduism. There are parts of all religions that I find beautiful, and I feel them all incorporated within myself.
But I refuse to join any organized religion because ALL of them (that I've heard of, I know there are divisions in Christianity that are sort of okay with it) have some goofy vendetta against homosexuals. While I am not a lesbian myself, but I've known many fantastic individuals who are gay and have done wonderful things with their lives regardless of who they love. I don't believe they are going to hell. Hell, I don't really believe in hell.
Okay, that went off in a completely random direction. Eh, can't help it sometimes. Back to work.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
If you consider those in Palestine 'laying down their lives' as fanatics and she aspires to that, I think she defines herself as fanatic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I find it terrifying when people in [online] communities decide that it is necessary to look down on other people and say that they're wrong. I find it distressing that this close minded attitude is the mainstay of many [communities], even the ones that profess tolerance and acceptance. There are always things that [posters] are unwilling to accept, and I find this hypocritical.
People are people. Apparently.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I find it terrifying when we look at people who are clearly doing wrong and profess toleration and acceptance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That certainly sounds like something that could come from one of the pulpits in the movie.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Well, you know, mullet wearers are a kind of special case, I think.
Amen.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:I find it terrifying when we look at people who are clearly doing wrong and profess toleration and acceptance.
Wait. Is this the 'spare the rod' thread?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
The reference escapes me and 'search' is no help. A link for lurkers?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I was bothered by the chants of 'This means war! This means war!' While as seen in the Hymm 'Onward Christian Soldiers' these theme of 'war' are metaphorical. Yet, encouraging this type of rhetoric amoung young people who are so psychologically and emotionally involved can lead to those individuals taking these metaphors literally, and then Christianity become radical Islam.
There is a recent controversy over things said by the Pope, yet everything he said is true when applied to a very radical fanatical and vocal aspect of Islam.
Islam has openly declared war on Christianity, and sworn that we will either convert to Islam or we will die. One of the very Islamic leaders who has supported violence against Christianity, claimed that the Pope as good as invoked the Crusades. Yet how can we be accused of declaring war on someone who has repeatedly made declarations of war against us?
My point is, that it is one thing to get these kids enthusiastic for God and Jesus, but when they turn the 'war-like' attitude against non-Christians or those they don't believe are appropraitely Christian, then we run the risk of creating the equivalent of radical warring Islamic fundamentalist.
When they become so enthusiastic and so whipped into a hysterical frenzy that they lose all prespective, then they become dangerous criminal and not soldiers for God.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
What I found most disturbing about the trailer was that it presented one small group as being representative of all evangelicals. I think that this is far from true.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Mullet boy, though, was very intelligent for his age. The kids they showed speaking certainly were.
Actually, Mullet Boy--in ideas and articulation--sounds like me at that age . . .
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ]People are people. Apparently.
I'm confused. Is this directed at me? If so, how was I looking down on other people? Maybe I need to make myself clearer. I disagree with many organized religions, I don't look down on them. Maybe I look down on fanatics, I'd be willing to admit that. But with all the flaws that I have, I find it hard to look down on too many people.
"When I look down I just miss all the good stuff, when I look up I just trip over things." -Ani Difranco
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm afraid now. I was hoping this was a nice Tenacious D thread, now I'm going to go hide from an army of tiny, self-righteous nutballs.
"It was a big day at Jesus Ranch, Jesus Ranch. They were harvesting a big tomato, it was in the sand, all righ!
I'm taking a walk in the wood. It's nice, very, very nice. Smells like sh*t." - Tenacious D.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Mullet boy, though, was very intelligent for his age. The kids they showed speaking certainly were.
His ability to speak clearly shows intelligence, but I do not think he's old enough to have really formulated complex thoughts on those issues beyond how he's been trained to think about it. In other words, I would be shocked if he was doing anything more than parroting back what he's been taught.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:I find it terrifying when we look at people who are clearly doing wrong and profess toleration and acceptance.
Wait. Is this the 'spare the rod' thread?
The reference escapes me and 'search' is no help. A link for lurkers?
In which some parents advocated "looking at people who are clearly doing wrong" (i.e., misbehaving children) and professed toleration and acceptance.
Of course, this necessitates separation of the actor and the action. You can accept your child while not accepting her behavior. You can fight a political viewpoint while defending the right of others to express that viewpoint. You can support the office of the Presidency, while seeking a particular President's impeachment. Etc.
I think someone famous propounded ideas like these, by preaching forgiveness, accepting the adoration of sinners, embracing apostate sects as 'neighbors,' loving one's enemies, and so forth.... Oh yeah. It was Jesus.
(And that's assuming you can always be sure what "clearly doing wrong" is.)
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
3 pages, this might take awhile.
BTW, I have been meaning to mention John, that I have truly enjoyed your posts esp. nature of science, which I hope to get into with you someday when I am feeling longwinded.
Fleshing out 'clearly doing wrong' might wind up the same conversation anyway!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The desire to be part of something bigger becomes a problem when we define that "something bigger" as something smaller than it is in order to belong to something that excludes other people.
People only want to belong to exclusive clubs. We don't feel the value of being right unless someone else is wrong. It is what makes us feel special. We define ourselves by who we are not. That means there has to be a "them" so we know what "us" means. It is very human.
It is easy to use this desire to whip people into a frenzy - and then you can do anything you want to with them.
And don't for a minute think that this is only a religious phenomenon. Family, nations, races. Good heavens, people riot, set fires, commit vandalism and violence on each other over sporting events. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its certainly possible to use scriptures to advocate armed defence of Christianity, especially if you use the Old Testament alot, and sprinkle them with some New Testament out of context quotes.
Katherina explained quite well that many Christians advocate being soldiers fighting against evil, but in a very non violent way.
Mormons talk about a battle in heaven where 1/3rd of God's children refused the opportunity to come to earth and become more like him. But its generally accepted that this battle was a battle of ideas fought through debate and conversation.
I personally do not like it when people try to dismiss the miraculous as having no place in Christianity, but I am VERY much against it being taken to extreme and boardering on mysticism.
I had a friend who was told that if you are saved you ought to be able to speak in tongues whenever you so desired, the thought made us both ill. Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed.
I feel particularly aversive towards being "Posessed by the holy spirit" Why in the world would the spirit possess you and cause you to convulse on the floor and babble incoherently? How is anyone edified by that? How do people miss the warnings in the New Testament that decry these things as "Not of God."
Jonathan Spence wrote a VERY good book called, "God's Chinese Son." You will find eery similarities between his "Chinese brand of Christianity" mixed with Chinese folk lore, and "The Jesus Camp."
Also: I agree mullets can universally be made fun of, and with extreme prejudice Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed.
It was NOT suppressed. It fell out of favor about the same time that the Pentacostals appeared, but it was not "suppressed." Joseph Smith, Brigham Young - all sorts of early church leaders happily participated in it. It was a spiritual gift that was welcomed. The crowd spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirtland temple.
We still talk about spiritual gifts. The gift of tongues is interpreted generally as ease of learning a new language to communicate the gospel, but that is NOT the only interpretation and that has not been the interpretation all along.
