Book of Mormon musical’s new ad campaign

[Pyreaux]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see why the ad is offensive even if it was based on misunderstanding of LDS doctrine***.  It seems a relatively generic portrayal of hell, after all.  Now if it was an intentional misrepresentation made to connect LDS with a more extreme religious viewpoint to present LDS as equally extreme or to make nonLDS believe our doctrine is less inclusive or hopeful than it actually is, that would be different.  But the idea of sinners burning in hell is hardly an extreme view, it’s a widespread Christian belief as far as I am aware, though I believe a large number of denominations also view such descriptions as metaphorical/symbolic.  Such an ad might even make some less aware individuals view LDS as more mainstream Christianity than it is.

Plus if the ad reflects a moment in the play that is a dream sequence, which apparently it does (which was unknown to me when I first posted this thread), it’s not even that odd of a choice.   It’s not even that unrealistic like much of the material in the play is (such as one of the Ugandans thinking a manual typewriter is a cell phone**** when iirc the time period the play is likely set in based on cultural references had 60% of Ugandans owning one, I did the research when the play was previously discussed on the board).  Many LDS would possibly be saturated in visuals representing hell as burning fires if they spent much time watching fantasy/horror shows or even cartoons** or just  hearing references in nonLDS Christian speech to the fires of hell; it would be hardly surprising for a LDS to have a dream featuring such a hell even if we don’t believe such actually exists.  I have no desire to go back and read the script to see if it presents the dream as representing real fears of the young elder or not, so I am not ruling out this still falls into the category of caricatures of our beliefs, but if it does, then the misrepresentation is the responsibility of the writers and not whoever came up with the ad campaign as I previously supposed when I thought this reference to hellfire a total creation of the ad people…unless by chance they are the same people, which seems unlikely.

**All Dogs Go to Heaven also has a hellfire dream sequence:  https://youtu.be/leCCjuw4GdE?si=uG6OPV66cNRW-Dlw

 

***my initial description was “odd” as I have never viewed the ad as inherently offensive as for me it would depend on the motivations for choosing such a detection, which cannot be known with the limited info given.  I find the musical itself highly offensive, though much, much more for its racial caricatures than for the religious ones, but that’s on the writers because they appear to me to be familiar enough with LDS beliefs and could easily have learned more if they desired so the misrepresentation/lampooning seems intentional to me.  I don’t transfer the intent to offend to others involved unless they know better and go along with the intention to misrepresent, but that is not something that can be seen with very limited evidence, such as this ad.

****apparently they got enough criticism for this offensive caricature that they modified the joke into something less stupid.  They made several other changes as well.  Here is an interesting discussion on Reddit about the changes.  It demonstrates that at least some of the audience understood the caricature of the Ugandans as representative of the racism/lack of actual cultural awareness and experience with African people/culture of Mormons, where my guess is LDS quite possibly have greater experience and awareness than the typical American due to the missionary outreach we do.

Be warned there is language, deleted in the above.  https://www.reddit.com/r/Broadway/comments/rlziqq/changes_made_to_the_book_of_mormon/

Btw, I don’t see viewing the musical as offensive as that controversial or biased since South Park is famous for being offensive (I have to go by reports since I have only seen a few clips from it, it’s not a style of entertainment I find funny or interesting in general).  It would be out of character for the creators to avoid intentional offense it seems to me.

I get that the ad reflects a dream sequence in the play, and yes, the play is meant to be outrageous and satirical. So I partly agree: we don’t have to take it personally. But I do think it’s important to clarify that the scene reflects a preoccupation with hell that really isn’t typical of LDS missionaries. 

And regardless of how someone interprets the intent behind the scene or the ad, I think Latter-day Saints have every right to feel offended or even persecuted. The Church and its members face mockery and misrepresentation all the time and choosing not to be offended can be a personal strength but no one should dismiss genuine feelings of hurt or concern.

If they created a Broadway musical mocking the Quran or the Torah the way The Book of Mormon musical mocks our faith, many decent people who aren’t of those faiths - would instinctively feel it was offensive and inappropriate. They’d recognize any cruelty of misrepresentation or disrespect, even if they didn’t share the beliefs. When it’s about Latter-day Saints, those same people might tell us we shouldn't be offended. That’s a double standard. Choosing not to be offended is one thing but telling people they should not feel hurt or disrespected is something else entirely.

