Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Flawed Conceit of "The Book of Mormon" Musical


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

When I went to my son’s wedding in Idaho many years ago, I wore a sharp pressed suit made of wool, a silk tie, a pressed all cotton shirt and leather soled dress shoes.   One cannot get this look any other way.  It’s not cheap   

No, it's not cheap. You are 100% right about that. And it doesn't really suit (pun intended) what missionaries do all day everyday.

When you were a missionary, did you actually walk 10 hours a day in leather-soled shoes? Without discomfort? And if so, how long did your shoes last? And how many hours did you spend on P-day pressing your all-cotton shirts and your 100% wool suits?

I guess I'm glad that people still listen to our missionaries even though they don't look like they've stepped out of the pages of GQ...

Link to comment
On 11/14/2017 at 7:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I take your point, Daniel, and of course those young LDS elders are naive, which is the whole idea -- sending out those who naively testify about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to harvest the souls who are ready.  Their only bulwark of faith is the Holy Spirit, which backs them up whenever they bear their testimonies.  Not a highly sophisticated technique, and it assumes a lot,  And those elders are the butt of plenty of good humor, which they themselves good-heartedly recall for years after their missions.  It is ironically even funnier if they are there on a wild-goose chase, based on false assumptions -- perhaps the objects of the sort of pity (if not disdain) we direct toward the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have no problem with any of that, because it goes with the territory.  What I find very annoying is the in-your-face crude and rude behavior of nearly everyone in the large metropolises of America.  I can recall the public misbehavior of so many people in Los Angeles, before I moved to Provo (where people are normally gracious and well-behaved).  Free speech for many simply means a constant stream of swear words, and of sexually or politically charged yammering and behavior not intended to bring dialogue, but rather to end it before it begins.  As an ex-Marine, I don't find any of that shocking -- just disturbing that public values have taken a major hit, and that there is a felt need to be contemptuous of anything lovely or of good report.

I recall meeting a gay man in Frisco when I was in my early twenties.  He knew fine music, had been a Mormon, and had sung in a nice choir in Hawaii.  I treated him with respect and even deference.  I did not hector him for leaving the Church.  Even that time I last saw him on Nob Hill, when he was contemptuous of my faith, dismissive as he walked away, I made no ripostes, but did feel sorry that he had never quite understood the faith.  In my opinion, he should have been both noble and tolerant of views differing from his own.  Maybe he was just trying to exorcise his Mormon demons.  So sad that there is little mutual respect -- except on this board . . .   :pirate:

Wondering if. you are willing to acknowledge that your Mormon faith is contemptuous of gay marriage and their families?  Perhaps that might have influenced his attitude.

And as a side note, I am wondering if you realize that people from San Francisco hate the use of the term Frisco when referring to the city.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, it's not cheap. You are 100% right about that. And it doesn't really suit (pun intended) what missionaries do all day everyday.

When you were a missionary, did you actually walk 10 hours a day in leather-soled shoes? Without discomfort? And if so, how long did your shoes last? And how many hours did you spend on P-day pressing your all-cotton shirts and your 100% wool suits?

I guess I'm glad that people still listen to our missionaries even though they don't look like they've stepped out of the pages of GQ...

I wore leather soled shoes my whole mission. They can be very comfortable.  Buy good shoes. Don’t cheap out.  Leather soled shoes are reasonable to get a half sole  I rode bicycles for half my mission.

Fortunately, I went to Bolivia on my mission. At the time we had maids to press our shirts. I took my suits to dry cleaning. 

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
On 11/14/2017 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

As for The Book of Mormon, its central conceit does not ring true. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I can can appreciate your opinion regarding this play. I can't help thought come away thinking; " Of course you are a Mormon, which Mormon would be happy about this play when makes a huge mockery about most of the elements you hold sacred". And me, as an ExMormon, Atheist laughed whole time watching this play in Broadway, New York". Yes we are in opposite end of this spectrum but we both should know this play was produced (primarily) for making money, exaggerations, hyperboles was aplenty...They turned into an utopian paradigm shift so much so I was blown away......like many others,

Of course none of it was true, but that wasn't the point....the point was to make money, fame etc.....I hope you aren't taking this play more seriously than it deserves.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I can can appreciate your opinion regarding this play. I can't help thought come away thinking; " Of course you are a Mormon, which Mormon would be happy about this play when makes a huge mockery about most of the elements you hold sacred".