I don't understand it and I have never experienced it, but I've felt the spirit when other people have talked about it and modern day prophets had it happen. I'll put it on the list of things I don't understand but cannot completely discount.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:BTW, I have been meaning to mention John, that I have truly enjoyed your posts esp. nature of science, which I hope to get into with you someday
Thanks. Hope so, too.
quote:... when I am feeling longwinded.
Ouch!
quote:Fleshing out 'clearly doing wrong' might wind up the same conversation anyway!
Perhaps. Although by nature I tend to wax less verbo..., er, enthusiastic when it comes to discussion of ethics, morals, and philosophy.
Not that I don't have strong views, even closely reasoned views (on those topics) -- but that I feel little inclination to win others over. I do, however, enjoy the search for logical consistency.
To get back on topic here, the thing that disturbs me most in this film (and in fundamentalist Christianity in the US today) is the strong feeling of "if you're not with us, you're agin us."
I respect the absolutist religious principles that give rise to that, but it's a slippery slope, especially as it percolates into national government (as I believe it has to an alarming degree).
Edit: typo Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
One of the clips shows the lady leading the camp talking about how Harry Potter would've been "put to death" if he had been around during the old testament. It's that sort of inability to separate fiction from reality, along with the militarization of a faith that seems to me to be very similar to militarization of Islam, that I find unsettling.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed.
It was NOT suppressed. It fell out of favor about the same time that the Pentacostals appeared, but it was not "suppressed." Joseph Smith, Brigham Young - all sorts of early church leaders happily participated in it. It was a spiritual gift that was welcomed. The crowd spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirtland temple.
Sorry to disagree but Joseph Smith personally discouraged it to a great degree. Or to be more accurate, Joseph Smith believed the gift of tongues was of God, but that if anyone were to speak in tongues the interpretation would be given either by somebody else present or by the man/woman speaking, otherwise they should be told to keep their peace, its all laid out in the New Testament. Convulsions, retching and rolling on the floor were VERY discouraged by Joseph Smith who personally stopped the practice I believe when it started prevailing in Ohio.
quote: We still talk about spiritual gifts. The gift of tongues is interpreted generally as ease of learning a new language to communicate the gospel, but that is NOT the only interpretation and that has not been the interpretation all along.
The ability to pick up a new language is indeed part of the gift of tongues, but the church still acknowledges that one filled with the spirit might speak in tongues (God's language, another language, etc) but again, what they say would make sense and it would be interpreted.
quote: I don't understand it and I have never experienced it, but I've felt the spirit when other people have talked about it and modern day prophets had it happen. I'll put it on the list of things I don't understand but cannot completely discount.
Speaking in Tongues legitimately through the power of God is ALWAYS to the edification of those around you. Babblings do NOTHING and are not of God. Convulsing and Shaking are just universally wrong IMO.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's not what you said, though. You said it was suppressed. Maybe you didn't mean to, but thanks for the clarification that you were not saying that all instances of the gift of tongues was suppressed, which is what it sounded like.
Have you wondered why it doesn't happen anymore?
----
Since I have a feeling neither of us know exactly the history of it, I have consulted my source (Matt) who hasn't e-mailed me back yet. I'll post what he says when he does (he has class this afternoon).
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Perhaps. Although by nature I tend to wax less verbo..., er, enthusiastic when it comes to discussion of ethics, morals, and philosophy.
My point, broadly, would have been that our understanding of the nature of science IS philosophy but that is a nasty can of worms.
quote:Not that I don't have strong views, even closely reasoned views (on those topics) -- but that I feel little inclination to win others over. I do, however, enjoy the search for logical consistency.
And that is exactly what I enjoy about your posts. Clear minds are exceedingly rare.
Still on page 2 of parenting...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's not what you said, though. You said it was suppressed. Maybe you didn't mean to, but thanks for the clarification that you were not saying that all instances of the gift of tongues was suppressed, which is what it sounded like.
Have you wondered why it doesn't happen anymore?
----
Since I have a feeling neither of us know exactly the history of it, I have consulted my source (Matt) who hasn't e-mailed me back yet. I'll post what he says when he does (he has class this afternoon).
This is what I said, "I had a friend who was told that if you are saved you ought to be able to speak in tongues whenever you so desired, the thought made us both ill. Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed."
Nowhere did Joseph Smith or the New Testemant say, "You should be able to speak in tongues whenever you want to." Certainly it could be said, "Whenever it is required of you, if you have faith , you will be able to speak in whatever tongue is neccesary."
The only concepts I specifically said had to be supressed were, "Babblings and convulsing (shakings)."
---
I think speaking in tongues DOES still happen. There are many instances where people have been impressed to say words they did not know that people around them understood. Missionaries have many stories to that effect
I imagine were I impressed upon to speak in the tongue of angels I would not go around telling people I had had such an experience as it would be sacred to me. (I have not had such an experience, nor know anybody who has).
The ONLY issue I have with tongues is when somebody speaks in an unknown tongue and NO interpretation is offered. It is then that I am HIGHLY suspect of it. I saw many people while I lived in Taiwan who speaking to idols would channel their spirits and say things both coherent and incoherent. The coherent stuff made no sense, it was just babbling, and the incoherent stuff gave me the chills because the tone of voice often sounded very aggressive and angry.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yesterday I noticed a change on the religious commercials played on my radio. It used to encourage us to "believe in God." Now it emphasizes, "Let us show you The One True God".
The culture wars, if won by the Christian right, may break down into very nasty and very disturbing religious wars next. Kids like these, and the leaders who push them to far scare me more than any terrorists.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Yesterday I noticed a change on the religious commercials played on my radio. It used to encourage us to "believe in God." Now it emphasizes, "Let us show you The One True God".
The culture wars, if won by the Christian right, may break down into very nasty and very disturbing religious wars next. Kids like these, and the leaders who push them to far scare me more than any terrorists.
Theres almost 3000 people in New York I would think disagree with that.
But then again there are 168 people in Oklahoma City who might agree with you.
I don't think I really want to work out the total damage caused by Christian extremists and weigh it against other extremists.
At least those kids have access to ALOT more opportunities to see other points of view, and become educated. At least it is to be hoped they do, I imagine some of the more poor among them will get a high school diploma if they are lucky, to say nothing about the inside of a college.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Have you wondered why it doesn't happen anymore?
It does happen, but not in General Conference, not in Sacrament Meeting talks. It has been de-emphasized as a General teaching.
What is viewed as the counterfeit has become 'mainstream' elsewhere. It is not essential for one's salvation, and would now, in most situations, cause more confusion than edification.
I think divine healings would be in the same category. Although while it is taught that healings can and do occur through the Priesthood, there are no grand displays of Healing Services, because today, such are sacred personal affairs.
I believe legitimate, inspired messages in tongues, and divine healing, do occur today all over the world. But you won't be reading about all of them in the Church News, let alone the New York Times.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
A film, and even more so, a trailer for a film, is purposefully edited to convey messages or provoke responses. SO we have to take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
"There are two kind of people in the world: People who love Jesus and people who don't."
"We're being trained to be God's army."