Edited July 17, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

On 7/14/2025 at 6:51 PM, Calm said:

Does not refer to hell, but being burned at the second coming.

that it exactly what I said.very first sentence 

On 7/14/2025 at 6:15 PM, Notatbm said:

Well D &C 64:23 is pretty straightforward about burning non-tithepayers at the second coming: 

“23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice⁠, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.”

 

I’m going to have to look through all my responses to this post. I’m pretty sure I have only referred to burning at the second coming. I don’t know where people are getting the idea I am saying it is the Mormon version of hell. We will see. 

[Notatbm]

20 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I get that the ad reflects a dream sequence in the play, and yes, the play is meant to be outrageous and satirical. So I partly agree: we don’t have to take it personally. But I do think it’s important to clarify that the scene reflects a preoccupation with hell that really isn’t typical of LDS missionaries. 

And regardless of how someone interprets the intent behind the scene or the ad, I think Latter-day Saints have every right to feel offended or even persecuted. The Church and its members face mockery and misrepresentation all the time and choosing not to be offended can be a personal strength but no one should dismiss genuine feelings of hurt or concern.

If they created a Broadway musical mocking the Quran or the Torah the way The Book of Mormon musical mocks our faith, many decent people who aren’t of those faiths - would instinctively feel it was offensive and inappropriate. They’d recognize any cruelty of misrepresentation or disrespect, even if they didn’t share the beliefs. When it’s about Latter-day Saints, those same people might tell us we shouldn't be offended. That’s a double standard. Choosing not to be offended is one thing but telling people they should not feel hurt or disrespected is something else entirely.

Elder Bednar would like a word: 

 

[Notatbm]

On 7/15/2025 at 12:15 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

You do understand how patently false this statement is, correct?

Makes me wonder how much you actually understand concerning the doctrines of the Restoration.

You wonder? We have probably majority of members who don’t understand doctrines. When you have an organization built on the whole “milk before meat “ trope, but then never actually served the prime rib what do you expect? 
 

The church hangs it hat on teaching primary principles but never goes beyond it. The day we start having conference talks about just the contents of the essays for example will be the day they have an ice chest full of beer in elders quorum. Will never happen despite the word of wisdom expressly allowing it. 

 

[Notatbm]

On 7/15/2025 at 9:41 AM, Pyreaux said:

Be honest 

You're wrong, tithing is used for Church operations first: temples, chapels, humanitarian aid, educational programs, missionary work, etc. Only surplus funds - what’s left after all operational needs - go to investments, including Ensign Peak. 

I said the same thing you did. Different words. Maybe you are the one who needs to be honest:

“Ensign peak is the church. You can write a tithing check to your ward, your stake, the local gilbert mission, the corporation of… etc. stick it in that blue envelope and it goes on deposit for the church. What’s left goes to ensign peak to be invested in the stock market.”

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

You wonder? We have probably majority of members who don’t understand doctrines. When you have an organization built on the whole “milk before meat “ trope, but then never actually served the prime rib what do you expect? 
 

The church hangs it hat on teaching primary principles but never goes beyond it. The day we start having conference talks about just the contents of the essays for example will be the day they have an ice chest full of beer in elders quorum. Will never happen despite the word of wisdom expressly allowing it. 

 

So, you are going to excuse yourself because others are ignorant of doctrine and blame the Church because they don't talk about every deep doctrine, instead of focusing on Jesus Christ.

You do realize there are all sorts of resources available for those with an actual desire to study and learn, right?

You have to put in the effort, not wait for it to be spoon feed to you.

[Notatbm]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So, you are going to excuse yourself because others are ignorant of doctrine and blame the Church because they don't talk about every deep doctrine, instead of focusing on Jesus Christ.

You do realize there are all sorts of resources available for those with an actual desire to study and learn, right?

You have to put in the effort, not wait for it to be spoon feed to you.

Sure.. with “correlation,” the church (1st Pres) has decided what they want the membership to know. In their wisdom they decided it was best to essentially teach the same four lesson groups (new test, old test, b of m and d&c) on a yearly rotating basis. With this practice, a lifelong member (let’s start at age 18 and just work with adults here) from age 18-80 yrs old will have received the same lessons about twenty times. In my lifetime I have never had lessons on polygamy, second anointing (church prohibits discussion on that), temple ordinances, true order of prayer, temple new names and why they are fake,  temple covenants etc. now i did take temple prep in the late 80s and it was a 100% waste of time. I was nearly 100% blindsided when i went through the first time. 
 

also as far as studying goes, didnt the church prohibit outside study groups at one point? I distinctly remember my father reading a letter from the church presidency over the pulpit. 
 

anyway- yea I know what I know or what I think I know based on what I was taught. If you believe what is said about callings and inspiration as to who to call, then my teachers called over the years were either a bunch of liars or they just didn’t know any better. Jesus chose them. 