I assume you meant "which Mormon would be unhappy..."

But no, the OP was not about how profane the play is.  That is another reason why I won't see it, but not the point of this thread.

20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

And me, as an ExMormon, Atheist laughed whole time watching this play in Broadway, New York".

I concede that the play is hilarious.  That seems to be the general consensus.

20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yes we are in opposite end of this spectrum but we both should know this play was produced (primarily) for making money, exaggerations, hyperboles was aplenty...They turned into an utopian paradigm shift so much so I was blown away......like many others,

Yes, I understand that as well.

20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Of course none of it was true, but that wasn't the point....the point was to make money, fame etc.....I hope you aren't taking this play more seriously than it deserves.

I'm not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 11/14/2017 at 1:01 PM, cinepro said:

 

I'm not a fan of The Book of Mormon musical and so this shouldn't be taken as a defense of it in principle.  But I'll just point out that its depiction of missionaries as zealous rubes and bumpkins has root in LDS culture itself, most prominently shown in the popular 1970's stage play/early 90's video/ mid-2010s movie "Saturday's Warrior".  I've seen the play a few times with presumably predominantly LDS audiences, and I assure you people are laughing and enjoying the portrayal of the missionaries. 

So while there may be a myriad of reasons to criticize the musical, I don't know if indignation over not treating missionaries with the respect they deserve is one that will ring true.  In fact, if you watch the clip below, I would bet dollars to donuts that the creators of The Book of Mormon musical were actually influenced by this portrayal of the missionary companions when creating their characters.  Physically, they are similar, and the dynamic is similar.  The only difference is that the stories veer in drastically different directions...  

 

 

My gosh Cinepro.....You nailed it so aptly.....It's been 35 years since I saw Saturday's warrior. Now that I feel like BoM musical was a copycat directed to go opposite direction. Thanks to you I lost a huge dose of respect to BoM musical.......they run away success wasn't original at all ......

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Wondering if. you are willing to acknowledge that your Mormon faith is contemptuous of gay marriage and their families?  Perhaps that might have influenced his attitude.

Of course there was no gay marriage back in the mid-1960s, and there were no gay families.  That was a time when 80% of gay men in general simply quietly got married to women, raised their children, and pretended to be hetero -- a famous example for us is the husband of Carol Lynn Pearson, and that did not end well.  I am a great advocate for civil liberties and freedom of choice in America, hoping that we can all accept each other's boundaries:  I expect my personal beliefs and the tenets of my religion to be respected the same way that I respect those of the Amish or those who seek a gay lifestyle.  There should be room for more than one point of view here in this country.  That gay man I mentioned last seeing on Nob Hill had no restraint or character, sharing that ignoble characteristic with a great many non-gay men and women.  He didn't understand how mutual respect works.  Instead, he expected others to change to meet his expectations.  Ain't gonna happen.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

And as a side note, I am wondering if you realize that people from San Francisco hate the use of the term Frisco when referring to the city.

Since I was born overlooking the Frisco Bay, I feel I own it, and can speak of it even more authoritatively than the various incarnations of "Frisco Joe," and of Otis Redding singing about the "Frisco Bay."   :pirate:

 

Link to comment
On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:10 AM, smac97 said:

Films like The Count of Monte Christo (2002 version), Frida and Brokeback Mountain include as centralized conceits the justification/rationalization of adultery... The Cider House Rules and Vera Drake and Frida and Brokeback Mountain are all films that I have chosen not to see for various reasons, including their flawed conceits (rationalizing abortion and adultery). 

I know it's entirely beside the main point of this thread, but I just wanted to say that I disagree that Brokeback Mountain "justifies or rationalizes" adultery.

