Why I Won’t Be Seeing the Book of Mormon Musical

[rodheadlee]

Considering that some people don't believe that its acceptable for women to show their face in public, your criticism is meaningless.

If you are going to use the word "acceptable" you need to define the standards you are applying.

The play was written to be performed on Broadway, not at a high school theater in Utah County. By the standards of Broadway, the play is most certainly acceptable.

Acceptable to Jesus Christ would be the standard.

[Sky]

FYI…

I came across an interesting article from the Seattle Times: Being Mormon: Does it matter in the public eye?

I know people tell jokes and mock different religions all the time, but one thing in particular which caught my eye:

Polls show a fair number of Americans still are wary of Mormons.

Twenty-nine percent of those surveyed in an August 2010 Time magazine poll had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of Mormons. That's far higher than the 13 percent unfavorable ratings for Jews and Protestants, and 17 percent for Catholics.

[CQUIRK]

So Catholics only do a little better then us, I take it

[Libs]

When it comes to making fun of all things Mormon, I seem to have noticed a pattern: devout Mormons don’t generally enjoy seeing themselves and their religion being ridiculed (and why should they? Who does?)

I’m sorry, but essentially being told that you are a nice person, but your religion is bogus doesn’t quite cut the mustard for me.

Whereas many lapsed-Mormons and anti-Mormons seem to thoroughly enjoy it and have the attitude of what’s the big deal? Don’t take yourselves so seriously. Get over your persecution complex. Laugh a little. Your beliefs are ridiculous and foolish anyway.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for a good laugh. But when does it start to cross over from being a good-natured laugh into mocking, bigoted scorn? I think there is a huge grey area there, and different people will have different ideas about when that line has been crossed.

I am a lapsed (or ex) Mormon, and I did kind of take that attitude, at first, mostly because I saw some LDS on this site and on Facebook, who said the play wasn't that bad...even quite good. I hadn't seen it, so I didn't really know. I thought, perhaps, some LDS were just taking themselves too seriously, as you said.....until I had a chance to listen to some of it on NPR...then, I changed my mind. I thought it was terrible and very blasphemous. I only listened to the first 30 minutes, and that was enough. The story, itself, may not be all that bad, but the profanity and the way it was used, was a real turnoff, to me.

I have never been a South Park fan, and listening to a little bit of that play reminded me why. Definitely. would. not. go. see. it.

*thumbs down* *sad face* eww, ick.

[Nathair/|\]

The musical is officially a pop culture success.

[deadeye]

I've been a big fan of musical theater, ever since my parents took me to see the original production of Saturday's Warrior in the 1970s. Since then I've had season tickets in SLC when we lived there and now in Denver. I've also caught several musicals staged in London's West end during business trips there.

I've listened to the cast recording on NPR and am very much looking forward to seeing the production when it comes to Denver next year.

In some ways this play is like Saturday's warrior goes to Africa, with funnier jokes, better music and more serious issues than the Zero population movement. I don't understand those who would cast stones at it without knowing much about it.

It seems similar to the hype from Christian groups before the release of the Golden Compass.

[bluebell]

I've been a big fan of musical theater, ever since my parents took me to see the original production of Saturday's Warrior in the 1970s. Since then I've had season tickets in SLC when we lived there and now in Denver. I've also caught several musicals staged in London's West end during business trips there.

I've listened to the cast recording on NPR and am very much looking forward to seeing the production when it comes to Denver next year.

In some ways this play is like Saturday's warrior goes to Africa, with funnier jokes, better music and more serious issues than the Zero population movement. I don't understand those who would cast stones at it without knowing much about it.

It seems similar to the hype from Christian groups before the release of the Golden Compass.

I think the language and blasphemy is what has caused a lot of LDS to cast stones at it without having seen it.

I personally have a pretty low tolerance for swearing, especially when it is directed at God. I can't think of anything i could gain from the play that would be worth, for me, enduring that.

Other Christians obviously disagree. I'm guessing that swearing and such doesn't have the same impact on them for whatever reason.

[Jeff K.]

Swearing, blasphemy, the ridicule of something we hold sacred. I guess some Saints are ok with it, some may even enjoy it. I will not see such a thing, not regarding my choice of worship, nor the choice of worship for any other person since I respect people too much to laugh at the religion they hold dear.

[MorningStar]

Even if it weren't offensive, I probably wouldn't go see it anyway. I don't really enjoy going to musicals.

