The Book Of Mormon Musical

[KevinG]

The charactor actually complains of maggots in his scrotum not anus

Correction noted.

[Jeff K.]

Do you believe that anyone who thinks contrary to the "Mormon Crowd" is simply going along with the "Rest of the Crowd"? And, isn't it equally possible that LDS who agree with the "Mormon Crowd" are simply going along with the "Mormon Crowd"?

Or, in addition to righteousness, do LDS have a monopoly on free thought, too?

H.

As I have mentioned before there are cultural foibles we can all enjoy. Fiddler on the Roof comes to mind. Specific mockery of our doctrine though, of our God, that is different.

LDS Toronto to you anything that denigrates Mormons only justifies your somewhat warped sense in teaching those Mormons a lesson. You don't like the church or its teachings. You have made yourself very clear on those particular points. So when you say "Mormon Crowd" I presume you are attempting to change that large and spacious building around. The crowd, isn't among Mormons. We are a small minority, in the scheme of things we are the underdog. How easy it would be for the "Mormon crowd" to rise up and be large, all we have to do is give up our beliefs and do what you do, be like everyone else. Of course we don't do that. So we also tend to stand out. You have blended. Indeed, you hae blended quite well, one would be hard pressed to believe you ever were LDS beyond your monicker. The spacious building is your new home. You are comfortable there. I understand that. The slight discomfort you tend to show is when you realize how far you are from the church. And for you, the only way to make it feel acceptable is to denigrate that which at one time you might have held as important. By making it less you feel better about your self.

We Latter-day Saints are indeed a unique people. The response to that uniqueness has been persecution, revilement, mockery. Such impacts can be hard on us. Some even have gone to the point of relinquishing what they believed in order to "get alone" with others. They are assimilated to what society wants them to be. I congratulate you on the effective way you have shed any semblence of being a saint. Now you just have to change the name, and your transformation will be complete. Though a small part of you might still want to play act at it hence the monicker.

Nope, we Mormons are but a small group. We don't go out and act uncivilly. We live by our beliefs, and we don't play act. So when you point to that small sliver of population and call them a "crowd", you must really be over reaching. But it fits. The gall you must feel everytime a member of the Church of Jesus Christ takes a stand rather than go along.

Oh well....

[Walden]

I'm still puzzed by the persecution complex Walden sees when frankly most LDS don't care about the Musical or file it away with other mocking and protests.

Oops, I guess I did speak a little too soon, but then Jeff K did a nice job of helping me save a little face when he claimed that:

"We Latter-day Saints are indeed a unique people. The response to that uniqueness has been persecution, revilement, mockery."

And for the record LDS Toronto, I took it as an honor that someone thought so much of my post as to confuse me for you

[Jeff K.]

Walden conveniently overlooks Missouri, Utah, Smoot election and so on.

But then Walden is not known for his intellectual honesty in the matter.

It is noteworthy how the anti-Mormons tend to stick together and claim no persecution existed. After all, it was the fall, not bullets that killed Joseph Smith.

[ebeddoulos]

I watched the "I believe" clip and I'm conflicted. I found myself alternatly cringing and belly laughing. I really, really enjoyed it and at the same time I wanted to wash out my own mouth for giggling.

I keep thinking of Brendan Behan's statement:

“There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”

~ Brendan Behan ~

The church will survive and the truth will prevail. In the mean-time, I must go find a bar of soap.

[Walden]

Walden conveniently overlooks Missouri, Utah, Smoot election and so on.

But then Walden is not known for his intellectual honesty in the matter.

It is noteworthy how the anti-Mormons tend to stick together and claim no persecution existed. After all, it was the fall, not bullets that killed Joseph Smith.

Please, having grown up in the church, I am well aware of the persecution stories and the persecution complex that posseses a large number of mormons.

Yes, I heard all about the Haun's Mill Massacre growing up in the church. Interestingly, I never heard of Mountain Meadows Massacre growing up in the church.