Edited July 17, 2025 by Notatbm
Typo

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Notatbm said:

Sure.. with “correlation,” the church (1st Pres) has decided what they want the membership to know. In their wisdom they decided it was best to essentially teach the same four lesson groups (new test, old test, b of m and d&c) on a yearly rotating basis. With this practice, a lifelong member (let’s start at age 18 and just work with adults here) from age 18-80 yrs old will have received the same lessons about twenty times. In my lifetime I have never had lessons on polygamy, second anointing (church prohibits discussion on that), temple ordinances, true order of prayer, temple new names and why they are fake,  temple covenants etc. now i did take temple prep in the late 80s and it was a 100% east of time. I was nearly 100% blindsided when i went through the first time. 
 

also as far as studying goes, didnt the church prohibit outside study groups at one point? I distinctly remember my father reading a letter from the church presidency over the pulpit. 
 

anyway- yea I know what I know or what I think I know based on what I was taught. If you believe what is said about callings and inspiration as to who to call, then my teachers called over the years were either a bunch of liars or they just didn’t know any better. Jesus chose them. 

Materials concerning the subjects you mentioned have always been available for those that take the initiative to search. Why do you think there have been converts to Fundamentalist Mormonism since they started up? It didn't magically become available in the internet age.

Why are they not taught in classes? The point of Church classes is to point people to, and help them to be better disciples of, Jesus Christ- not to cover every Gospel hobby/controversial doctrine that may be floating around.

Again, it is your prerogative to search and study. You can't be mad that others didn't do it for you.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Sure.. with “correlation,” the church (1st Pres) has decided what they want the membership to know. In their wisdom they decided it was best to essentially teach the same four lesson groups (new test, old test, b of m and d&c) on a yearly rotating basis. With this practice, a lifelong member (let’s start at age 18 and just work with adults here) from age 18-80 yrs old will have received the same lessons about twenty times. In my lifetime I have never had lessons on polygamy, second anointing (church prohibits discussion on that), temple ordinances, true order of prayer, temple new names and why they are fake,  temple covenants etc. now i did take temple prep in the late 80s and it was a 100% east of time. I was nearly 100% blindsided when i went through the first time. 
 

also as far as studying goes, didnt the church prohibit outside study groups at one point? I distinctly remember my father reading a letter from the church presidency over the pulpit. 
 

anyway- yea I know what I know or what I think I know based on what I was taught. If you believe what is said about callings and inspiration as to who to call, then my teachers called over the years were either a bunch of liars or they just didn’t know any better. Jesus chose them. 

I think the church did prohibit outside study groups at one point, because they were having a lot of trouble with them going off the rails.  They were leading to some groups getting into polygamy and having secret ceremonies, etc.  I heard of one group in Denver that started studying Dianetics, which if I remember right, is actually the religious text for Scientology. I heard of another group in California that started out as a simple gospel study group led by a seminary teacher that ended up with her claiming to be the future mother of Christ in the millennium.  I’m glad that informal study groups are encouraged again, but I can see why the church got a little once bitten twice shy with them.

But even with the prohibition it was only for groups. Personal study wasn’t included in that policy.

 

[Notatbm]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Materials concerning the subjects you mentioned have always been available for those that take the initiative to search. Why do you think there have been converts to Fundamentalist Mormonism since they started up? It didn't magically become available in the internet age.

Why are they not taught in classes? The point of Church classes is to point people to, and help them to be better disciples of, Jesus Christ- not to cover every Gospel hobby/controversial doctrine that may be floating around.

Again, it is your prerogative to search and study. You can't be mad that others didn't do it for you.

Like I said… the church teaches what it wants you to know. If they wanted us to know about polygamy in-depth, they would teach it. They are all about information control and they are on record saying as much ( in regards to information control). 
 

also- who said I’m mad about what I was or was not taught? Sounds like others are mad about what I feel I was taught, I’m just regurgitating it. I will concede I’m a bit perturbed about temple stuff being such a secret. Had I actually known what it was all about, I never would have come back to church activity. Instead I had to learn about it with an endowment room filled with mine and my fiancé ‘s family. No one walks out of there in that situation. Fortunately my wife is on-board with me now. 

