About This Website

Special Sections

Powered by TypePad

God's Army


Grade:

      Opinion:

        God's Army is the first entry in the recent genre of 'Mormon Cinema' and also the most polarizing. Those that see it either love it or hate it--very little "eh...it was okay" middle ground. In a way, the difference of opinion from those who see "God's Army" is a testament to its greatness; extreme 'love/hate' responses are almost always a sign of a movie that's ambitious and challenging, which "God's Army" is. (By way of comparison, I felt Richard Dutcher's follow-up work "Brigham City" was actually more ambitious but less challenging, which is why you won't find the same 'love it or hate it' split for those who have seen it--and why I gave it a lower grade.)

        I had heard from several members of the 'hate it' group that it wasn't worth my time, and in fact when I did see it I was roped into it reluctantly without an opportunity to back out (long story). Because of the 'preconditioning' beforehand, I just knew I wasn't going to like it even as the movie started. (Movie Watching No-No #1--letting other people influence your opinion on a movie before you've seen it. You're not reading this for the purpose of making your decision for you, are you?) I'm not sure exactly when the movie started working for me--probably at the beginning when Elder Allen is having his first conversation with his mission president ("So, Elder, I bet you're wondering what in the world you're doing here...").

        Giving "God's Army" a high grade is easy; explaining why the movie deserves that grade and why I liked it is more of a problem. A movie such as "God's Army", if it works at all, it's because it connects with you on some personal level. If you can identify with one or more of the main characters; if you can nod your head knowingly when someone says or does something in the movie that resonates with you on an intellectual or emotional level, then the movie is 'working' for you. Unfortunately, personal connections like that are hard to quantify--it either happens or it doesn't, hence the 'love/hate' relationship people have with the movie. Ultimately, one can't explain why one likes "God's Army" without describing the personal feelings or experiences that found resonance within the movie. To wit, here are some brief experiences I've had which may or may not explain why I liked it:

        --My high school girlfriend has divorced parents, and her mom later remarried a humble, decent guy. She HATES her real dad, but despite the fact her stepdad was a better guy, she found it difficult to accept him as a 'parent'. He wasn't really her dad, and even temple sealings weren't going to change that. Direct blood relationships bring with them a certain bond that is not easily destroyed, nor emulated.

        --In the mission field, we attended a new member discussion for a woman who had been baptized the month before. The stake missionary mentioned the principle of eternal families and said if the new member was willing to work at it, she could one day be sealed to her husband for time and eternity. The new member immediately responded, "Why?" "'Why....?'" The stake missionary was a little shocked. The new member went on to explain patiently and dispassionately that while her husband was a decent guy and she wanted him to meet the gospel for his own benefit, she had no interest in being sealed to him for eternity. The stake missionary was speechless, while my companion and I had to stifle a laugh (this was not a surprise to us).

        --We had many missionaries in my mission who testified that they really didn't know what they were doing and why they were serving a mission when they first started. Most of them came from member families and went on a mission because they were 'supposed to'. It took a while--and quite a bit of struggling--but most of them figured it out and served effective and honorable missions (though, not all...) In the MTC, we had three elders go home after the first month. One of them came back, though, a year later--and had the opportunity to be trained by his original MTC companion. He told me about his experience, and said those that go home from their missions early take one of two paths: they get better fast, or they get worse fast--very little middle ground. He said it was more or less impossible for him to be a good missionary when originally scheduled, but after 'getting his life in order' essentially, he came back a year later a more sober, mature person--and a better missionary than many others in the mission who had been there since the beginning.

          Each of these experiences has complementary scenes or dialogue within "God's Army" that brought these thoughts to mind while watching. (Note the blank look Elder Allen gives his mission president when the president tells him his 'step-dad' is really his 'dad' now, since they've been sealed. It's not quite that simple...) Typical movie critic discussions of 'acting', 'plot', 'pacing', and 'cinematography' are ultimately irrelevant to the success or failure of "God's Army" (although there aren't any major problems in any of those areas). In the end, your opinion of "God's Army" will depend on how much of the movie resonated with you in some way--how 'real' the movie felt to you. I would imagine those who have served a mission themselves will like it more than those who have not. (An oversimplification, of course--there are many RMs who don't like the movie and vice versa).

            Content Analysis (PG):