Yes, I heard all about how the mormons were driven out of Ohio for their beliefs. I didn't hear a thing about Joseph Smith's failed Kirtland Bank venture, or the fact that he was facing staggering debt and possible criminal charges due to his bank. Could this have been a more likely cause of their "persecution" in Ohio rather than their religious beliefs?.

Yes, I heard all about the Extermination Order. I never heard about the inflammatory speech (almost inviting war) delivered by Sidney Rigdon at Far West that predated the order by three months, in which he exclaimed: "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed." Humm, maybe the order was about more than religion? Even BH Roberts and Brigham Young admitted as much.

And of course I was taught of the persecution and eventual murder of Joseph Smith at Carthage. Heck, I've even visited the jail site there. But I was never taught that prior to his murder, he had destroyed a printing press of a local paper that was going to out his multiple marriages. You think that maybe his destruction of the press, and thus his denial of the rights to a free press (as protected by the US Constitution) played a role in his eventual persecution?

And you're calling me out for being intellectually dishonest? It's funny how easily one can convince themselves that they are persecuted when they are only fed one side of the story.

[KevinG]

Please, having grown up in the church, I am well aware of the persecution stories and the persecution complex that posseses a large number of mormons.

Yes, I heard all about the Haun's Mill Massacre growing up in the church. Interestingly, I never heard of Mountain Meadows Massacre growing up in the church.

Yes, I heard all about how the mormons were driven out of Ohio for their beliefs. I didn't hear a thing about Joseph Smith's failed Kirtland Bank venture, or the fact that he was facing staggering debt and possible criminal charges due to his bank. Could this have been a more likely cause of their "persecution" in Ohio rather than their religious beliefs?.

Yes, I heard all about the Extermination Order. I never heard about the inflammatory speech (almost inviting war) delivered by Sidney Rigdon at Far West that predated the order by three months, in which he exclaimed: "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed." Humm, maybe the order was about more than religion? Even BH Roberts and Brigham Young admitted as much.

And of course I was taught of the persecution and eventual murder of Joseph Smith at Carthage. Heck, I've even visited the jail site there. But I was never taught that prior to his murder, he had destroyed a printing press of a local paper that was going to out his multiple marriages. You think that maybe his destruction of the press, and thus his denial of the rights to a free press (as protected by the US Constitution) played a role in his eventual persecution?

And you're calling me out for being intellectually dishonest? It's funny how easily one can convince themselves that they are persecuted when they are only fed one side of the story.

Sadly Walden is yet another example of falling away due to the inability to attend a Sunday School class, read the Ensign or pick up a Church history book. (Please read with all of the dripping sarcasm that was intended).

Seriously, you need to get out more if you never heard of the Nauvoo Expositor, the Kitland Bank, Polygamy, Mountain Meadows, etc. from an LDS Source.

[KevinG]

Those sneaky Mormons hiding it in their literature and indexing it on their web site. How will their members ever learn about the TRUTH!

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=mountain+meadows+massacre

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=kirtland+bank

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=polygamy+

[Jeff K.]

Please, having grown up in the church, I am well aware of the persecution stories and the persecution complex that posseses a large number of mormons.

Yes, I heard all about the Haun's Mill Massacre growing up in the church. Interestingly, I never heard of Mountain Meadows Massacre growing up in the church.

Yes, I heard all about how the mormons were driven out of Ohio for their beliefs. I didn't hear a thing about Joseph Smith's failed Kirtland Bank venture, or the fact that he was facing staggering debt and possible criminal charges due to his bank. Could this have been a more likely cause of their "persecution" in Ohio rather than their religious beliefs?.

Yes, I heard all about the Extermination Order. I never heard about the inflammatory speech (almost inviting war) delivered by Sidney Rigdon at Far West that predated the order by three months, in which he exclaimed: "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed." Humm, maybe the order was about more than religion? Even BH Roberts and Brigham Young admitted as much.