As someone who lived through similar circumstances, it was gut-wrenching to watch in it's honest and realistic portrayal of the tragic ramifications for ALL concerned (including the husbands, the wives, and any children involved) that come from making such profound mistakes, and served as a powerful testament to the tragedy that results from all of those associated behaviors.  I know many other individuals like myself, and all feel similar in that regard.  It was both painful and therapeutic to watch as we all saw the effects of the pain and suffering we caused ourselves and others portrayed so keenly on screen.

I still respect that it's a personal choice to watch any given film, but I wanted to at least correct any misperception (at least in my mind) that Brokeback Mountain glorified, rationalized, or excused anything along the lines of adultery.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I know it's entirely beside the main point of this thread, but I just wanted to say that I disagree that Brokeback Mountain "justifies or rationalizes" adultery.

As someone who lived through similar circumstances, it was gut-wrenching to watch in it's honest and realistic portrayal of the tragic ramifications for ALL concerned (including the husbands, the wives, and any children involved) that come from making such profound mistakes, and served as a powerful testament to the tragedy that results from all of those associated behaviors.  I know many other individuals like myself, and all feel similar in that regard.  It was both painful and therapeutic to watch as we all saw the effects of the pain and suffering we caused ourselves and others portrayed so keenly on screen.

I still respect that it's a personal choice to watch any given film, but I wanted to at least correct any misperception (at least in my mind) that Brokeback Mountain glorified, rationalized, or excused anything along the lines of adultery.

This show..and the book, gave me an insight as to how love is the same and is real in all relationships.  It helped me understand and create a better relationship with my gay stepson.  My heart broke on all fronts with a understanding of what is real in the hearts of those who love and connect in same sex relationships. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course there was no gay marriage back in the mid-1960s, and there were no gay families.  That was a time when 80% of gay men in general simply quietly got married to women, raised their children, and pretended to be hetero -- a famous example for us is the husband of Carol Lynn Pearson, and that did not end well.  I am a great advocate for civil liberties and freedom of choice in America, hoping that we can all accept each other's boundaries:  I expect my personal beliefs and the tenets of my religion to be respected the same way that I respect those of the Amish or those who seek a gay lifestyle.  There should be room for more than one point of view here in this country.  That gay man I mentioned last seeing on Nob Hill had no restraint or character, sharing that ignoble characteristic with a great many non-gay men and women.  He didn't understand how mutual respect works.  Instead, he expected others to change to meet his expectations.  Ain't gonna happen.

Since I was born overlooking the Frisco Bay, I feel I own it, and can speak of it even more authoritatively than the various incarnations of "Frisco Joe," and of Otis Redding singing about the "Frisco Bay."   :pirate:

 

And even in the 60's could you see how someone might have some hard feelings about a church that promised in the name of God that if they married a woman they would become straight, only to find out that was a totally false promise and church leaders in fact did not speak for God when it came to homosexuality?

I certainly respect other peoples beliefs.  But I also don't judge them for their attitudes towards a religion that offered false promises.  I am of the belief that you can not judge someone because you really don't know their history.  I doubt very much you have ever been harmed by the church like some former gay members have.  Just saying Robert, there may be way more to this story than simply not tolerating your point of view.  Can you understand that?

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

And even in the 60's could you see how someone might have some hard feelings about a church that promised in the name of God that if they married a woman they would become straight, only to find out that was a totally false promise and church leaders in fact did not speak for God when it came to homosexuality?

I certainly respect other peoples beliefs.  But I also don't judge them for their attitudes towards a religion that offered false promises.  I am of the belief that you can not judge someone because you really don't know their history.  I doubt very much you have ever been harmed by the church like some former gay members have.  Just saying Robert, there may be way more to this story than simply not tolerating your point of view.  Can you understand that?

I not only understand that, I worked hard for over 30 years as an ACLU activist to assure that everybody gets treated equally, and I have called people in high places to account for getting their facts wrong on the etiology of gender preference.  Improvements have come only slowly, but we have to remember that we are dealing with humans, and they can be somewhat recalcitrant on certain issues.  Just this week, however, Apostle Russell Ballard addressed some of these sensitive issues in a very humble and heartfelt way.  http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/11/15/mormon-apostle-ballard-sounds-off-on-lgbt-rights-marriage-bullying-suicide-and-more-in-byu-speech/ .

