The Book Of Mormon Musical

[LDSToronto]

Only,

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

Case in point?

Mola, you are welcome to point out specific cases where I've gotten the doctrine wrong. But ad hominem seems to be the day's trend, so I doubt you'll try...

H.

[LDSToronto]

Huh?

Did you say something?

I see you agree with the congregation that shunned my good Stake President. Nice, bukowski, very nice.

H.

[Walden]

oops...duplicate post

[Walden]

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.

I would be careful who you hold up as someone who is "very open and expansive." Sure, the UCC may be such, but in a past article written by this same author (see here) that you reference above, she essentially calls for some sort of religious litmus test for presidential candidates....not sure how "open and expansive" such a test might be, or whether it aligns with the premises fo the UCC.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

The only person I ever always agree with is myself, and I'm entitled to change my mind.

[Deborah]

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

Who's reviewing the quality? I'm sure it's very well done. I'm reviewing the content and there is a difference. Just because something has high production values doesn't mean it's worth seeing.

[Jeff K.]

I would be careful who you hold up as someone who is "very open and expansive." Sure, the UCC may be such, but in a past article written by this same author (see here) that you reference above, she essentially calls for some sort of religious litmus test for presidential candidates....not sure how "open and expansive" such a test might be, or whether it aligns with the premises fo the UCC.

Obfuscation again? They called it accurately and all you can say is, "Well you won't agree with everything they say".

Is this where I insert the word "duh"?

[Jeff K.]

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.

Chuckle, why should I go to a spam and saltine party?

[Walden]

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.

Had I been a convert, I would have surely done more homework on the LDS church, as you have done.

Having been born in the covenant, well, my religion was essentially picked for me. If you have not been raised in the LDS faith, then you might have a difficult time imagining the unique pressures that come with conforming. Likewise, you might not understand the unique role that "persecution" particularly plays in this dynamic that is specific to the LDS church.

The excuses for my ignorance? Well, I was pretty young and naive growing up in the LDS church, by my own admission. I believed what my LDS teachers taught me as well as what was taught to me by my TBM parents. I naively believed that god's true church would have no reason to cloud the complete truth from me....my bad. Fortunately, in my early twenties, I shook off that naiveté, which helps explain why I am no longer LDS (though my exit from the church, as I pointed out before, was related to the failure, for me, of Moroni's Promise, and was not a result of historical inconsistencies in the LDS church. I didn't learn of most of those until after I had left the church)

With regard to the old testament figures, well, I was aware of their weaknesses (Lot offering his daughters to be raped by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, stories of "prophets" commanding the slaughter of those who didn't bow down to their Christian god, etc.) and I often felt "funny" about the paradoxes of such thing, but again, I was young and naive. Thankfully, I have removed the blinders since then.

[Walden]

Obfuscation again? They called it accurately and all you can say is, "Well you won't agree with everything they say".

Is this where I insert the word "duh"?

It's called reading comprehension....my post was in response to your classifiaction that the writer of the article you use for supporting your case being classified (by you) as follows: "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."

I was only pointing out that the writer is actually not very open and expansive; you were the one who thought that this was such an important point that you drew it to everyone's attention....again, it's called reading comprehension.

[KevinG]

Had I been a convert, I would have surely done more homework on the LDS church, as you have done.

Having been born in the covenant, well, my religion was essentially picked for me. If you have not been raised in the LDS faith, then you might have a difficult time imagining the unique pressures that come with conforming. Likewise, you might not understand the unique role that "persecution" particularly plays in this dynamic that is specific to the LDS church.

The excuses for my ignorance? Well, I was pretty young and naive growing up in the LDS church, by my own admission. I believed what my LDS teachers taught me as well as what was taught to me by my TBM parents. I naively believed that god's true church would have no reason to cloud the complete truth from me....my bad. Fortunately, in my early twenties, I shook off that naiveté, which helps explain why I am no longer LDS (though my exit from the church, as I pointed out before, was related to the failure, for me, of Moroni's Promise, and was not a result of historical inconsistencies in the LDS church. I didn't learn of most of those until after I had left the church)

With regard to the old testament figures, well, I was aware of their weaknesses (Lot offering his daughters to be raped by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, stories of "prophets" commanding the slaughter of those who didn't bow down to their Christian god, etc.) and I often felt "funny" about the paradoxes of such thing, but again, I was young and naive. Thankfully, I have removed the blinders since then.

You blame your ignorance of history on your parents.

Then you threw out the baby (your faith) with the bathwater (the human mistakes of church leaders) when in your 20's you discovered not all of the Saints foibles and humanity were taught in Sunday School lessons.

There must be a special ward somewhere in the caverns below the Wasatch where the TBM congragations keep their children locked away from the world until they turn 20. (Well that and BYU).