And of course I was taught of the persecution and eventual murder of Joseph Smith at Carthage. Heck, I've even visited the jail site there. But I was never taught that prior to his murder, he had destroyed a printing press of a local paper that was going to out his multiple marriages. You think that maybe his destruction of the press, and thus his denial of the rights to a free press (as protected by the US Constitution) played a role in his eventual persecution?

And you're calling me out for being intellectually dishonest? It's funny how easily one can convince themselves that they are persecuted when they are only fed one side of the story.

Walden, I couldn't say any more than already has been said. You have been called out for your intellectual dishonesty and quite funny claims of what was readily available. The light sometimes makes it harder for the dung beetle to bury itself.

[cinepro]

Those sneaky Mormons hiding it in their literature and indexing it on their web site. How will their members ever learn about the TRUTH!

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=mountain+meadows+massacre

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=kirtland+bank

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=polygamy+

Most of those links don't present information related to Walden's claims. Certainly, the Church has more recently been more forthcoming about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but even then the record is spotty. For example, this version of the story from a 1996 manual is a little dodgy:

At this time there were strong anti-Mormon feelings. Brigham Young and the Mormon people were blamed for the terrible Mountain Meadow Massacre where some non-Mormon immigrants traveling through Utah to California were killed in 1857. Also, the U.S. Army was on its way to Utah because of false charges made by government officials from Utah who were antagonistic toward the Latter-day Saints. “There were many men scattered abroad who had murder in their hearts” who boasted that they would kill any Mormons they found (Smith, Life of Joseph F. Smith, p. 188). Because of this, Church members traveled in little companies for safety.

Hmmmm...I wonder why the "Mormon people" were being blamed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Daniel Peterson]

Please, having grown up in the church, I am well aware of the persecution stories and the persecution complex that posseses a large number of mormons.

You don't do yourself much credit by appearing to dismiss the "persecution stories" as merely the product of a "persecution complex."

There was real persecution. And, to a much lesser degree, there continues to be. It may not count for much, but I myself was barred from speaking on a foreign university campus some years ago precisely and solely because I am a Latter-day Saint, and I was once accosted by an over-the-top hostile interlocutor at a secular academic conference simply because I was from BYU and, thus, probably Mormon. Mormons have been barred from using facilities open to other religious groups, both Christian and non-Christian, because Mormonism is "unacceptable"; I know of several such instances, and was personally involved in one of them. (I could probably think of quite a few other analogous instances if I put my mind to it, but, in fact, I don't have a "persecution complex," so I won't.) I know people who have failed to get jobs because of their Mormonism. Others have been passed over for promotions, harassed in high school classes, stalked during election campaigns, and the like, because of their Mormonism. Examples could be multiplied for hours.

Yes, I heard all about the Haun's Mill Massacre growing up in the church. Interestingly, I never heard of Mountain Meadows Massacre growing up in the church.

I did. But, in any case, I don't think that that single 1857 aberration, horrible and evil and tragic though it was and is, can really be compared to the multiyear multistate mobbing and persecution of Mormons in the nineteenth century.

Yes, I heard all about how the mormons were driven out of Ohio for their beliefs. I didn't hear a thing about Joseph Smith's failed Kirtland Bank venture, or the fact that he was facing staggering debt and possible criminal charges due to his bank. Could this have been a more likely cause of their "persecution" in Ohio rather than their religious beliefs?.

I don't think so, no.

Yes, I heard all about the Extermination Order. I never heard about the inflammatory speech (almost inviting war) delivered by Sidney Rigdon at Far West that predated the order by three months, in which he exclaimed: "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed." Humm, maybe the order was about more than religion? Even BH Roberts and Brigham Young admitted as much.

It was. And it was complicated. Most such cases (e.g., in northern Ireland, in India, between Sunnis and Shi’is) are. But it was certainly about religion.