I think that to be human is to have choice. The children in this film do not appear to have much of any choice in their actions or opinions. The religions and spiritual leaders I admire most are those who encourage questioning and self-discovery in the search for truth. They have a certain degree of humility and peace about them; they have achieved faith through trial and questioning and frustration and are happy with where they are but do not seek to agressively convince others. They convert and teach by example and when others seek knowledge, and they are so effective.
This film seems to divide people into two groups - the righteous, evangelical, Jesus-loving Christians and everyone else. Like the Aryan race and - everyone else. Or like whites and - everyone else. Or like the Japanese and - everyone else. Or devout Shia Muslims and - everyone else. Or Devout Sunni Muslims and - everyone else. Etc. It's such an icky thing to do that to other people. I don't believe that all Christians are somehow wrong and evil, or that all religious people are wrong and evil, and I object strenously to anyone, Christian or not, who thinks they can think this about me based on one fact.
Anyone who accepts a belief or policy without examining it carefully and who sees fit to sort other people as evil by a certain characteristic without further examining that individual person is a fanatic. And that woman, at least, seems pretty fanatical. And narrow-minded.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's bad enough to try and make a child army, but what makes it worse is bastardizing Christ's teachings to do it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From Matt, in response to my question "Can you tell me anything about the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues in the restored church?":
quote:Remarkably common - according to Heber Kimball's diary he, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all spoke in tongues regularly. Ditto for Woodruff's diary; he was, apparently, especially gifted with tongues. At the first conference of the church there were tongues, ecstatic dancing and bodily motion; one guy, apparently, flew through the air.
In Utah Eliza Snow's "spiritual feasts" - conferences of women encouraged by Brigham - regularly featured speaking in tongues, washings and anointings, and women "prophesying" to each other. Zina Huntington Smith etc etc also reports it occurring regularly.
Brigham also spoke in tongues at the Kirtland temple dedication. It's on the program, which is kind of funny.
As president of the church, Heber Grant would tell stories over the pulpit about how he remembered Eliza Snow and his mother speaking in tongues and translating for each other while Heber played on the floor. Zina recounts some of this - you can look at her entry in In Sacred Lonliness for more.
There's not really been any work done on specifically why this phenomenon faded; I suspect it has to do with the regularization and institutionalization of gifts of the spirit - they are now supposed to be channeled through the priesthood heirarchy rather than exercised spontaneously. This happened in the first few decades after statehood - women were no longer allowed to lay hands and bless the sick; dates of ordination for boys were regularized rather than being up to family and local leaders; prayer circles and use of temple clothes outside the temple were forbidden (though it took a letter from Spencer Kimball to end the last - you can still find altar rooms in old stake centers and in some old homes if you look).
quote:I dug up one of Grant's conference talks:
President Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, April 1935, First Day—Morning Meeting pg. 12.
There is no need of believing in these things unless we have them. I was a child playing on the floor in a Relief Society meeting (my mother was president of the Thirteenth ward Relief Society for thirty long years and only resigned because of her hearing having failed) when Eliza R. Snow laid her hands on and blessed by the gift of tongues each of the presidents that happened to be in that meeting, and Zina D. Young gave the interpretation. After doing this she turned to the child (myself) playing upon the floor, and anointed me and gave me a blessing, and Zina D. Young gave the interpretation.
My mother often said to me. "Heber, behave yourself and you will some day be an Apostle."
I laughed and told her I had no ambitions along that line. I said: "Get it out of your head. Every mother thinks that her son will be the President of the United States, or something wonderful. I do not want any Church position, I want to be a business man."
"Never mind," she said, "if you behave yourself you will be an Apostle."
When I was made an Apostle she asked me if I remembered that meeting. I told her I did.
"Do you remember anything that Sister Snow said?" I said: "No, I did not understand her."
"Of course you did not, because she was speaking in an unknown tongue. Did you understand anything that Aunt Zina said?"
"Only one thing, mother, I remember that as she was talking she lifted her hand and said that I would grow to be a big man, and since I have grown tall, I have often thought of that remark of hers."
She said: "She did not say anything of the kind. She said you should grow to be a great big man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and become an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's bad enough to try and make a child army, but what makes it worse is bastardizing Christ's teachings to do it.
Wrong then, too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Katharina I only have 2 issues with what you wrote.
1: "At the first conference of the church there were tongues, ecstatic dancing and bodily motion; one guy, apparently, flew through the air." For the entire paragraph, <b> no citation </b> not only that but "Ecstatic dancing and bodily motion does not indicate convulsing neccesarily." Flying through the air is quite questionable to me.
2: "women were no longer allowed to lay hands and bless the sick"
I know Joseph Smith calmed down men who were upset with women who performed this rite and explained that the women were in the right.
(this next bit is based on my memory so CAUTION) I have still heard it said many times that in the absense of a priesthood holder, women are WELL within their rights to bless each other in the name of God or do whatever work they feel impressed to do, that includes healing.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
BB - I didn't know what Katie was using my email for until right now, so for what it's worth, the response she quotes is me answering a question from her and should not be read as an attempted refutation of you.
The information you question in your first point is drawn from Rough Stone Rolling. I haven't read the book in the past year and don't have it on hand to cite, but I believe what I wrote is substantially correct; the part about a man flying through the air had to do with spirit possession.
As to your second point, you're correct: women blessed the sick and afflicted (and pregnant, for that matter; there was a special ritual here that could be called an ordinance) for comfort and healing until the first two decades or so of the twentieth century, when the practice began to be discouraged. However, historically, presence or absence of a man had nothing to do with it. A good article on this is "A Gift Given, A Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick Among Mormon Women" in _The New Mormon History_, ed. by Michael Quinn; also reprinted in the 25th anniversary Sunstone issue.
I have heard something similar, though I'd guess that your average Mormons would be rather divided on the question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would still like to hear katherine's response to these:
quote:
quote: It is by definition misanthropic to think that what certainly seems like a fundamental part of human nature is risible and despicable.
Why? Many religions, in fact, preach that things which appear to be fundamental parts of human nature are risible and despicable. You might even argue that one of the primary functions of any society is identifying which primary functions of human nature are going to be considered risible and despicable.
quote:
quote: I saw the trailer. I don't think it's fanaticism. There were no blood sacrifices going on, no calls for actual violence in war. But it still gets called "fanaticism - creepy and narrow regardless of the reason."
What I've learned from this thread is that there are still groups that it is considered okay to mock.
Yes, well? A desire to mock those who are different is also a 'fundamental part of human nature'. Who are you to say that this is a bad thing?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Those questions remind me of a guy I saw last week at George Mason University - he was a street preacher, and as I watched, he called people walking by to repentance, saying things like "We're all sinners," "The Bible says we all must repent," and so forth. Immediately students began to accuse him of bigotry, hatefulness, and so on. Now, what he was doing was injecting himself into the public sphere (though I might note that he held himself to generalities). And it's easy, I think, to throw stones and immediately use de-legitimizing terms like 'bigot' and 'fanatic.'
There's a line, I think. What Jonathan Edwards called "affective religion" and the more charismatic traits of evangelicalism are manifestations of ancient and legitimate religious expression. I'm not sure outright mockery has occurred in this thread, and I'm sure none of us (except maybe KoM) would taunt the religious expressions of, say, Hindus. Further, it's ridiculous to expect religious people to compartmentalize belief out of their participation in the public sphere.