[Daniel2]

The more I think about it, the more I think this musical (on many levels) represents to non-Latter-day Saints a more sincere, heart-felt portrayal of Mormonism—or, perhaps better said, Mormon intent—than a non-member investigator would find on an apologetics board, like this.

I’m not referring to the swearing (which IS over-the-top, to Mormon sensibilities—but isn’t so over-the-top, in the context of what real life is probably like for native Ugandans—and much of the rest of the world).

Rather, the Elders of the musical fully, wholly, and unapologetically embrace their religious faith for what it is—a belief that doesn’t require the application of or a need to answer to a wholly logical explanation. Rather than try to rationally explain every strange belief about Mormonism, the writers chose to put the more unusual-sounding (to non-LDS-ears) doctrines right out in the open, front and center. And yet, they do it in the context of really making the Elders in the play real, multidimensional people who the audience truly ends up rooting for, and really begins to understand how the originally-strange (or even foolish) beliefs are actually not so foolish, after all.

In fact (leaving aside the obvious objection to the lewd and disrespectful foul language), it makes sense that the point of the play would actually rub LDS apologists the wrong way. Rather than try to explain the belief that God lives on Kolob, or that the plan that God has for us involves each of us getting our own planet, by the end of the play, the audience isn’t even hung up on those LDS once-viewed-to-be ‘oddities of belief’—because the very point of the whole musical (which is hugely positive, actually) is that sincere religion, whether ridiculous sounding, or not—or even whether true or not—has the incredible power to bind people together, to create community, to make the world a better place, to give people courage and faith and hope to work to make our world a better place—to be and become Latter-day Saints, because “tomorrow is a latter day,” and “today is yesterday’s latter day.”

Don’t get me wrong… I’m under no delusions that my thoughts on the play will convince or change anyone’s mind who’s offended by the material from the play. Some of you will understandable condemn what you’ve chosen to take as an indefensible affront to something you hold sacred. I respect your right to take offense.

But even as I respect that, I can’t help but think that this play, in all honesty, is going to have a HUGE impact on how the rest of the public actually views so-called “chapel Mormons”—because I think it’s message is one of unconditional acceptance of the “chapel-Mormon” variety in ways that I haven’t seen encouraged in apologetic circles. It’s my belief this play will really have a positive impact on the LDS Faith, helping it along it’s journey to integrating itself more fully into a diverse and highly modern, empirically-minded, science-based culture.

Of course, LDS that are more orthodox won’t see that as a positive thing, as Mormonism’s unique distinction has been something that has been long prized by many (i.e. the mantra to “be in, but not of, the world”). My belief is the Faith will have to change to adapt, or will eventually become too brittle over many social issues and eventually fracture. For those that take a less orthodox approach, I think this play helps along that journey.

I loved, loved, loved the play. I can’t stop listening to the soundtrack (which I’ve since purchased). The characters (both the missionaries, and the Ugandans) have heart and are so multidimensional and empathetic. Besides being SO witty and well-done (some of the musical numbers are just hilarious, as they cleverly pay tongue-in-cheek homages from “Wicked” and “The King and I”), it made me proud to be Mormon, proud to be a returned missionary, and proud to be a former Latter-day Saint, all at once.

Kudos to the creators!

My view,

Darin

[Jeff K.]

If you have little regard for what Mormons hold sacred. If to you sacredness is merely another opportunity to ridicule. Then by all means you will dress it up with "but they are nice guys". However such a portrayal is both insincere and reflective of a more base acrimony.

Its like someone making Jewish jokes about the holocaust, or Amos and Andy jokes, such things ridicule the culture and difficulty which make up part of the fabric of who they are and more importantly what they hold important. In that same sense I will not make gay AIDS jokes because I know that such things have a great impact and weight within the fabric of that group. It requires an almost sociopathic indifference to profane what others hold important. I suppose it is too much to ask for reciprocity in the process. I still will not step over those lines, its a shame that some members of the church will blithely collaborate with such vulgarity. And it saddens me that someone who sees himself as a champion for respect for his group, cannot seem to muster the same for another.

[Pahoran]

Are you suggesting that just because he wrote of spiritual and religious things that he didn't really mean what he said about laughing at the world, including yourself, others, success, failure, evil, and goodness?