Edited July 17, 2025 by Notatbm
Typos

[Notatbm]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think the church did prohibit outside study groups at one point, because they were having a lot of trouble with them going off the rails.  They were leading to some groups getting into polygamy and having secret ceremonies, etc.  I heard of one group in Denver that started studying Dianetics, which if I remember right, is actually the religious text for Scientology. I heard of another group in California that started out as a simple gospel study group led by a seminary teacher that ended up with her claiming to be the future mother of Christ in the millennium.  I’m glad that informal study groups are encouraged again, but I can see why the church got a little once bitten twice shy with them.

But even with the prohibition it was only for groups. Personal study wasn’t included in that policy.

 

I can imagine a study group back then with the position of seer stone being primary means of translation or Nauvoo expositor not spewing viscous lies would have been targets of closure for sure..imagine that 

[Notatbm]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You do realize there are all sorts of resources available for those with an actual desire to study and learn, right?

So here is elder holland discussing second anointing. Where in the church can I sit down with an authority on the topic without being told to shut up and not discuss it? This is pretty messed up. No wonder they are not accountable to ANYONE. They have a permanent pass so-to-speak… very arrogant 

 

Edited July 17, 2025 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I can imagine a study group back then with the position of seer stone being primary means of translation or Nauvoo expositor not spewing viscous lies would have been targets of closure for sure..imagine that 

I’m not seeing any evidence of that, but it’s a possibility.

[Notatbm]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m not seeing any evidence of that, but it’s a possibility.

I didn’t say there was. I said “I can imagine.”

I guarantee stuff like that would be shut down if it came to the knowledge of the bishop or stake pres. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I’m pretty sure I have only referred to burning at the second coming.

Then you are off topic because we are talking about the ad which is about hell, not the second coming.

Quote

It’s hell out there. Find salvation at The Book of Mormon” and features characters from the show descending into the depths of hell

 

Edited July 17, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

I'm getting some strong Atlantic Mike vibes here.....

(Maybe I should go start a study group).

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Like I said… the church teaches what it wants you to know. If they wanted us to know about polygamy in-depth, they would teach it. They are all about information control and they are on record saying as much ( in regards to information control). 
 

also- who said I’m mad about what I was or was not taught? Sounds like others are mad about what I feel I was taught, I’m just regurgitating it. I will concede I’m a bit perturbed about temple stuff being such a secret. Had I actually known what it was all about? I never would have come one back to church activity. Instead I had to learn about it with an endowment room filled with mine and my fiancé ‘s family. No one walks out of there in that situation. Fortunately my wife is on-board with me now. 

Tbh, I can’t figure out if you are for or against the church. 

[webbles]

40 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I didn’t say there was. I said “I can imagine.”

I guarantee stuff like that would be shut down if it came to the knowledge of the bishop or stake pres. 

Probably depends on the bishop or stake pres.

I have a dead relative that was in a study group that ended up deciding that they needed to practice the Law of Consecration in a more correct manner.  It was a small branch in the west of Utah and the study group ended up including the branch president and a few other leaders in the area.  As they tried to implement the Law of Consecration (without guidance from stake leaders or higher), they came to the conclusion that wives also need to be consecrated to the entire branch.  So they began to basically practice wife swapping.  It wasn't really polygamy as the wives were shared amongst the members of the study group.  It wasn't until an apostle was notified of it that things were shut down.

I also have another relative who led several study groups and they did discuss some of the more exotic information (I received a ton of really cool books from him that are definitely not correlated).  I don't know of any consequences he had.  He continued to do these study groups up until a few years before his death.  The groups discussed wide range of material, including plenty of uncorrelated data.

Edited July 17, 2025 by webbles

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Materials concerning the subjects you mentioned have always been available for those that take the initiative to search. Why do you think there have been converts to Fundamentalist Mormonism since they started up? It didn't magically become available in the internet age.

Why are they not taught in classes? The point of Church classes is to point people to, and help them to be better disciples of, Jesus Christ- not to cover every Gospel hobby/controversial doctrine that may be floating around.

Again, it is your prerogative to search and study. You can't be mad that others didn't do it for you.