However, once religion (not individual religious belief, but organized religious effort) seeks influence in the public sphere it subjects itself to the laws thereof. That is, it must acknowledge that claims to exclusive truth are insufficient in the struggle for power in a democracy. A religious movement confronted by this has two choices - militarization (as we see in the movie), or limiting its own sense of what the religious experience means. The former, however, is predicated on the latter (though not necessarily vice versa). Movements like bin Laden's Islam and the Religious Right risk seeing the grandeur of the religious message withering to a few lines in a political platform. This, I think, has happened to the Christian Coalition - it's turned God into ethics, and eagerly embraced a politicized definition of itself. A Christianity defined as 'pro-life' and 'anti-gay' seems very arid to me. The religious experience at its fullest is not defined by morality.
In answer to Tom, I don't think being made uneasy by the political mobilization of religion as seen here is necessarily misanthropic - indeed, I'm rather uncomfortable with Jesus Camp myself. However, the implication of your question is that it's okay to find religious expression "risible and dispicable." I'm not sure if you meant to imply that. I'd hope not.
Now, certainly most religious preach some form of self-denial, and of course, this has been part of political theory since at least the Greeks. I'd argue, though (tangenting a bit from the thread here) that in nearly all these areas of thought, what is denied is seen as *unnatural* or detrimental to best potential of human nature. I'd hope (though of course I know this isn't the case) that religious and political arguments to this end would view self-denial in these terms, rather than in mockery.
quote:A desire to mock those who are different is also a 'fundamental part of human nature'. Who are you to say that this is a bad thing?
Mock any gay people recently, KoM?
You're taunting a little bit, I think.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Those questions remind me of a guy I saw last week at George Mason University - he was a street preacher, and as I watched, he called people walking by to repentance, saying things like "We're all sinners," "The Bible says we all must repent," and so forth. Immediately students began to accuse him of bigotry, hatefulness, and so on. Now, what he was doing was injecting himself into the public sphere (though I might note that he held himself to generalities). And it's easy, I think, to throw stones and immediately use de-legitimizing terms like 'bigot' and 'fanatic.'
You seem awful quick to judge. My experience with five different street preachers on three different college campuses were that they were each hateful bigots. They also tended to stick around for a bit, returning to preach at the same spot for weeks at a time.
It's possible that this guy didn't yell any hateful or bigoted remarks while you were observing. That doesn't actually mean that the students were baseless in saying what they did.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Mock any gay people recently, KoM?
I have, as it happens; not for being gay, though. I think you must have misunderstood my point, though, which was precisely that being a 'fundamental part of human nature' does not make a trait good.
By the way, I am by no means sure I agree that a religious drive is part of human nature; a lot of people don't have one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's possible that this guy didn't yell any hateful or bigoted remarks while you were observing.
It's also possible he didn't make any such remarks at all. I have been told I'm a hateful bigot immediately upon the speaker learning I was Catholic. I've seen non-hateful bigot street preachers yelled at and called hateful bigots in situations described.
So even if the GMU observer did reach an inaccurate or even a too-quick judgment - something you can't possibly know from the post - there are several accurate examples in existence. Substitute one of those if you can't accept the example given.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, the implication of your question is that it's okay to find religious expression "risible and dispicable."
My implication is that if it's okay to find ANYTHING "risible and despicable," whether or not that thing is a "fundamental part of human nature" shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:You seem awful quick to judge. My experience with five different street preachers on three different college campuses were that they were each hateful bigots.
This made me laugh, Squick, because generally your first sentence is attached to somebody passing negative judgment on somebody else. You seem to be using it to castigate me for doing the opposite. Or perhaps you're referring to how I characterized the students?
Anyway, I watched him for an hour or so, and interestingly, he was frequently accused by students who arrived after I did of bigotry for holding positions he had not espoused. Now, it's entirely possible - even likely - that he did hold these positions. However, he had not stated them, and the assumptions of the students indicates two things to me. 1)The bankruptcy of the Religious Right's version of political religion, outlined in my above post, has created unfortunate associations about religion in the public mind. 2)I find modern rhetoric about words like 'bigotry' confusing; sometimes it's justified, but frequently it seems to be applied to somebody who states a belief that a given action is wrong. These people are then fair targets for accusations much like those they are accused of making.
In the second case, I think two things - 1)people have a right to state their beliefs, 2)Their opponents have a right to register disagreement. It seems to me that all of this should be done in an atmosphere of respect. Wishful thinking, perhaps.
quote:which was precisely that being a 'fundamental part of human nature' does not make a trait good.
On that, I'd agree, I think. Though 'good' is a fuzzy word - maybe 'useful' - for what purpose, up to whatever belief system - might be better.
As to the presence of religious impulse - I like Tillich's characterization of it as 'search for meaning' which may or may not be manifest as religion.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Agree, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As to the presence of religious impulse - I like Tillich's characterization of it as 'search for meaning' which may or may not be manifest as religion
I'm pretty sure there's more to certain manifestations of the religious impulse than just a "search for meaning," though; consider delusional manias, like the aforementioned "speaking in tongues," convulsions, etc., which certainly aren't limited to any one religious faith (but which, if any one of those religions is correct, should be.) It's rare to see a physicist suddenly start twitching uncontrollably, gripped by a sudden passionate insight into the workings of subatomic particles.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
When I have insight into the subatomic, it is ALWAYS associated with uncontrollable twitching.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's rare to see a physicist suddenly start twitching uncontrollably, gripped by a sudden passionate insight into the workings of subatomic particles.
Actually, it's not that rare. But uncontrollable twitching is so much a part of daily life for many physicists (particularly those of the mathematical physics persuasion, and particle physicists most especially) that it's hard to tell.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure there's more to certain manifestations of the religious impulse than just a "search for meaning," though; consider delusional manias, like the aforementioned "speaking in tongues," convulsions, etc., which certainly aren't limited to any one religious faith (but which, if any one of those religions is correct, should be.) It's rare to see a physicist suddenly start twitching uncontrollably, gripped by a sudden passionate insight into the workings of subatomic particles.
I'm not particularly addressing issues of correctness or particular manifestations. Rather, I'm saying that we are both aware of our own finitude and at some level distressed by it; as Niebuhr says, we are uniquely among animals self-transcendent. We seek, by whatever means, to find meaning in our own lives or in the universe as a whole. The specifics of what physicists or Pentacostals do to resolve this is largely irrelevant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that I think it's the specifics which worry people. I don't care whether someone's searching for meaning or not, but I DO care if their search for meaning makes me unable to buy beer on a Sunday.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except that I think it's the specifics which worry people. I don't care whether someone's searching for meaning or not, but I DO care if their search for meaning makes me unable to buy beer on a Sunday.
Kinda like how science brings us miracles like genetically modified germs (suitable for mass destruction) and nuclear weapons, and then says, "Whoops sorry these things could destroy humanity, its not my job to worry about the ramifications of my discoveries!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pretty much, yeah. Now imagine if "science" also claimed to be an authority on morality, so that scientists not only brought us the bomb but also told us when to use it.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:but I DO care if their search for meaning makes me unable to buy beer on a Sunday.