              As with the 'Opinion' section, a conventional judgment of the 'content' of God's Army is insufficient. From a strict 'Profanity/Sex/Violence/Drug Use' standpoint, there's very little to complain about (the film earns it's PG rating, but nothing more than that). Still, that hasn't stopped many people from finding God's Army 'offensive'. Let's analyze it further...
                God's Army portrays a slightly-less-than-idealistic picture of missionaries--elders in particular--which many people found objectionable. While I can understand the objection, I find it hard to sympathize for a number of reasons:
                  (1) The missionaries in God's Army aren't actually all that bad--the worst behavior is what, practical jokes, reading anti-Mormon literature, saying the 'D' word? That's pretty tame. (One person I know found God's Army offensive because it showed 'an elder turning over a table in anger'. Uh, oh...better go talk to the bishop...) Ask anyone who's served a mission, and he/she could tell you stories about actual 'bad' missionaries, who have casual sex, drink alcohol, etc... My mission was pretty good--the worst we had was a companionship who went bowling at 3 AM once, and another one that attended a rock concert--both of which are still technically worse than anything the elders in "God's Army" do.
                    There's a tendency within the Church to assume that sending a 19-year-old boy on a mission automatically turns him into a man when in fact he becomes...a 19-year old boy with a name tag. Many high school and college-age guys naturally act a little rowdy and irreverent--even immature. (This isn't an excuse, just an observation) Many of them don't 'sober up' until well after their missions. Want to know if "God's Army" has a fairly realistic view of how four to six 19 year old guys act when they're together? Just ask any elder who's served a mission. Even better...ask a RM sister how elders really act in the mission field. You may still complain that God's Army shouldn't have shown ordained elders being irreverent, but you can't say it's not realistic.
                      (Side Note: those wishing to see more 'idealistic' portrayals of missionaries can see the Church-produced "Labor of Love"--which I personally can't stand and which for some reason doesn't offend as many people as "God's Army".   Fun FHE activity: watch "Labor of Love" and count how many mission rules the elders break. I counted four....)

                      (2) In my not-so-humble opinion, the 'idealistic' picture of missionaries that detractors of God's Army seem to prefer is better off being discarded anyway. Another common tendency of Church members (particularly young girls of marriage age) is to assume that any elder who completes his mission:

                      (a) is temple worthy

                      (b) has a strong testimony

                      (c) is mature and a hard worker

                      (d) honors his priesthood

                      and (e) would make an excellent husband and father.

                      Again, for a glimpse of reality, ask any RM sister whether she knows of any elders from her mission who served the entire two years but fail in one or more of the above areas. The fact is very few missionaries commit a big enough sin to get sent home early (and this is a purely subjective judgment call of the mission president anyway), but that doesn't mean all missionaries who finished the two years are 'good' missionaries, or even temple worthy. Sure, it's great to have faith in the Church's missionary corps, but when young women say they want to marry a faithful Church member in the temple, and automatically grab the first RM they can get their hands on--assuming from the sole fact that he is an RM that he is a faithful member of the Church without checking--then this idealism causes some serious problems. The road to the celestial kingdom is littered with the corpses of marriages where the wife finds out too late that her husband's standards aren't quite as high as she originally--and naively--thought. If there are, say, 18-year-old girls who feel 'disappointed' and 'disillusioned' by watching "God's Army", I would say "Good!" Now perhaps they'll spend a little more time getting to know their future husbands and seeing if they're really worthy of them, instead of just looking for the virtual nametag on someone's chest that says "Hi, my name is _____. I'm an RM!".

                      The other issue that has sparked concern and debate within God's Army is the portrayal of 'holy ordinances', specifically priesthood blessings. Latter-Day Saints are properly sensitive to holy and sacred things being treated with disrespect and disdain (the 'pearls before swine' principle), but in this case I don't think the concern is warranted. Why?

                      (1) Priesthood blessings aren't 'secret'--not like temple ordinances, for example. There's no rule against non-members being present when a priesthood blessing is given, and the fact that some of the actors in God's Army are non-members shouldn't matter either.

                      (2) The portrayal of the blessings is entirely respectful and appropriate for the situation. This is hardly a 'mockery' of priesthood power, but rather an accurate representation of how real missionaries would have acted in the situation given. While some of the elder's actions are irreverent (as noted above), when it comes time to be serious, though, they all treat blessings with the gravity they deserve, and I can't see why anyone would conclude that any of the blessing scene were 'inappropriate' or 'disrespectful'. (Note also the blessings also serve a purpose in the plot by showing Elder Kinegar's loss of the Spirit, which leads us to...)

                        In-depth Analysis:

                        The character of Elder Kinegar in the movie is shown to have a deep fascination with anti-Mormon literature, ostensibly to understand the arguments in order to refute them. Elder Dalton tells him to stop, as it will do more damage than good (shown to be correct later in the movie as Elder Kinegar becomes disillusioned and goes home). Echoing Elder Dalton's words, Latter-Day Saints are generally encouraged to stay away from 'anti-' literature. Cynics would say this is because the Church can't answer the arguments from its critics and tries to keep its membership ignorant. Believers would say this is because 'anti-' groups exaggerate and/or fabricate arguments and 'facts' against the Church all the time for their own purposes and can't be trusted. Let's discuss the issue of reading anti-Mormon literature further...

                        Generally speaking, arguments against the Church fall into two categories:

                          Doctrinal arguments:

                            These are arguments against specific doctrines of the Church, usually involving scriptures. Visit Temple Square in SLC (among other locations) and representatives from other churches will happily hand you a flyer listing the 5 or 10 or 20 or 100 ways LDS doctrine differs from the Bible.