[KevinG]

TBM parents, blinders, persecution complex, historical inconsistencies, failure of Moronis promise, etc.

Classic.

[Walden]

You blame your ignorance of history on your parents.

Then you threw out the baby (your faith) with the bathwater (the human mistakes of church leaders) when in your 20's you discovered not all of the Saints foibles and humanity were taught in Sunday School lessons.

There must be a special ward somewhere in the caverns below the Wasatch where the TBM congragations keep their children locked away from the world until they turn 20. (Well that and BYU).

Again, it's called reading comprehension.....I did not "threw out the baby (your faith) with the bathwater (the human mistakes of church leaders) when in your 20's you discovered not all of the Saints foibles and humanity were taught in Sunday School lessons." As I specifically stated in my post (which you obviously failed to read completely before firing your post from the hip) I left the LDS church due the failure, for me, of Moroni's Promise. I didn't discover the historical innacuracies until after I had left the church. Please re-read my post if you require clarification.

And I didn't blame my ignorance on my parents, I take the blame for being naive. I should have studied it, but as most young people growing up in the church (which you might not understand, being a convert) I believed that my LDS teachers and my TBM parents were giving me the whole truth about gods one, true church on this earth. I know, a weird concept, a youth unquestionably believing his religious leaders and his parents.

[Walden]

TBM parents, blinders, persecution complex, historical inconsistencies, failure of Moronis promise, etc.

Classic.

Denial of historical inconsistencies, refusal to believe that Moroni's Promise isn't 100% foolproof, glossing over of facts in exchange for belief, etc.

Classic.

[Jeff K.]

I find it ironic that you claim because you were raised in the church, the material readily available to all church members was somehow overlooked by you, and converts who investigate the church are somehow smarter and have more information regarding what goes on in the church than those who are members.

Do you realize how silly that sounds.

OR could it be that you have led something of a weak and intellectually wasted life and never learned to understand the context of the church or even made an attempt to gain a testimony, and so, once an idea became disagreeable to you, you assigned the same level of effort to understand it, that you have always shown in your life, a rather listless flaccid acceptance that if the world isn't quite as you behold it, well then, you simply must saunter away to something more agreeable. And so you left the chruch and never really put forth the effort to understand. And once down that path, well, it is so much easier to fire misplaced shots across an inaccurate bow from cannons long ago discredited than it is to actually reasearch the information as Bushman and investigators and others have done.

It kind of makes you pathetically predictable, and easily brushed aside when you attempt to make a disengenuous remark (which is knocked down with the greatest of ease).

[Jeff K.]

DaddyG, on 15 June 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

You blame your ignorance of history on your parents.

Then you threw out the baby (your faith) with the bathwater (the human mistakes of church leaders) when in your 20's you discovered not all of the Saints foibles and humanity were taught in Sunday School lessons.

There must be a special ward somewhere in the caverns below the Wasatch where the TBM congragations keep their children locked away from the world until they turn 20. (Well that and BYU).

Again, it's called reading comprehension.....

Apparently reading comprehension wasn't your strong point given the availability of information and your lack of any awareness well into adulthood.

And I didn't blame my ignorance on my parents, I take the blame for being naive. I should have studied it, but as most young people growing up in the church (which you might not understand, being a convert) I believed that my LDS teachers and my TBM parents were giving me the whole truth about gods one, true church on this earth. I know, a weird concept, a youth unquestionably believing his religious leaders and his parents.

Being the father of teenage parents, you are more accurate than you think. I know of no youth that unquestionably believed or even listened to their parents and religious leaders. It must have been a cold dank cave you were raised in, because I can tell you, a teenager that doesn't question his/her parents? Something horribly wrong there. How in heavens name did they induce that level of passivity in you? Reduced brainwave activity? Drugs? Hypnotherapy? Past life regression? Just how did they raise unquestioning teens? One would think the phrase to be an oxymoron.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Denial of historical inconsistencies, refusal to believe that Moroni's Promise isn't 100% foolproof, glossing over of facts in exchange for belief, etc.

Classic.

I can see were this is going.

And just who is "glossing" over the facts?

[KevinG]

Denial of historical inconsistencies, refusal to believe that Moroni's Promise isn't 100% foolproof, glossing over of facts in exchange for belief, etc.

Classic.

Nope. Never did deny historical inconsistencies (loved Rough Stone Rolling) Moroni's promise is dependent on many things, including God's timeline not ours, never glossed over facts...

You have Daddy issues not DaddyG issues. Address these with your own parents and ward members.

[Jeff K.]