Does people being slain by the Spirit affect your ability to buy beer?
I think the distinction I'm making here is between the legitimacy of personal religious experience and the sort of organized political efforts we see in Jesus Camp. The latter, I believe, isn't particularly religious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The latter, I believe, isn't particularly religious.
I'm terribly bad at identifying what is genuinely religious and what people claiming to be religious are just saying is religious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The latter, I believe, isn't particularly religious.
I'm terribly bad at identifying what is genuinely religious and what people claiming to be religious are just saying is religious.
When you can't tell, you should just ask Matt. I think he has it exactly right.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I'm terribly bad at identifying what is genuinely religious and what people claiming to be religious are just saying is religious.
I think that's the Several Billion Dollar question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When you can't tell, you should just ask Matt.
If Matt were in fact a prophet of God, I might consider it. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Matt, That you were quick to judge the students was exactly my point. In my experience, the class of people who decide to yell at people from street corners do not tends towards respect and love of others.
Taking a small slice of the interactions between this person and the community and coming to the decision that the students were necessarily unjustly accusing him of bigotry and hatred seems to me to be itself unjustified.
[ September 20, 2006, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Do you only consider trusting the opinions of people who are in fact prophets of God?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Matt, I usually find what you have to say interesting, though I often disagree with some of the things you say (which is not to say that I don't also agree with much of it).
quote:Further, it's ridiculous to expect religious people to compartmentalize belief out of their participation in the public sphere.
I think this very much depends on the nature of their participation in the public sphere. For example, I truely consider this street preacher and the constellation of Calvinist/Lutheran religions that he comes from to worship an evil deity. If they've got their conceptions of the divine and infernal world more or less correct, they basically, in my opinion, worship Satan. Is it then correct for me to, say, stand outside one of their mega-churches and yell at them that they worship Satan? I don't think so. And yet, from the way I see it, that's a pretty good analog for what this street preacher was doing.
Additionally, I'd be lying if I said I was doing this for their benefit. The only purpose I could really expect to fulfill by doing this would be my own edification. I'd be like KoM or this street preacher, completely ineffective at my stated purpose, but able to make myself feel better and possibly others feel a little worse.
quote:However, once religion (not individual religious belief, but organized religious effort) seeks influence in the public sphere it subjects itself to the laws thereof. That is, it must acknowledge that claims to exclusive truth are insufficient in the struggle for power in a democracy. A religious movement confronted by this has two choices - militarization (as we see in the movie), or limiting its own sense of what the religious experience means.
I disagree with two parts of this. First, in a strictly democratic set up, an organized religious movement need not acknowledge that their claims on truth are insufficient, provided they have the numbers to enforce their will on others. That's the basic situation we see in several cases now where the Christian majority is successfully or at least attempting to force their religion on others.
It is irresponsible and hypocritical behavior from people who would cry bloody murder if someone turned around and tried to do the same to them, but there's nothing that strictly precludes them from doing so, so long as they have the force to push it through.
Second, I disagree that the two options you present accounts for all possible paths here. A third, one which is fundamental to the philosophical background of our country, is to engage in the marketplace of ideas. In the cases we're talking about, it's not attempts to influence the general public that are irresponsible, but rather the use of coercive or compulsive force to do so. Employing persuasive force on an issue that you find extremely important, however, is not merely justifiable but almost a duty for the responsible citizen of a modern democracy.
quote:However, the implication of your question is that it's okay to find religious expression "risible and dispicable." I'm not sure if you meant to imply that. I'd hope not.
I hope you're not trying to imply that finding what people call religious expression risible and dispicable is always wrong. I don't see that because someone calls something thier religion that this necessarily removes it from the sort of judgements we'd apply to the same behavior without this label.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
MrSquicky says: "I don't see that because someone calls something thier religion that this necessarily removes it from the sort of judgements we'd apply to the same behavior without this label."
Excellent. I was trying to think of how to say this.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
quote:I saw many people while I lived in Taiwan who speaking to idols would channel their spirits and say things both coherent and incoherent. The coherent stuff made no sense, it was just babbling, and the incoherent stuff gave me the chills because the tone of voice often sounded very aggressive and angry.
Maybe it's my bad English, but I don't understand how coherent stuff can make no sense...? Are you talking about two kinds of incoherent speech, or is something else going on here?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From the ABC article:
quote:Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush
I don't find the general idea hard to believe, but I'd need more than a news organization saying it to treat it as even likely true. I doubt that worshipping is the right term, but it could be entirely correct too.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From the ABC article:
quote:Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush
I don't find the general idea hard to believe, but I'd need more than a news organization saying it to treat it as even likely true. I doubt that worshipping is the right term, but it could be entirely correct too.
I watched the video that article is a transcript of, and what was said was, "Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping to a picture of President Bush" - I think the 'to' (in my mind, meaning 'in accompaniment with') is much more believable, and was what was intended.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Still...ewwwww.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: BB - I didn't know what Katie was using my email for until right now, so for what it's worth, the response she quotes is me answering a question from her and should not be read as an attempted refutation of you.
The information you question in your first point is drawn from Rough Stone Rolling. I haven't read the book in the past year and don't have it on hand to cite, but I believe what I wrote is substantially correct; the part about a man flying through the air had to do with spirit possession.
I've read the book and its on my bookshelf so I might get around to looking. Pretty sure the instance of the man flying was at priesthood meeting that evening and it was a result of a strong attack by evil spirits, not the holy ghost turning people into David Copperfields.
quote: As to your second point, you're correct: women blessed the sick and afflicted (and pregnant, for that matter; there was a special ritual here that could be called an ordinance) for comfort and healing until the first two decades or so of the twentieth century, when the practice began to be discouraged. However, historically, presence or absence of a man had nothing to do with it. A good article on this is "A Gift Given, A Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick Among Mormon Women" in _The New Mormon History_, ed. by Michael Quinn; also reprinted in the 25th anniversary Sunstone issue.
I have heard something similar, though I'd guess that your average Mormons would be rather divided on the question.
I could be wrong, and you could be right. Its just in my experience what I wrote was what I was taught, and I've never heard any uniform teaching stating otherwise. I suppose the priesthood manual would have something about it, but your book sounds interesting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I feel like I should post this as a PSA: Matt probably won't be back to the thread. Nothing personal at all - he is just on a schedule where he has to read a book a day in order to get ready for exams. He said yesterday was really fun, but he shouldn't have spent so much time on it. I'm sure he'll be up for anything and everything after, um, about October 26.
Or, he may come back in and make all the above irrelevant. If he doesn't, though, I thought I should say why.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I feel like I should post this as a PSA: Matt probably won't be back to the thread. Nothing personal at all - he is just on a schedule where he has to read a book a day in order to get ready for exams. He said yesterday was really fun, but he shouldn't have spent so much time on it. I'm sure he'll be up for anything and everything after, um, about October 26.