                            Of course, there's a problem...Mormons read the Bible too, and the Bible supports every doctrine of our church--at least according to our interpretation of it.  And that's the key issue, of course--while the pamphlets handed out by other churches rarely say so expressly, a more accurate (but less effective) rendering of the title would be "20 ways LDS doctrine differs from our interpretation of the Bible". This issue of interpretation is one of the main issues facing Christianity today--namely, there are hundreds of Christian churches in the world--and, as far as I know, every single one of them reads the Bible--yet, Catholics have a different interpretation of the Bible than the Baptists, who have a different interpretation of the Bible than the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a different interpretation than the Greek Orthodox Church and so on... The only thing most Christian churches seem to be able to agree on (besides "Mormons are evil and must be stopped...") is that salvation comes through Jesus Christ, but even then the method and form of salvation, as well as concepts such as Christ's true relationship with the Father remain in constant debate (as Joseph Smith himself discovered when he visited the different churches in his day).

                            Obviously, any church can list ways in which their interpretation of Biblical doctrine is different than the LDS interpretation, but that's not the important question. The important question is 'which interpretation is the CORRECT one?' In other words, which interpretation would Christ proclaim as correct if he were present with us right now? Thus, doctrinal arguments against the Church miss the point--it's not enough to point out ways in which the doctrine of the two churches differ; you have to demonstrate that your interpretation is the correct one. Unfortunately, instead of demonstrating the truth of their doctrine (which, arguably, is in fact impossible for most other churches to do, since very few believe in modern-day prophets and revelation and thus their church has no foundation other than personal interpretation of scripture to work with), most other churches simply engage in 'Bible-bashing'--'proving' the scriptures that show they're right and you're wrong with...even more scriptures. (Problem--by definition, you can't use your interpretation of the Bible to prove your interpretation of the Bible is correct...)

                              Personal arguments:

                                A different (and arguably more effective) type of attack are 'personal arguments' which usually take the form of "[some Church leader] said or did [something] which proves he wasn't [righteous / inspired] and thus this couldn't be the Lord's true church." These arguments usually don't involve nor require scripture, but rather events in LDS Church history. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are the most frequent targets, but other church leaders crop up occasionally. Personal arguments tend to be more effective than doctrinal arguments, since they:
                                  (1) are easier to understand and identify with than complicated doctrinal explanations from the Bible.
                                    (2) are hard to verify/disprove.
                                      (3) often (but not always) are based on at least a kernel of truth
                                        (4) take advantage of a common characteristic of church membership which demands perfection from their leaders.
                                          What's the main problem with personal arguments? There are very few people (if any) who have the requisite knowledge of history (especially things that happened 150 years ago) to effectively confirm or refute such arguments. If someone says to me "Brigham Young said [some statement] in the 1860's, so how does that reconcile with [some Church doctrine]?", what should my response be? I wasn't there in the 1860's, so I don't know myself what Brigham Young actually said. The statement could be:
                                            (1) totally fabricated by the questioner or someone else whom the questioner talked to.
                                              (2) quoted out of context or slightly altered to obscure the truth.
                                                (3) accurate, but incomplete as Brigham Young went on to explain things more clearly later.
                                                  (4) 100% word-for-word accurate as to what Brigham Young actually said and meant at the time.
                                                      Which one is it? Who knows? (My response would be, "I have no idea if that's true or not, but here's my understanding of [doctrine in question]"...) More importantly--does the answer to that question really matter?
                                                        The LDS Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Church of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other church member, past or present. Any accusation made against any church leader has the possibility of being true (in whole or in part) of course, since we already know no one other than Christ himself is perfect, but what exactly does pointing out people's imperfections prove? As I wrote about in more detail in this post, the imperfection of any one church member, even a church leader (see Judas Iscariot), is neither relevant to my personal salvation nor to the eternal destiny of the Church. Getting involved in a historical debate about who said or did what and when--even with Church leaders alive today--is essentially meaningless because the Church (and each person's individual testimony) stands or falls on its foundation--which is the Lord Jesus Christ. Sure it would bother me if, say, six of the current twelve apostles were arrested next week in a extensive smuggling and money-laundering operation because I know and love them personally but is it 'proof' that the Church isn't really the Church of Jesus Christ? Does it affect my personal salvation? No and no...

                                                          Conclusion:

                                                          The key point is that responding to either kind of argument against the Church in neither case requires nor benefits you to read them in detail. Doctrinal arguments want to get you wrapped up in 'Bible-bashing' while ignoring the real question. Personal arguments want to get you wrapped up in a "He did not...!/He did so...!" kind of debate which also misses the point. In-depth knowledge of 'anti-' material through study doesn't provide any benefit towards answering the arguments because the arguments are on the wrong planes of discussion to begin with and only confuse the issue through a fog of doctrinal rhetoric. Church members are properly encouraged to avoid 'anti-' discussions and material not simply to turn a blind eye to critical debates about the Church and remain ignorant, but instead recognize what the important questions really are, and how to obtain an answer.
                                                          Click Here for Reader Comments