And, though I think Sidney Rigdon's speech was intemperate and ill-advised, a vow that, if attacked, a people will fiercely defend itself hardly seems to justify attacking them, or issuing a government order calling for their entire expulsion or extermination from an American state.

And of course I was taught of the persecution and eventual murder of Joseph Smith at Carthage. Heck, I've even visited the jail site there. But I was never taught that prior to his murder, he had destroyed a printing press of a local paper that was going to out his multiple marriages. You think that maybe his destruction of the press, and thus his denial of the rights to a free press (as protected by the US Constitution) played a role in his eventual persecution?

"His eventual persecution"? As if it only started then?

There is no question that the Nauvoo city council's destruction of the printing press -- not altogether unprecedented at the time (think Elijah Lovejoy) -- may have contributed to rising tensions (but then, so did the Nauvoo Expositor itself, which may well have been, under legal standards of the day, a justifiably suppressed "public nuisance"; see Dallin Oaks in the 1965 Utah Law Review), but enemies were seeking Joseph Smith's death prior to that, and for quite other reasons.

[LDSToronto]

You don't do yourself much credit by appearing to dismiss the "persecution stories" as merely the product of a "persecution complex."

Historical persecution of the Saints is a double-sided coin; from my reading of history, a good portion of that persecution was visited upon the Saints by their own actions and the actions of their leaders. But that is the past, as far as I am concerned.

I believe Dan's experiences, and don't feel he has a persecution complex. In my own stake, another church burned down around Christmastime and the congregation lost their historic building and all of the hampers that had been assembled for distribution to the needy. My stake president immediately gave enough money to the congregation to cover the expense of replacing most of the hampers, applied for a humanitarian grant to purchase building materials (and subsequently sent the materials to the church), and offered the labour of the LDS in the area to help cleanup.

A few months later, the congregation invited my President to the newly opened church, and the minister of the congregation refused to attend because our Stake President was there! On another occasion, the Stake RS donated a sum of money collected from across the stake to aid in the reconstruction, and invited the minister to come to Stake Women's Day to accept the money and support of the sisters, and once again, the minister refused. The sisters sent the money anyways.

So I confess, this behaviour does happen, and I can't understand it, to be truthful. I may disagree with many of the teachings of the church, but I will never understand the need to judge it's people so harshly.

Now, that said, I my experience is that some members invite persecution and burdens and wear them as a badge of honour, proclaiming their worth because of the trials that are beset upon them. Persecution, like worthiness and "this day", is in the common lexicon of modern LDS, and listening closely, you will find that more than a fair share of Saints will go out of their way to show how they are persecuted or tried by the world, and how they love it because it just makes them stronger.

Like I said, it's a double-sided coin.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Historical persecution of the Saints is a double-sided coin; from my reading of history, a good portion of that persecution was visited upon the Saints by their own actions and the actions of their leaders. But that is the past, as far as I am concerned.

Let me get this straight.

Mormons deserved to die and be ordered killed in Missouri

Joseph Smith deserved to be killed in Carthage by a mob without the right of trial (even though he committed not capital offense). You Canadians without your army seem pretty bloodthirsty when it comes to carrying out "justice". Sheesh.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, we bring all the terrible things upon ourselves, we deserve it.

Such is your mindset Toronto? Of course if you disdain the church, all evil that befalls it is justly deserved, after all if you don't like something it should be 'damaged'.

[Walden]

You don't do yourself much credit by appearing to dismiss the "persecution stories" as merely the product of a "persecution complex."