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Since I was born overlooking the Frisco Bay, I feel I own it, and can speak of it even more authoritatively than the various incarnations of "Frisco Joe," and of Otis Redding singing about the "Frisco Bay."   :pirate:

 

Born in SF and love that song.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I not only understand that, I worked hard for over 30 years as an ACLU activist to assure that everybody gets treated equally, and I have called people in high places to account for getting their facts wrong on the etiology of gender preference.  Improvements have come only slowly, but we have to remember that we are dealing with humans, and they can be somewhat recalcitrant on certain issues.  Just this week, however, Apostle Russell Ballard addressed some of these sensitive issues in a very humble and heartfelt way.  http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/11/15/mormon-apostle-ballard-sounds-off-on-lgbt-rights-marriage-bullying-suicide-and-more-in-byu-speech/ .

I appreciate your answer Robert.  And I appreciate the words of Elder Ballard.  Though I think there seems to be a VERY mixed message coming from church leaders.  I am more in sync with what Elder Ballard believes than other members of the 12.

Quote

 

“I am a general authority but that doesn’t make me an authority in general,” he then quipped. “I worry that members expect too much from their leaders and teachers, expecting them to be experts [in areas and topics] well beyond their expertise. If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find an expert to help you.”

and

 I can imagine how you feel, but mortals are all God has to work with. All humans are “fallible, flawed.” At some point in your own life, you may disappoint or fail your loved ones. “No father, no mother, no children, no professor, no student, no missionary or mission president is perfect. The only real solution … is to forgive and love one another.”

There are some general authorities going around claiming that those decisions made by the 12 come from God by revelation.  When such claims are made, it takes it out of the "Mortals are all God has to work with and are doing the best we can." to "this is straight from God and should not be questioned."  How do members navigate through this murky understanding of who is setting policy?  And is it impossible for members to have any kind of consensus on where these policies come from?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I appreciate your answer Robert.  And I appreciate the words of Elder Ballard.  Though I think there seems to be a VERY mixed message coming from church leaders.  I am more in sync with what Elder Ballard believes than other members of the 12.

Those same items you excerpted caught my attention as well.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There are some general authorities going around claiming that those decisions made by the 12 come from God by revelation.  When such claims are made, it takes it out of the "Mortals are all God has to work with and are doing the best we can." to "this is straight from God and should not be questioned."  How do members navigate through this murky understanding of who is setting policy?  And is it impossible for members to have any kind of consensus on where these policies come from?

I don't find the Brethren saying "this is straight from God and should not be questioned."  Nearly all of them have a far more nuanced message, and they are also not in lockstep with one another.  Of course it does depend on the issue under discussion.  Not everything is clear-cut.

Link to comment
On 11/17/2017 at 5:38 PM, mrmarklin said:

I’m not questioning character. 

But most people in the Mormon corridor have no idea how to dress. 

When I went to my son’s wedding in Idaho many years ago, I wore a sharp pressed suit made of wool, a silk tie, a pressed all cotton shirt and leather soled dress shoes.   One cannot get this look any other way.  It’s not cheap  

My sons father in law wore a polyester wool blend suit not very well pressed, a wash and wear shirt with wilted collars, a cheap polyester tie and “dress” shoes with foam soles. 

The contrast was very obvious. 

After the wedding fil asked my son where I got my clothes. He then drove to SLC to get outfitted, since he couldn’t find comparable clothing in Idaho.  He is not a poor person, quite the opposite. He just didn’t know, since everyone around him dressed approximately the same. 

Where's that scripture that talks about costly apparel...?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Where's that scripture that talks about costly apparel...?

There are price ranges within the wardrobe I describe. One does not have to wear Salvatore Ferragamo shoes, for example.

 

I’m just pointing out that the supposed conceit in the BoM play has a basis in reality. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those same items you excerpted caught my attention as well.