Not the same scenario, but before I took out the endowments in the temple I wasn't told what I would be covenanting to do beforehand. I couldn't research that unless I found some anti place.

Edited July 17, 2025 by Tacenda

[Notatbm]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not the same scenario, but before I took out the endowments in the temple I wasn't told what I would be covenanting to do beforehand. I couldn't research that unless I found some anti place.

Same here. It was like taking algebra and my final exam was conversational German. A topic I have never studied. Temple prep was a complete waste of time. Learned nothing and they just talked about how special and beautiful the whole thing was, nice lady, but she told us exactly zero. She and her husband were temple workers at the Mesa temple too. My fiancé and I were both totally blindsided going the first time. So much so, upon leaving I guarantee I could not have even told you what I just covenanted to do. 
 

 

[Notatbm]

35 minutes ago, webbles said:

Probably depends on the bishop or stake pres.

The groups discussed wide range of material, including plenty of uncorrelated data.

True… my father had to shut down several while in his callings. Since then I can recall a couple getting shut down in wards I have been in. In my current ward someone proposed on the ward facebook page to have a group and after a couple responses ( which were positive) the post was removed. He is the same guy in elders quorum who always has something important to say. I don’t know why the post was removed but I’m sure he was told to. 
 

The correlation is the problem. 
think now it is less controlling than it was even ten years ago. The info is out there now and the church has completely lost control of who consumes it. Members like those in my family are kept in line more by fear ( loss of family acceptance, loss of inheritance, shunning etc) than they are by the church itself. 

[Notatbm]

Strange coincidence, but I just visited the latterdaysaints subreddit and this was the first that showed up on my feed. Is this guy in my ward??  Sounds exactly like what our elders quorum was like last time I attended:

“I’m so sad that the overall feeling from the men in EQ is to just go through the motions, check a box, and get through the last hour of church. It feels all too often that the lesson was “prepared” the night before, but most likely during Sacrament meeting. And then the same 3-5 people have comments that derail the lesson. I don’t think it helps that there isn’t a dedicated space either. EQ always seems to be held in an overflow, or random room. It makes me feel like the class isn’t important, and maybe that’s a contributing factor to the mood of the meeting.

I know that I get out of it what I put into it, and I prepare for the lesson, but consistently I feel like I’m wanting meat, but milk is all that is in the menu.

Is anyone else experiencing this? And if so, how are you dealing with it?”

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Then you are off topic because we are talking about the ad which is about hell, not the second coming.

 

Yea. I still didn’t say that what hell was. I specifically stated the second coming. I was merely stating the advertiser isn’t off the mark. Unless we expect him/ her to join  the church and find out what “hell” allegedly is, the scripture cited is enough to show it is taught that fire is involved with those who don’t pay tithing for example. You turned it into me stating that is what “hell” is. I never said that. 
 

In the end it is just an ad. Who cares what they think? 

[blackstrap]

Having read the Doctrine  and Covenants a time or two , I see that even at the start of the Church, there were ' groups' who went off on tangents spiritually to the detriment of themselves and others. 

Leave it to humans to go nuts. Daybell, Franke, Jeffs  , Laffertys etc. are just the "Mormon " strange ones. Even the Buddhist monks got all hot and bothered sometimes .

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

True… my father had to shut down several while in his callings. Since then I can recall a couple getting shut down in wards I have been in. In my current ward someone proposed on the ward facebook page to have a group and after a couple responses ( which were positive) the post was removed. He is the same guy in elders quorum who always has something important to say. I don’t know why the post was removed but I’m sure he was told to. 
 

The correlation is the problem. 
think now it is less controlling than it was even ten years ago. The info is out there now and the church has completely lost control of who consumes it. Members like those in my family are kept in line more by fear ( loss of family acceptance, loss of inheritance, shunning etc) than they are by the church itself. 

I find it interesting that you find the exposure to info as being detrimental.  To each their own, but I have always loved learning about it.  I learned about the seer stone when I was in high school and absolutely loved it.  I learned about Joseph's polygamy in elementary school and loved it.  I've always known about weird polygamy situations (my personal ancestry has probably the only church approved pioneer sperm donation).  It has always fascinated me and I've enjoyed reading everything I can about it.  Yet, none of it has caused me to have a faith crisis with the church.  I understand that people do have faith crisis because of it but I'd rather have the information easier to find vs having to dig through libraries.  Though, I still sometimes have to dig through libraries because the internet is still missing so much about church history.