I'm not "undermining the sacredness" of anybody's belief system, and I'm not "using" his work for that, or any other, purpose. All I said is that I agree with what that chapter says. I'm sorry you find this offsenive, but I will continue to follow his advise. I will laugh at the world.

Analytics,

Let me be the first to express my admiration for the broad-minded tolerance you show when it's someone else's ox being gored.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

If you have little regard for what Mormons hold sacred. If to you sacredness is merely another opportunity to ridicule. Then by all means you will dress it up with "but they are nice guys". However such a portrayal is both insincere and reflective of a more base acrimony.

From my paradigm, "having regard for what [any given lifestyle--religious or otherwise] holds sacred" does NOT mean that such beliefs are above reproach or beyond scrutiny, humor, or jokes.

Here's a sampling of some jokes that poke fun at Unitarians (which I think are hilarious):

Q: What do you get when you cross a Unitarian Universalist with a Jehovah's Witness?

A: Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.

* * * * *

What is the meaning of Easter for UUs?

Easter is when Jesus comes out of his tomb, and if he sees his shadow he goes back in and we get six more weeks of winter.

* * * * * *

There was a terrible car accident. A woman was lying in the street, covered in blood. Someone in the crowd shouted, "Call a priest!".

The woman opened her eyes and said, "I'm a Unitarian."

"Then call a math teacher!"

* * * * * *

A man bought a brand new Ferrari. He wanted to get a blessing for it, so he went to see his priest.

"Father O'Hanlon, can I have a blessing for my Ferrari?"

"Certainly, my son, but what's a Ferrari?"

The man was so incensed that the priest wasn't impressed with his new car that he went right up the street to the first Protestant church he saw.

"Reverent Schmidt, can I have a blessing for my Ferrari?"

"Naturally, but what's a Ferrari?"

The man took off again and stopped at the synagogue two blocks away. "Rabbi Zimmerman, can I have a blessing for my Ferrari?"

"Of course. But what's a Ferrari?"

At last, in desperation, the man wen tto the Unitarian Universalist Society. "Ms. Dibble-Fujimoto, can I have a blessing for my Ferrari?"

"Wow!" she said. "You got a Ferrari? Can I have a ride in it?"

The man took the UU Minister once around the block. He then asked, "Now, can I please have a blessing for my Ferrari?"

"Sure. What's a blessing?"

* * * * * *

Q: What do you call a dead Unitarian Universalist?

A: All dressed up with no place to go.

* * * * * *

How many Unitarian Univeralists does it take to change a light bulb?

Three - one to write a solemn statement which will affirm the following:

This light bulb is natural, a part of the universe, and evolved over many years by small steps.

There must be no discrimination against dark bulbs in any form, and means must be found for all "dark" bulbs to take their place alongside light bulbs on a basis of equality.

We affirm the right of all bulbs to screw into the sockets of their choice regardless of the bulb's illumination preference.

UUs seek for each light bulb the fullest opportunity to develop itself to its full electrical potential.

A second UU who will read this statement, even if s/he is the only human being to do so, and then to write the obligatory criticism and dissent.

A third UU to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness.

* * * * *

Its like someone making Jewish jokes about the holocaust, or Amos and Andy jokes, such things ridicule the culture and difficulty which make up part of the fabric of who they are and more importantly what they hold important. In that same sense I will not make gay AIDS jokes because I know that such things have a great impact and weight within the fabric of that group. It requires an almost sociopathic indifference to profane what others hold important. I suppose it is too much to ask for reciprocity in the process. I still will not step over those lines, its a shame that some members of the church will blithely collaborate with such vulgarity. And it saddens me that someone who sees himself as a champion for respect for his group, cannot seem to muster the same for another.

Again, you and I have different views. From my paradigm, the ability to laugh at certain religious oddities and absurdities (whether one's own or someone else's) is not automatically tatamount to mocking the Holocaust, AIDS, or even homosexuality (I have plenty of gay friends, who mock and belittle many of the absurd aspects of gay culture all the time--and if anyone's ever been to a Drag Show, you've seen FAR worse self-depreciating humor towards the more ridiculous aspects of LGBT culture than anything that goes on in "The Book of Mormon Musical").

The ability to appreciate humor is hardly an automatic sign of "sociopathic indifference."