Or, he may come back in and make all the above irrelevant. If he doesn't, though, I thought I should say why.
duly noted, thanks!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
This movie is obviously meant to excite people to revulsion. Not surprising if it works sometimes -- some of us are very uncomfortable with displays of emotion, as the reaction to Howard Dean's "yeargh" showed -- but...is this good, trying to stimulate fear of and contempt for other groups? Are we so lacking in prejudice that we need to generate more? I don't think so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think that's a tenable statement Will. Considering, for example, that one of the leaders of the camp they filmed screened the movie and said she was perfectly fine with it, it seems to me more likely that they did, as they claimed to do, a fair job of showing the reality of the camp.
What about it makes you think that it is obviously meant to excite people to revulsion? Have you maybe seen more of the movie than the rest of us?
Posted by Goldenstar (Member # 6990) on :
nevermind
[ September 20, 2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Goldenstar ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
BlackBlade said:
quote:I had a friend who was told that if you are saved you ought to be able to speak in tongues whenever you so desired, the thought made us both ill. Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed.
I feel particularly aversive towards being 'Posessed by the holy spirit' Why in the world would the spirit possess you and cause you to convulse on the floor and babble incoherently? How is anyone edified by that?
Katharina then said:
quote:It was NOT suppressed. It fell out of favor about the same time that the Pentacostals appeared, but it was not "suppressed." Joseph Smith, Brigham Young - all sorts of early church leaders happily participated in it. It was a spiritual gift that was welcomed. The crowd spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirtland temple.
You are both correct and talking past each other. The problem is the difference between speaking in tongues and enthusiasms. They often are active together, but are actually sometimes seen as seperate spiritual gifts.
The speaking in tongues has been covered well. Joseph Smith and many of the early Mormons participated in speakings. That was a highlight of the spiritual gifts given during the "Kirtland Temple Pentacostal" at the time of its dedication. Although perhaps downplayed, they have never been "suppressed" in the Church. It has become rare, but not unheard of even beyond the "missionaries learn quick" theory.
However, "Shaking" and "Possesed by the Spirit" can be a whole different experience. That is when, with or without Glossolalia, the body is said to be taken over by the spirit and convulses or causes erratic movement (disambiguation). It is where the Shakers (an off-shoot of Quakers) get their name.
In the very early days of the LDS Church, there were a number of members who would experience very violent spiritual disambiguation. Levi Hancock described how at least one of them would ". . . jump up from the floor, strike his head against the joist . . . swing some minutes, then fall like he was dead." He would then wake up and tell what spiritual experiences he saw during the enthusiasm.
Joseph Smith heard about this and, when he saw it, condemned the enthusiasm. He then taught that Spiritual experiences would only enlighten and edify. Anything that didn't have the purpose of teaching or bringing new understanding was not of God.(see Rough Stone Rolling pg. 150-152)
"Now God never had any prophets that acted in this way [strange fits]; there was nothing indecorous in the proceeding of the Lord's prophets in any age; neither had the apostles nor prophets in the apostle's day anything of this kind. Paul says, 'Ye may all prophecy, one by one; and if anything be revealed to another let the first hold his peace, for the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets,' but here we find [in the fits] the prophets are subject to the spirit . . . (TPJS pg 209).
[ September 20, 2006, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Creepy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it seems I'll have to quote myself again.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would still like to hear katherine's response to these:
quote:
quote: It is by definition misanthropic to think that what certainly seems like a fundamental part of human nature is risible and despicable.
Why? Many religions, in fact, preach that things which appear to be fundamental parts of human nature are risible and despicable. You might even argue that one of the primary functions of any society is identifying which primary functions of human nature are going to be considered risible and despicable.
quote:
quote: I saw the trailer. I don't think it's fanaticism. There were no blood sacrifices going on, no calls for actual violence in war. But it still gets called "fanaticism - creepy and narrow regardless of the reason."
What I've learned from this thread is that there are still groups that it is considered okay to mock.
Yes, well? A desire to mock those who are different is also a 'fundamental part of human nature'. Who are you to say that this is a bad thing?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I thinks this movie fills an important role. The kids in that camp, and most likely many other similar camps around the country, are being taught to fear, rally against, and oppose anyone who is not part of their group.
It's really only fair that the rest of us be given the same opportunity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
KoM: I like what Matt said.
-----
I don't like the camp in the movie, although I suspect it's for a different reason than that which is being generally decried. I don't like it because I think focusing on politics cheats religion. Every hour spent on President Bush and fake swordfighting is that much less time spent on spiritual things.
Not everything can be focused, though, so there's some wiggle room, but in general mixing politics and religion bothers me more because of the effect on religion than because of any effect on politics.
[ September 21, 2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
quote:...in general mixing politics and religion bothers me more because of the effect on religion than because of any effect on politics.
sums up my opinion quite nicely.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I just read (in an offline journal) that the woman who runs the camp featured in the movie has cancelled it for next year after the site was vandalized. She said she feared for the safety of the kids.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would be interested in some elaboration on that, if anyone ever runs across it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
This is all I've got:
quote: Camp out: Becky Fischer, the Pentecostal pastor featured in the documentary Jesus Camp, has decided not to continue her "Kids on Fire" summer camp for children. She made this decision after the site of her camp, an Assemblies of God property in North Dakota, was vandalized. "I have a responsibility to keep the children safe," said Fischer, who has been accused by some of brainwashing children in her campaign to recruit kids for "God's army" (AP).
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Since Christians are having more children, there is a measurable shift to the right every election cycle, (possibly one reason the Dem's want the gates wide open to the south)
It is good to see the Spirit so strong in so many young people.
These kids outnumber the kids produced by gay couples by twelve orders of magnitude...and those by the typical yuppie 3:1 so like it or not this is where we are going, various fundamental Christians in a larger and larger political majority.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Do you have a source you can site for that, General Sax?
Also, how do you account for increased percentages of Atheists and Agnostics in the past few decades?
quote: Camp out: Becky Fischer, the Pentecostal pastor featured in the documentary Jesus Camp, has decided not to continue her "Kids on Fire" summer camp for children. She made this decision after the site of her camp, an Assemblies of God property in North Dakota, was vandalized. "I have a responsibility to keep the children safe," said Fischer, who has been accused by some of brainwashing children in her campaign to recruit kids for "God's army" (AP).
Wow.
People suck. Who vandalizes a church camp?
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
I liked the statement "There are only 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who believe in Jesus, and those who don't."
It's always fun when someone equates me to a suicide bomber. Oh, and incidentally equates him/herself to a Klansman.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: People suck. Who vandalizes a church camp?
Without more information we can't even guess. It could be some anti-Christian hate group bent on domestic terrorism, or it could be some random group of teenagers from within the Assemblies of God's own congregation, or it could be anyone in between the two extremes. The blurb doesn't even mention the type of "vandalism" or give any reason why Ms. Fischer would feel it was reason to fear for the safety of the kids.
I'm sure negative public reaction to her message and methods of indoctrination had nothing to do with her deciding not to hold camp this year.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I liked the statement "There are only 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who believe in Jesus, and those who don't."
Substitute "imaginary friends", and I agree entirely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's like you have Tourette's Syndrome, except on purpose.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"There are only two kinds of imaginary friends in the world. Those who believe in Jesus, and those who don't." ??