There was real persecution. And, to a much lesser degree, there continues to be. It may not count for much, but I myself was barred from speaking on a foreign university campus some years ago precisely and solely because I am a Latter-day Saint, and I was once accosted by an over-the-top hostile interlocutor at a secular academic conference simply because I was from BYU and, thus, probably Mormon. Mormons have been barred from using facilities open to other religious groups, both Christian and non-Christian, because Mormonism is "unacceptable"; I know of several such instances, and was personally involved in one of them. (I could probably think of quite a few other analogous instances if I put my mind to it, but, in fact, I don't have a "persecution complex," so I won't.) I know people who have failed to get jobs because of their Mormonism. Others have been passed over for promotions, harassed in high school classes, stalked during election campaigns, and the like, because of their Mormonism. Examples could be multiplied for hours.

I did. But, in any case, I don't think that that single 1857 aberration, horrible and evil and tragic though it was and is, can really be compared to the multiyear multistate mobbing and persecution of Mormons in the nineteenth century.

I don't think so, no.

It was. And it was complicated. Most such cases (e.g., in northern Ireland, in India, between Sunnis and Shi’is) are. But it was certainly about religion.

And, though I think Sidney Rigdon's speech was intemperate and ill-advised, a vow that, if attacked, a people will fiercely defend itself hardly seems to justify attacking them, or issuing a government order calling for their entire expulsion or extermination from an American state.

"His eventual persecution"? As if it only started then?

There is no question that the Nauvoo city council's destruction of the printing press -- not altogether unprecedented at the time (think Elijah Lovejoy) -- may have contributed to rising tensions (but then, so did the Nauvoo Expositor itself, which may well have been, under legal standards of the day, a justifiably suppressed "public nuisance"; see Dallin Oaks in the 1965 Utah Law Review), but enemies were seeking Joseph Smith's death prior to that, and for quite other reasons.

And DaddyG questioned my statement about the mormon persecution complex....where would I ever get that from?

Being a great-great-great grandson of Parley P. Pratt, I know a bit about LDS persecution (though our family never discussed, nor did the church really teach, that the man who gunned down my great-great-great grandfather was entangled in a custody battle over his own children, after Pratt had taken this man's wife for his own).

I did not state that that mormons were never persecuted. My point was that there is much more to these persecutions tales than that which is presented by the LDS church....it was about more than just religion; sometimes, much more. Of course, if you only ever hears the LDS version, you will asume that it is all about religious persecution. Likewise, if one only ever hears the "anti" version, well, it was never about religion. Personally, I think that the actual truth is likely somewhere in between.

[Deborah]

I think it's funny that a bunch of people who haven't even seen the musical can make so many comments about it.

Well, it's called research. We've put some of the sources up of those who have seen it. We don't have to walk in cow dung to know it stinks. Furthermore I do the same on any movie I'm interested in. I'll read several reviews before spending good money to see it. Not that I always agree with critics but they do give a good reference point to see what may or may not be worth seeing.

[Deborah]

My point was that there is much more to these persecutions tales than that which is presented by the LDS church....it was about more than just religion; sometimes, much more. Of course, if you only ever hears the LDS version, you will asume that it is all about religious persecution.

It depends on the teacher. I've sat in many classes where we have discussed the LDS contributions to the conflict and in fact have taught such. As I recall the teachers manuals point these things out as well. However, calling someone a name is not in the same category as tarring and feathering, driving from homes, etc.

[mfbukowski]

Historical persecution of the Saints is a double-sided coin; from my reading of history, a good portion of that persecution was visited upon the Saints by their own actions and the actions of their leaders. But that is the past, as far as I am concerned.

I believe Dan's experiences, and don't feel he has a persecution complex. In my own stake, another church burned down around Christmastime and the congregation lost their historic building and all of the hampers that had been assembled for distribution to the needy. My stake president immediately gave enough money to the congregation to cover the expense of replacing most of the hampers, applied for a humanitarian grant to purchase building materials (and subsequently sent the materials to the church), and offered the labour of the LDS in the area to help cleanup.

A few months later, the congregation invited my President to the newly opened church, and the minister of the congregation refused to attend because our Stake President was there! On another occasion, the Stake RS donated a sum of money collected from across the stake to aid in the reconstruction, and invited the minister to come to Stake Women's Day to accept the money and support of the sisters, and once again, the minister refused. The sisters sent the money anyways.