I don't find the Brethren saying "this is straight from God and should not be questioned."  Nearly all of them have a far more nuanced message, and they are also not in lockstep with one another.  Of course it does depend on the issue under discussion.  Not everything is clear-cut.

So what does receiving a revelation from God mean?  What are the members of the church suppose to do when they hear the brethren have received a revelation?  Has it just become a term church leaders use to prop up the importance of the decisions they have made?  And if so, how shameful is that.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

There are price ranges within the wardrobe I describe. One does not have to wear Salvatore Ferragamo shoes, for example.

 

I’m just pointing out that the supposed conceit in the BoM play has a basis in reality. 

I also find this supposed conceit condemnation of the BoM play to be casting stones at glass houses.  Mormon themselves make fun of the same qualities that is being condemned by this thread.  Anyone ever heard of the derogatory term "greenie" applied to a new missionary?  Not really a word associated with sophication and intellectual preparedness.  I certainly didn't enter the mission field filled with wisdom and understanding.  I have certainly seen my share of stupid things from missionaries, especially those new to their mission.  I have also seen my share of missionaries who think they know everything and this new wet behind the ears companion right off the farm has no idea how to connect with people, only to find out that perhaps his way of doing things differently than has been done in the past might be a better approach.

Of course those that are most criticizing this play have not seen it, so they. have no idea what I am talking about.  Vulgar?  Yes.  Misrepresenting missionaries?  Not so much.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what does receiving a revelation from God mean?  What are the members of the church suppose to do when they hear the brethren have received a revelation?  Has it just become a term church leaders use to prop up the importance of the decisions they have made?  And if so, how shameful is that.

Sounds like a lot of loose talk to me.  Not only are claims of "revelation" quite rare, but LDS leaders mostly avoid it -- unless discussing specific items in canonical Scripture.  And that is as it should be.

Link to comment

Well there evidently one group that revelation is flowing constantly over.  3 revelations in the last 2 years alone.   I feel so special.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 5:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You are no doubt correct.  I can recall a world of natty spit-and-polish in which I looked great in my USMC dress blues, which is O.K. as long as the form is matched by substance.  Then too, women are very impressed by a well dressed man.  Hugh Nibley, of course, publicly questioned the need for grooming standards at BYU.  He once bragged to me that his cheap crepe-soled shoes seemed to last forever, and were also comfortable.  Hugh came from a rich family, raised with a silver spoon in his mouth, but cared not at all for such things.  Probably never in his life wore a tux.

And I immediately thought of ZZ Top: "Sharp-dressed Man"

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

So what does receiving a revelation from God mean?  What are the members of the church suppose to do when they hear the brethren have received a revelation?  Has it just become a term church leaders use to prop up the importance of the decisions they have made?

No.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 And if so, how shameful is that.

And if not, how shameful is it to make the accusation?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

I also find this supposed conceit condemnation of the BoM play to be casting stones at glass houses.  Mormon themselves make fun of the same qualities that is being condemned by this thread.  Anyone ever heard of the derogatory term "greenie" applied to a new missionary?  Not really a word associated with sophication and intellectual preparedness.  I certainly didn't enter the mission field filled with wisdom and understanding.  I have certainly seen my share of stupid things from missionaries, especially those new to their mission.  I have also seen my share of missionaries who think they know everything and this new wet behind the ears companion right off the farm has no idea how to connect with people, only to find out that perhaps his way of doing things differently than has been done in the past might be a better approach.

Of course those that are most criticizing this play have not seen it, so they. have no idea what I am talking about.  Vulgar?  Yes.  Misrepresenting missionaries?  Not so much.

So you think missionaries routinely respond to cultural challenges by fabricating their own scriptures and foisting them on their investigators?

Because that seems just a teensy bit of a misrepresentation to me.

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

So you think missionaries routinely respond to cultural challenges by fabricating their own scriptures and foisting them on their investigators?

Because that seems just a teensy bit of a misrepresentation to me.

 

That wasn't the question was it.  The question was about whether the portrayal of the missionaries as being a bit naive.  Pointing out that missionaries have a very similar view of new missionaries is a valid point in this particular discussion. That is what I was addressing. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...