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
"There are only 2 kinds of people in the imaginary friends. Those who believe in Jesus, and those who dont."?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"There are only two kinds of Jesus in the world. Those who believe in imaginary friends, and those who don't."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, now you're all just being silly. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's like you have Tourette's Syndrome, except on purpose.
Do you feel the comment is irrelevant? Untrue? Unimportant? Inappropriate? If the latter, why didn't you whistle it? If untrue, how about an argument to show its falsity? If unimportant or irrelevant, then we have what's technically called a 'disagreement', and comparisons to mental disease are not, perhaps, entirely called for.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh KOM I am POSITIVE that you would agree if somebody substituted the phrase, "imaginary friends" in for, "Jesus." It seems pointless to argue with you about what YOU have said.
Are you saying you don't believe in imaginary friends? Would you tell Calvin that he does not really believe in Hobbes' existence?
I'm sure EVERYONE agrees that you shouldn't believe IN imaginary friends, but perhaps you are stating that those who believe in God are mistaking reality for just another imaginary friend.
Not sure why you think anybody actually believes in imaginary friends that they know to be, imaginary.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's funny when KoM is intentionally obtuse.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Attempt to disbelieve, Blackblade! Attempt to disbelieve!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not sure why you think anybody actually believes in imaginary friends that they know to be, imaginary.
I don't think I said anything of the sort. I'm sure Calvin really believes Hobbes is alive, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
KoM, do you believe that Calvin is real? *concerned*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not the one who introduced C&H to the argument. Do you care to respond to the question I asked you?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
*re-lurks*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*amused* KoM, is Calvin YOUR imaginary friend?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, I see you don't. I won't respond further to your trolling, then. Have a nice day.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: I liked the statement "There are only 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who believe in Jesus, and those who don't."
Reminds me of some president of some country who once said something to the effect of "you're either on my side or the terrorists' side" hmmm
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
More words reaction: Wow. That's a little scary. As for me, I really think that what you believe is up to you and you should be free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't mean imposing them on others. Many people came to America for religious tolerance, now we're getting rid of that? I have nothing against Christians or really any other religious group but I hate it when people force their belies on me. Some of those scenes seem like cult gatherings. Are we suggesting that children become suicide bombers?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Many people came to America for religious tolerance, now we're getting rid of that?
No, we're not.
quote:Are we suggesting that children become suicide bombers?
No, we're not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not enough time to watch the whole thing...but working through it.
quote: No microphone problems in Jesus's name
Got to this part so far, where they're praying over the Powerpoint presentations because the devil might affect them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Having attended a number of Powerpoint presentations, I find that completely credible.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
*is tempted to make a joke about Keynote, but realises this will reduce his credibility in future Mac-PC debates, so refrains*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
SATAN, OUT OF MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
BY THE GRACE OF GOD, THE DARK LORD IS PURGED FROM OUR SOUND SYSTEM.
LUCIFER, THEE SHALT NOT CAUSE ANY SCRATCH DISK ERRORS IN XP in jesus name i pray
lumshaddadwalla doowedjoghuyyp lollololopopofogoggoggy hoodowewewewnnenedomodallawala
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I wrote this review for another forum about a month ago:
Jesus Camp - ****
"I don't think kids can choose anything" "I think democracy is the greatest system in the world... but it means you have to give equal freedom to everyone, and in the end that is going to destroy us."
from the lady (Becky Sharpe) who runs the camp as heard in the documentary. The first quote refers to why she prefers indoctrination to letting kids choose, the second is her response to the idea that what makes America great is it's democracy and principles such as the separation of church and state.
Jesus Camp is about a small, extremist evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity. The whole world is their enemy, and they want to convert us all. Ideally they'd like to impose their principals by pressuring the government out of proportion to the size of their sect. This is nothing at all like regular evangelicals behave or think. it is not remotely representative of them as a group, but it's a pretty accurate portrayal of the most extreme right wing of evangelicals.
All the adults lacked credibility, in my estimation, from Ted Haggard's slimy put downs of the earnest Levi (though he did challenge the kid to think, because of it), to Becky Sharpe and her sad screed against Harry Potter (a series with quite Christian themes, heroes, and iconography), to the bald guy taping kids mouths shut (so they can only express what is written on the tape, ahh sweet conformity. )
But perhaps the worst moment comes as the credits are rolling, when the little girl and Levi walk up to a trio of elderly black men sitting in a park and asks them where they're going after they die. When they reply heaven and she pushes them to repeat it. then she walks away unsure what to do when encountering an affirmative answer, but concludes that they were 'probably Muslim' The next bit in the credits shows her handing out leaflets to passers by, and as a group of white tourists presses past her, she shrugs and says, 'they're probably Christian and we just don't know it." It's a moment completely created by editing, but it is at least as disturbing as anything else in the movie, to me.
A terrific examination of the powers of community and culture--people need and crave both, and one of the best aspects of the film is seeing how people willingly fit themselves into both. The stories they tell each other about themselves, to define who they are as a group, also illustrates one of the most powerful ways communities are shaped and how malleable the perception of truth can be. What is clearly true for one community could be just as clearly false for another. And I think in the eyes of most evangelical christians, or non-evangelical christians what the people behind the Jesus camp promote has only elements of truth that have been twisted to serve the purposes of the extremists sponsoring the community. Jesus Camp is exactly what Al Queda does. And that is why it is just so disturbing.
Adam
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: SATAN, OUT OF MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
BY THE GRACE OF GOD, THE DARK LORD IS PURGED FROM OUR SOUND SYSTEM.
LUCIFER, THEE SHALT NOT CAUSE ANY SCRATCH DISK ERRORS IN XP in jesus name i pray
Your post while not as wrong as what they do at Jesus Camp is just another brand of wrong, and it was not funny.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...could you explain why, BB? That didn't seem inappropriate to me and I did grin a bit. I mean, I get it if it isn't your type of humor, but it doesn't seem blatantly wrong to me.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree with Squicky, it made me smile. I find the idea of praying about a powerpoint presentation to be incredibly silly. I imagine you would have no problem making a joke about something you thought was absurd.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Errr...could you explain why, BB? That didn't seem inappropriate to me and I did grin a bit. I mean, I get it if it isn't your type of humor, but it doesn't seem blatantly wrong to me.
Having actually been in the presence of people who speak in tongues (not my own religion) I find the action at best foolish and at worst evil.
But having said that, I find making fun of other people for sincerely believing anything extremely disrespectful, and not humorous.
I prefer humor that uplifts or even enlightens, and I have been known to laugh at stereotypes, but in this instance I felt the humor was in an attempt to belittle and I didn't like it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I imagine you would have no problem making a joke about something you thought was absurd.
Then I am glad your imagination does not dictate reality.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Having attended a number of Powerpoint presentations, I find that completely credible.
So true. If only we could blame Satan for some of the PowerPoint presentations I've sat through.
People, people - just because you CAN add fancy fonts, graphics, and animation to the text in your slides, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Becky Sharpe? Seriously? That is hilarious.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Then I am glad your imagination does not dictate reality.