So I confess, this behaviour does happen, and I can't understand it, to be truthful. I may disagree with many of the teachings of the church, but I will never understand the need to judge it's people so harshly.

Now, that said, I my experience is that some members invite persecution and burdens and wear them as a badge of honour, proclaiming their worth because of the trials that are beset upon them. Persecution, like worthiness and "this day", is in the common lexicon of modern LDS, and listening closely, you will find that more than a fair share of Saints will go out of their way to show how they are persecuted or tried by the world, and how they love it because it just makes them stronger.

Like I said, it's a double-sided coin.

H.

Huh?

Did you say something?

[cinepro]

Well, it's called research. We've put some of the sources up of those who have seen it. We don't have to walk in cow dung to know it stinks. Furthermore I do the same on any movie I'm interested in. I'll read several reviews before spending good money to see it. Not that I always agree with critics but they do give a good reference point to see what may or may not be worth seeing.

But "research" does not give you permission to judge the quality or review the show (or movie, or book, or music...).

Everyone has to choose what they will watch or listen to. It's part of life. But the problem is when someone uses their perception of something in place of an actual experience with something.

For example, I chose not to see the Transformers 2 movie (i.e. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"). I had my reasons, not the least of which was a friend who is a huge Transformers fan and hated it, and me not having liked the first one which by all accounts was a better film. But, having made my choice, am I qualified to review the movie? Can I complain about the lack of character development, or the incoherent plotting? The over-long run time? No. I can only explain that I have heard the movie suffers from those faults (and many others) and so have chosen not to see it, but I can't judge it as if I had seen it.

My young son, on the other hand, did see it and it bothers him to this day that I haven't seen it. He continually tries to trick me into passing judgment on it, but I carefully explain that I am only explaining why I have chosen not to see it, and that I understand he may have enjoyed it and I can't argue about the reasons he claims to have enjoyed it because I haven't seen it, so he may be right when he says "it's the best movie of all time".

So it is entirely appropriate to choose not to see The Book of Mormon musical for any of a hundred different reasons. The vulgarity. The cost. The time. The songs. But we need to keep in mind the limitations of our perceptions of a play that we haven't seen (no matter how detailed and eloquent the descriptions of what we read of it are).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Huh?

Did you say something?

Only,

Membership in the LDS church is no guarantee of doctrinal knowledge. Posting messages on a message board, even less.

Case in point?

[Jeff K.]

Two issues that reflect in an interesting way.

LDS Toronto et al are all about celebrating the denigration of our church, and of course as they are doing they say they really aren't denigrating the church or God. And interesting standpoint in the Washington Post.

Mocking Mormons

A lot of outright offensiveness comes in the form of comedy. Women often complain about this in the workplace. Jokes about women are made by men, often because some men are uncomfortable with the increasing number of women in a work environment. Then, when some woman complains about the sexist humor, she’s ridiculed. “Can’t you take a joke?”

Mormons in American society are in pretty much the same position as women in the workplace. They’re a minority, but they’re gaining in visibility and power. They are now the object of humor because they’re moving from margin to center and that makes some people uncomfortable. Hence, the ridicule.

Note to Mormons: welcome to the American mainstream. Now, in order to join this fraternity, you need to go through the hazing.

The satirical bent of the “Book of Mormon” isn’t just about faith, it’s about the power of religion in our society. LDS Living, an online magazine for Mormons, does not completely pan the musical, but opines, “While theater experts and media pundits have praised the musical, others have pointed out the play is not only profane and inaccurate, but actually an attack on faith more broadly.” In some ways, that’s true, but it is specifically a satire about the Mormon faith. There’s no disguising that.