Assuming you may be referring to me when in your phrase "someone who sees himself as a champion of respect for his group": I've never championed an absolute obedience to avoid any and all humor that may be directed at the gay community. In fact, demanding that others avoid pointing out any humor or scrutiny of one's own group is the antithesis of what I would support or advocate. By all means, feel free to tell UU jokes. Or gay jokes (fascinatingly, "Pricilla: Queen of the Desert" opened on Broadway only recently, around the same time as "The Book of Mormon Musical"--and I haven't heard ANY from the gay community take offense at the gross characatures of gay life it portrays... I suppose we gays are used to self-levity--a concept that is lost on some Mormons, unless it's done in the context of "The Singles Ward" or other so-called Mormon Movies...).

Jeff, you're certainly just as free as I am to form and share your own opinions about the humor of "The Book of Mormon Musical." However, I don't believe your comparisons to the Holocost, AIDS epidemic, and sociopathic indifference are apt.

My view,

Darin

[Sky]

Darin (or anybody), can you tell me if the play contains any Temple content? Because that, above all, is what Mormons hold the most precious and sacred.

If the play kept the Temple content off limits, then I will absolutely give them credit for that.

[Jeff K.]

I know some Unitarians and they might chuckle at the jokes, but they don't like them either because it undermines the good they have done. Darin you have carefully selected a group whose core values are vague in regard to doctrine, but in doing so you prove my point. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is significantly less vague in its core values, and it cherishes with greater solemnity many of the aspects you show as unimportant. Would not mutual respect be better than attempting to jusify a mean spirited parody that profanes what we hold sacred?

Would the show be as funny without the ridicule of our church? Would it still be a winner without that ridicule? I think there is the test. If it is, in other words, if its main humor is merely the foibles of man, then one could argue that making the sacred profane was not its goal. However, if you strip out all things ridiculed which are LDS and you find simply an empty shell and a thin plot. Then you know the main goal is to ridicule the church.

Sociopaths find humor in undermining what other people find important. It gives them power and in the end becomes a self satisfying occupation that they can control or undermine others. It shows a lack of empathy.

Jeff, you're certainly just as free as I am to form and share your own opinions about the humor of "The Book of Mormon Musical." However, I don't believe your comparisons to the Holocost, AIDS epidemic, and sociopathic indifference are apt.

If I presented a comedic farce on gay men dying of AIDS and ridiculed their lifestyles, their belief that a bond can form between men (or women) that an emotional tie can exist. If I so ridiculed it with great music, and laughter as say one AIDS partner slowly died (laughing and dancing away). I think more than a few in your community would be deeply offended. As they should be. Gay men and women would not laugh it off, they would not appreciate the humor or recognize the humor of the play. Many feel those relationships to be something sacred that should be cherished in a difficult world that does not understand them.

Maybe the point I am making is being lost on those who are beyond feeling.

and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words

[Sky]

If I presented a comedic farce on gay men dying of AIDS and ridiculed their lifestyles, their belief that a bond can form between men (or women) that an emotional tie can exist. If I so ridiculed it with great music, and laughter as say one AIDS partner slowly died (laughing and dancing away). I think more than a few in your community would be deeply offended. As they should be. Gay men and women would not laugh it off, they would not appreciate the humor or recognize the humor of the play. Many feel those relationships to be something sacred that should be cherished in a difficult world that does not understand them.

Maybe the point I am making is being lost on those who are beyond feeling.

I find this statement slightly ironic considering that the Church that you and I belong to teaches that homosexual relationships are sinful. Do you consider openly teaching and expressing this doctrine as ridiculing that lifestyle?

[Jeff K.]

No, I am very serious and concerned about it. One can be against smoking, but it doesn't mean one is ridiculing smokers.

[Daniel2]

Darin (or anybody), can you tell me if the play contains any Temple content? Because that, above all, is what Mormons hold the most precious and sacred.

If the play kept the Temple content off limits, then I will absolutely give them credit for that.

I had that same thought, Sky. In other words, the temple content would be some of the easiest parts to misconstrue and take out of context. The play, however, features absolutely ZERO temple content, and only discusses topics that you'd hear at the level of the missionary discssions.

Darin

[Jeff K.]

Is the argument that temple content alone is the only thing sacred to us and therefore all other things sacred and important open to mockery?

[bluebell]

Is the argument that temple content alone is the only thing sacred to us and therefore all other things sacred and important open to mockery?

I think their point is that if the creators of the play were only interested in being funny and making fun of mormons, then they would have included the obvious-temple content.