This just really rubbed me the wrong way. I've frequently seen you make jokes on this board. I think when looking at the joke in question, it's important to remember that the three previous posts were gently laughing about the same thing and that it was not directed at anybody on Hatrack.
If a similar joke had been made about the Harry Potter Hotline, I have trouble believing that you would be so abrasive about it, even if it was a bit belittling. But because the subject was religion, it's now wrong? Can nothing regarding religion ever be funny for fear of offending of somebody? That's an awfully large subject area.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:Then I am glad your imagination does not dictate reality.
This just really rubbed me the wrong way. I've frequently seen you make jokes on this board. I think when looking at the joke in question, it's important to remember that the three previous posts were gently laughing about the same thing and that it was not directed at anybody on Hatrack.
If a similar joke had been made about the Harry Potter Hotline, I have trouble believing that you would be so abrasive about it, even if it was a bit belittling. But because the subject was religion, it's now wrong? Can nothing regarding religion ever be funny for fear of offending of somebody? That's an awfully large subject area.
Far from me to rub you the wrong way for the sake of doing so. Religion has plenty of material worth joking about. You are mistaken if you thought I felt religion was a sort of "no man's land" for humor.
I am not saying that that genre of humor is wrong across the board, I thought that PARTICULAR instance was mean spirited. But hey that's a weakness with internet communication, we have to use graemlins to clue others into our tone of voice.
I have no particularly ill feelings for Samprimary either now or in the past. I am going into dangerous territory now explaining the specifics of my displeasure.
I felt the post was moderately silly (but even then I felt it was wrong to laugh) but when he broke into tongues it passed a threshold for me into "mean" territory.
As down as I look on speaking in meaningless tongues and altered voices the people who engage in the activity or may even witness it believe a very real communique is being given.
Even those who exorcise "demons" out of people or EVEN appliances believe that they are purifying an object of evil influences.
There's a difference between presenting a scenario where religion plays a humorous dynamic, "A Mormon and a Muslim find themselves in a situation where the only food is bacon and the only drink is coffee, what happens?"
I saw Samprimary's post as similar to morons that I hear in Utah try to make fun of Muslims by imitating how Arabic sounds to their ears.
But we already had a thread on Rosie O'Donnell's little Chinese quip.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If you can't make fun of crazy people, who can you make fun of? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If you can't make fun of crazy people, who can you make fun of?
I find normal people are not lacking in humorous potential.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I love this movie and it is totally comedy to me.
I just breezed to the part where we get to watch (if you'll pardon my french) haggard's undeniably shit-eating grin.
He's all waxing off on how 'oh whew thank god we got all this moral high ground what a great day to be us.'
Can't make this stuff up, man.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I love this movie and it is totally comedy to me.
I just breezed to the part where we get to watch (if you'll pardon my french) haggard's undeniably shit-eating grin.
He's all waxing off on how 'oh whew thank god we got all this moral high ground what a great day to be us.'
Can't make this stuff up, man.
The prosecution rests.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I saw Samprimary's post as similar to morons that I hear in Utah try to make fun of Muslims by imitating how Arabic sounds to their ears.
I have seen people speak in tongues and have profound experiences and I find it astounding and inspiring in many ways! I have watched it across cultures and I have seen their approximations in American Indian religious ceremonies and the quiet, meditative forms inside Hindu temples and quite alien versions of it inside the ceremonies of obscure neo-pagan cults. There's plenty of examples of the phenomenon that I have watched with full respect; certainly, I would not diss the act in and of itself.
But I'll poke fun at that part of the movie as easily as I'll poke fun at the histrionics of vintage mid-80's televangelists or the infuriation of Tom Cruise at the galactic, religious evil of Psychiatry. It is really bizarre to me and I see humor in it and I am really a man who will find humor in everything I don't abhor. As far as I'm concerned, the whole damned world is silly and I don't think this detracts from how inspiring it is.
if it still makes me a moron then at least I'll go full hog and also make fun of her powerpoint presentation. Who'd'a thunk that the gospel of God could benefit so well from overuse of the blood text effect?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The prosecution rests.
not so fast, miles edgeworth!
You totally can. not. make. this. up. It's a scenario that is often considered too bizarre and contrived when it's used in fiction.
Jesus Camp is released. In it, Haggard preaches the anti-gay anti-secular shpiel and rags on that poor kid. Not too long afterwards, he's complaining that the movie is selectively cut to make him look like he's being a jerk, because he certainly looks like he's being a jerk. Associates of his even start talking 'boycott' to the movie, despite the fact that it really didn't pull any punches in its presentation. Not too long after that, it is revealed to the world that he'd been having secret gay methamphetamine-fueled sexual romps with a prostitute. It is a poignant addendum to his presence in the movie. Haggard is rendered into a parable.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Far from me to rub you the wrong way for the sake of doing so. Religion has plenty of material worth joking about. You are mistaken if you thought I felt religion was a sort of "no man's land" for humor.
I am not saying that that genre of humor is wrong across the board, I thought that PARTICULAR instance was mean spirited. But hey that's a weakness with internet communication, we have to use graemlins to clue others into our tone of voice.
I have no particularly ill feelings for Samprimary either now or in the past. I am going into dangerous territory now explaining the specifics of my displeasure.
I felt the post was moderately silly (but even then I felt it was wrong to laugh) but when he broke into tongues it passed a threshold for me into "mean" territory.
As down as I look on speaking in meaningless tongues and altered voices the people who engage in the activity or may even witness it believe a very real communique is being given.
Even those who exorcise "demons" out of people or EVEN appliances believe that they are purifying an object of evil influences.
There's a difference between presenting a scenario where religion plays a humorous dynamic, "A Mormon and a Muslim find themselves in a situation where the only food is bacon and the only drink is coffee, what happens?"
I saw Samprimary's post as similar to morons that I hear in Utah try to make fun of Muslims by imitating how Arabic sounds to their ears.
But we already had a thread on Rosie O'Donnell's little Chinese quip.
Black Blade, I truly appreciate you taking the time to explain your thinking and feelings. To me the post did not feel mean, it felt silly. But now that you've explained it, I understand why you feel that it was mean. Thank you for the clarification.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: Sorry the prosecution has already rested
That aside, we will simply have to disagree. Ill take you at your word and accept your, "Nothing in the world is safe from a comedic jab." (My words)
And now having acknowledged it Ill say that I disagree with it. While I really do appreciate you trying to clarify your motives and intent, I still think your comment was unfunny and crafted with unkind intent.
Perhaps in the crazy Christan al-qaeda animal farm camp they do crazy things like speak in tongues, roll and retch on the floor and talk about suicide bombing missions they all wish they could participate in.
But there are good people, honest people who take tongues seriously, even "shaking". I think you betray your own self described reverence for it by your presentation of it.
I suppose my biggest issue is that it seems you are making fun of tongues across the board rather then a misapplication of it in an excessive situation.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Samprimary, I thought your post was amusing and struck a relatively light-hearted tone that was perfectly appropriate for the material.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I chuckled. I have an addiction to satire though.
I keep thinking about writing a post about this, but I never know where to start. Maybe the rampantly obese pastor loudly complaining that many Christians are too "fat and lazy" to fast appropriately?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)