Other reviewers disagree, of course, that attacking faith or Mormonism is the goal of this musical. Mark Kennedy writes for Associated Press that the “Book of Mormon” is “a pro-religion show at heart.” Why? Because it has an uplifting moral at the end. “Far from being nihilistic,” Kennedy writes, “the moral seems to endorse any belief system — no matter how crazy it sounds — if it helps do good. Amen to that. Consider us converted.” That’s about as watered-down a version of religion as you can get; but after all, Kennedy writes for the Associated Press, not Beliefnet, so what does he know? (That was a joke, Mark.)

But that doesn’t mean that the “Book of Mormon” isn’t funny, especially if you like silly, sophomoric humor of the “South Park” variety. Apparently (I have not seen it), the musical features Adolf Hitler, lawyer Johnnie Cochran, Genghis Khan and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. Christ is mocked, Mormons are ridiculed and Darth Vadar pops up unexpectedly. Some lyrics are described as “unprintable.”

What is offensive to some can be funny to others, but often precisely because it is offensive. Humor isn’t always kind; humor is routinely used to put minorities in their place. In the case of “The Book of Mormon,” the offensiveness seems to be the point, not the ‘doing good.’

Can Mormons ‘take a joke’? Like women in the workplace having to suffer through sexist jokes, I see this musical as a sign both that Mormons are moving into the mainstream of religion and culture, and that there is resistance to that.

I think it is telling that the behavior of those who seem to justify the Book of Mormon musical really is like the mysoginist sexists of "Madmen" of the 60's and 70's where after making some derogatory comment their rejoinder is "Can't you take a joke". Kind of puts them in an uncomfortable place doesn't it, for all their pseudo enlightenment. Jokes about blacks, women, Mormons. It all seems to follow the same line. It is interesting to see someone in the United Church of Christ, a very open and expansive church in the sense that it allows a wide stance and view of faith. A church Toronto might endorse, even as he denigrates ours. Latter-day Saints are easy to attack, they are after all, a minority.

[cinepro]

Latter-day Saints are easy to attack, they are after all, a minority.

As others have pointed out, Catholics have had their fair-share of lampooning in films and broadway shows (including downright offensive dramas about non-celibate priests and child-molesting priests).

Are they, after all, a minority too?

[LDSToronto]

Let me get this straight.

Mormons deserved to die and be ordered killed in Missouri

No. That's not what I said.

H.

[KevinG]

And DaddyG questioned my statement about the mormon persecution complex....where would I ever get that from?

Being a great-great-great grandson of Parley P. Pratt, I know a bit about LDS persecution (though our family never discussed, nor did the church really teach, that the man who gunned down my great-great-great grandfather was entangled in a custody battle over his own children, after Pratt had taken this man's wife for his own).

I did not state that that mormons were never persecuted. My point was that there is much more to these persecutions tales than that which is presented by the LDS church....it was about more than just religion; sometimes, much more. Of course, if you only ever hears the LDS version, you will asume that it is all about religious persecution. Likewise, if one only ever hears the "anti" version, well, it was never about religion. Personally, I think that the actual truth is likely somewhere in between.

I am good friends with some cousins of yours (Parley's descendents) who were quite well informed of their g-x-grandfathers marital dispute and were critical of his returning to the South to retreive his estranged plygamous wife. Faithful members of the Church they were well informed and shared this information openly.

What were the excuses for your ignorance again?

Even as a convert (1980s) I knew plenty about the circumstances of MMM, polygyny, race separation, Kirtland bank, Zions march, etc. and the foibles of the human Saints.

Whatever you do don't read about the old testament prophets outside of a golden books bible stories. Their weaknesses and sins will turn you off to Christianity forever.

[LDSToronto]

Two issues that reflect in an interesting way.

LDS Toronto et al are all about celebrating the denigration of our church, and of course as they are doing they say they really aren't denigrating the church or God.

Jeff, are you still upset because I didn't invite you to my Church Denigration party last weekend? Look, I said I was sorry, you don't have to go acting all 'persecuted'....

H.