I think sky and darin (and i agree with them) are acknowledging that the lack of temple content shows that the creators obviously had higher motives than just to make people laugh or making the mormon religion look foolish and they are giving them credit for those higher motives, regardless of what they think of the rest of the play.

[Calm]

Is the argument that temple content alone is the only thing sacred to us and therefore all other things sacred and important open to mockery?

I suspect it's more along the lines of that is the bright line that everyone understands LDS will not accept being crossed, not that it is the only line that can or should be drawn.

[Daniel2]

I know some Unitarians and they might chuckle at the jokes, but they don't like them either because it undermines the good they have done. Darin you have carefully selected a group whose core values are vague in regard to doctrine, but in doing so you prove my point. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is significantly less vague in its core values, and it cherishes with greater solemnity many of the aspects you show as unimportant. Would not mutual respect be better than attempting to jusify a mean spirited parody that profanes what we hold sacred?

Typed conversations bewteen us often seem challenging, Jeff, though I trust that in real life, it woudln't be so difficult.

I didn't "carefully selecta group who's core values are vague"--I used Unitarians as an example because that is my own system of religious belief, and so chose it to demonstrate to you that I am happy to laugh at my own Faith.

However, it's a mistake to assume that as a gay Unitarian, I can not or do not identify as Mormon--which I strongly do. Mormonism is as much my heritage as it is yours, Jeff--in fact, it may be even MORE so.

This play doesn't tell "your" sacred truths, as opposed to telling "my" sacred truths------this play is very MUCH just as much "mine" as it is "yours." In fact, I'd bet it's my story even MORE than yours, in many ways.

You seem to struggle with the complexities of different facets of the same individual. I am Mormon. I am gay. I am a returned foreign-serving LDS missionary. I am spiritual. I am atheist. I am a former Latter-day Saint.

This play isn't JUST about you.... It is very much about ME, too. You've personalized it and taken offense at something you haven't even seen, and continue to make snap judgements about, without having direct first hand knowledge. In my book, I avoid foolish behavior such as speaking about something about which I have no or little first hand contact. This play is NOT mean-spirited or spiteful or ridiculing in tone. It is very much outsiders' gentle--and even respectful--approach and portrayal of LDS belief and practice.

If I presented a comedic farce on gay men dying of AIDS and ridiculed their lifestyles, their belief that a bond can form between men (or women) that an emotional tie can exist. If I so ridiculed it with great music, and laughter as say one AIDS partner slowly died (laughing and dancing away). I think more than a few in your community would be deeply offended. As they should be. Gay men and women would not laugh it off, they would not appreciate the humor or recognize the humor of the play. Many feel those relationships to be something sacred that should be cherished in a difficult world that does not understand them.

Maybe the point I am making is being lost on those who are beyond feeling.

AIDS isn't sacred to anyone. It isn't a belief-system. It's a medical plague which is killing thousands of innocent people around the world. The Holocost or even the acts of terrorism on 9/11 were similarly horrible events that caused devastating losses of human life. Millions of innocents have died, between all three. So far as the loss of human life is concerned, all three are some of the greatest human tragedies in our modern era.

I am truly stunned that you keep attempting to draw any kind of analogus parrallel to a play on Broadway affectionately satirizing Mormonism (in a very positive way)(and a play which you haven't even seen) to some sort of humorous play mocking AIDS, the Holocost, or 9/11. The two are WORLDS apart.

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

It is highly unlikely that a single play would cause a holocaust, but by the same token I see no need to satirize anyone's religious beliefs, no matter how good-natured, for money.

[Daniel2]

It is highly unlikely that a single play would cause a holocaust, but by the same token I see no need to satirize anyone's religious beliefs, no matter how good-natured, for money.

If you see no need for satire, then you discount not only much of the arts, but a great deal of human expression, as well--both by members of a group, and from without it...

I can't say if money was the sole motivation for the play's production, althouth that sounds counterintitutive to process of going to the trouble and expense of producting such a play, in the first place (there are other easier, swifter, more 'sure-bet' ways of making money).

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

In general I have no problem with satire, there is plenty of good material available. I do make an exception for satirizing someone elses' religion however. If they want to satirize their own, be my guest, but I'm still not going to pay my good money to see it.

If some one wants to make a whole lot more of money and doesn't care about legalities. Go sell Dope. But keeping it to the legal, and reasonably safe. Own a bank.