I note that when one surfs it is entirely difficult to get past the waves in order to achieve the place where they are formed at the beginning. As Mike Doyle once told me (yes I am name dropping for you surfers out there), you don't fight that force of nature. You have to find a way to use it. As a minority that is the position the church is in. The mockery and attacks from a limited but powerful section of society are like the buffeting waves.

So pulling on Mike Doyles wisdom (limited though it was), I see the church is harnessing, even the very mockery of both our church and the Lord.

New Mormon Ads

Mormonism is already in lights on Broadway, thanks to a Tony-winning musical; now it’s in a 40-foot digital billboard in Times Square, courtesy of the LDS Church.

Yep, there’s no business like show business — to boost a religion.

The Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has now launched a million-dollar ad campaign in the Big Apple, with a Times Square looping video staring down at tourists and ticket-holders around the corner from the Eugene O’Neill Theater, where the raunchy “Book of Mormon” satire about LDS missionaries in Uganda has been playing to wildly applauding audiences.

In the Mormon ads, a video portrays several church members who briefly describe their interests and background. Each then concludes with the line, “And I’m a Mormon.” The video ends with a collage of diverse faces, all of whom are LDS.

The 14 million-member faith also bought ad space on 200 of the city’s cabs, in a spot known as “taxi-toppers,” as well as for a video clip on the screen inside the cabs. This week, the church put up posters inside subway cars and on bus shelter boards. Next week, it plans to add a second, static poster in Times Square, at a right angle to the digital one.

“The ‘I’m a Mormon’ campaign was tested in nine U.S. markets last year and is being expanded to additional areas,” LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said Tuesday. “We included New York City in this round because of conversations about the church happening there.”

So you catch the wave, ride it, and hopefully have it bring you back to shore.

Now some will say, "see its a good thing". The answer of course is "No". It isn't a good thing, a good thing is coming about despite the wrong and bad acts of mockery. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, anymore than a murderer accidently saving a life vinidicates the murderous acts committed beforehand.

[Pahoran]

Great, more bile spewing from Pahoran.

But to your point, in the correct context, consensus opinion has merit.

The correct context being that it needs to be a consensus informed opinion.

What do the people who hand out Tonys know about Mormonism, really?

Apart from the sole fact that we -- in common with all other decent people everywhere -- are willing to defend marriage and the family from degradation?

Here the question is whether the Book of Mormon play is a quality production. The Tony awards are a more important barometer of quality than one critical review from a Mormon elder with an axe to grind. Here though its "suit you" to try to find a outlier opinion to justify your distaste for the play, and to insult me when I point out relevance of the Tony awards to the question.

No, the question of interest to this forum is whether the Book of Mormon musical mocks the faith of the Latter-day Saints. Thus, the opinion of an informed, believing Latter-day Saint -- even if it is only one opinion -- is more relevant than the combined Schadenfreude of all those who voted for that show because they thought the Mormons deserved it.

Actually, its would be hard not to notice with all the gnashing and wailing around here.

But, the "ox" you are referring to is a concept, belief, an idea, a perception of reality and truth. So its not an ox at all, but a sacred cow.

So yes, I have noticed that your sacred cow has been subjected to a humerus ribbing on Broadway.

Thank you for admitting that you approve of, and enjoy, the mockery of what is sacred to the Latter-day Saints for the idle amusement of the monied classes.

So far we've established that you approve of it; "LDSToronto," whose hero and role model is Harvey Milk, approves of it; and Walden approves of it.

In fact, everyone who thinks Mormonism is fair game approves of it. Among Mormons, a few moral cowards who think it's a good idea to cross the stream also approve of it.

But faithful Latter-day Saints recognise it for the offensive mockery that it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Walden]

I find it ironic that you claim because you were raised in the church, the material readily available to all church members was somehow overlooked by you, and converts who investigate the church are somehow smarter and have more information regarding what goes on in the church than those who are members.

Do you realize how silly that sounds.

OR could it be that you have led something of a weak and intellectually wasted life and never learned to understand the context of the church or even made an attempt to gain a testimony, and so, once an idea became disagreeable to you, you assigned the same level of effort to understand it, that you have always shown in your life, a rather listless flaccid acceptance that if the world isn't quite as you behold it, well then, you simply must saunter away to something more agreeable. And so you left the chruch and never really put forth the effort to understand. And once down that path, well, it is so much easier to fire misplaced shots across an inaccurate bow from cannons long ago discredited than it is to actually reasearch the information as Bushman and investigators and others have done.

It kind of makes you pathetically predictable, and easily brushed aside when you attempt to make a disengenuous remark (which is knocked down with the greatest of ease).

Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't check out "Rough Stone Rolling" from the church library when I was 11. I guess that book is on every LDS 11-year olds reading list. And I didn't consider it my job as an LDS youth to try to point out the flaws in my religious inheritance. Yes, I was naive, which I already admitted. And of course I had differences with my parents growing up, and questioned any number of their rules, their manner of thinking, etc. just as eevry other youth in America. But as a youth, I did not question the religious truths that they taught me. I believed it was my duty to carry on the religious tradition of my family that goes back to Parley Pratt

And though we have our differences Jeff K, which I can appreciate, I do take a personal offense (though I am sure that you couldn't care less) at your blind assumption that I never "even made an attempt to gain a testimony." If you only knew the heartache and struggle that I endured in being unable to gain that testimony, you wouldn't be so glib in your self-important judgements. If you knew of the self-destructive behavior that I unleashed on myself in my struggles to gain a testimony, you would surely not be so flippant. If you knew of the tears that I have shed over my inability to gain a testimony, the hours that I spent on my knees seeking that testimony, the long nights spent reading the scriptures, and the numerous occasions spent fasting to gain that testimony, then surely you wouldn't be so glib. It's nice that you can make so many assumptions about my entire life ("a weak and intellectually wasted life," filled with a "listless flaccid acceptance" of "worldly concepts", or that I have never "never really put forth the effort to understand") based on my willingness you either accept or reject your faith. I try to make it a point to steer clear of character assassination on this board, something you obviously revel in, considering your above post. I don't mind arguing back and forth about LDS topics, rather emphatically at times, but I draw the line at denigrating someone's personal character because they fail to believe as I do. You do not know me, so please quit making baseless assumptions about my character. I know it makes it easier for you to believe in your faith if you consider all those who have tried and failed to believe in it as some type of intellectual dwarf, but again, leave the personal attacks and character assassination out of it.....thanks.

[Jaybear]

No, the question of interest to this forum is whether the Book of Mormon musical mocks the faith of the Latter-day Saints. Thus, the opinion of an informed, believing Latter-day Saint -- even if it is only one opinion -- is more relevant than the combined Schadenfreude of all those who voted for that show because they thought the Mormons deserved it.

For what its worth, I don't think it can be reasonably disputed that the play lampoons Mormons. Mocking, .... yeah I can see why you would call it mocking.

You might be right that some Tony voters may have voted for the play as payback for Prop 8. But I doubt it. Notwithstanding the review cited, it has received wide critical acclaim, and is a box office success. I really don't see people paying money to see a bad show lampooning mormons, just because of Prop 8.

Thank you for admitting that you approve of, and enjoy, the mockery of what is sacred to the Latter-day Saints for the idle amusement of the monied classes.

That is not exactly what I said. I have not seen the play, and have no interest in seeing the play. Musicals are not my idea of entertainment.

But that said, you are right in one sense. I don't believe that ideas are sacred, and I especially don't care much for blasphemy laws.

At the same time, I understand why you would not want to see the play.

[OUmd]

I am interested in the original poster's question. How many people on here have seen the production? Perhaps a poll could be entered at the top of the thread? 10 pages of thought with not many answers to the original question.

[cinepro]

Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't check out "Rough Stone Rolling" from the church library when I was 11. I guess that book is on every LDS 11-year olds reading list. And I didn't consider it my job as an LDS youth to try to point out the flaws in my religious inheritance. Yes, I was naive, which I already admitted. And of course I had differences with my parents growing up, and questioned any number of their rules, their manner of thinking, etc. just as eevry other youth in America. But as a youth, I did not question the religious truths that they taught me. I believed it was my duty to carry on the religious tradition of my family that goes back to Parley Pratt

Oddly, I read the excellent "Storm Testament" series of books when I was ages 9-12. It's a five book-series that starts in Missouri in the late 1830's, and then continues to Nauvoo and Utah. The main focus is mountain man/Indian type stuff, but the main character is Mormon and there is a lot of Mormon history (but it's no "Work and the Glory"). The second book's plot involves Nauvoo polygamy, and the fourth book covers the run-up Mountain Meadows Massacre in some detail (but the character leaves shortly before the actual massacre).

So I was probably the exception as a 12-year-old when it came to knowledge about Nauvoo-era polygamy and the MMM.

This subject just came up with my wife a few weeks ago when she mentioned a friend who had been raised in the Church but was surprised to find out about polygamy in her 30's. And my wife didn't know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre until seeing History Channel show in her 20's. I told her about all the arguments online over what the Church should teach (and when, where and how it should teach it), and she agreed it would be difficult to cover some subjects but summed it up by saying:

"There are some things that are just better to learn about in Church for the first time."

In the end, I think that's the truth.

[Pahoran]

And though we have our differences Jeff K, which I can appreciate, I do take a personal offense (though I am sure that you couldn't care less) at your blind assumption that I never "even made an attempt to gain a testimony."

Is that you exhibiting the exMo "persecution complex?"

Regards,

Pahoran