John Mark Reynolds On "The Book Of Mormon"

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay. I've been eagerly looking for a justification to launch another thread about Broadway's The Book of Mormon, as I think that we're suffering from too few of them.

Finally, I found this remarkable article by a prominent Evangelical intellectual:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/amos-and-andy-and-the-book-of-mormon/2011/06/15/AGRlHPWH_blog.html

Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay. I've been eagerly looking for a justification to launch another thread about Broadway's The Book of Mormon, as I think that we're suffering from too few of them.

Finally, I found this remarkable article by a prominent Evangelical intellectual:

http://www.washingto...lHPWH_blog.html

Very nice. However, there is an even better and more extensive review available by Kevin D. Williamson, "Ethel Mormons," in The New Criterion, 29/9 (May 2011), 38-42. Unfortunately I cannot reproduce it here because it is copyrighted and must be paid for individually at http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ethel-Mormons-7033 (so check your local library for that issue). Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review.

[frankenstein]

The LDS Church is placed in the difficult position of seeing their most sacred beliefs mocked in a nation that murdered their prophet in a shameful lynching.

This isn't the first I have read the term lynching in concerning the death of Joseph, can the carthage jail action be deemed a ''lynching"?

[Libs]

Yes (at least, according to Wiki)..

Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

[Libs]

That was an excellent article, btw. I saw it on Facebook.

[Sky]

I am no Mormon, but I have witnessed bigotry and ignorance directed against this American community.

Sadly, much of that bigotry and ignorance has come from John Mark Reynolds own community – evangelical Christians.

But it’s nice to see at least this one Evangelical go on record to defend the Latter-day Saints.

[Deborah]

"The Book of Mormon is a minstrel show for our present age with Mormons as the joke" says it all for those who know the history of minstrel shows.

[Deborah]

This isn't the first I have read the term lynching in concerning the death of Joseph, can the carthage jail action be deemed a ''lynching"?

That wasn't a serious question was it?

[Jaybear]

I like this comment.

This new play will pander to our prejudices and treat our Mormon neighbors as we would never wish to be treated. Some Americans will allow it to confirm unthinking prejudice, while cowardly Mormons will applaud it hoping for crumbs of respectability.

People that can and will laugh at themselves are craven cowards. What a judgmental and narrow minded perspective for someone characterized as an "intellectual."

I do find interesting is that he treats Mormons as a minority class, and its beliefs as sacred, which need to be protected from public ridicule. Whereas, by contrast in earlier article he has referred to Christianity as a concept, reality or truth that can be studied and tested.

Finally, religion is also not a private thing. Traditional religions like Christianity claim to know things, to be knowledge traditions. This means that they make assertions about reality that can be tested.

Christianity claims to have heard from God. One may reject these claims, but should do so only with study and care in the same manner that one would choose to reject the authority of scientists when they proclaim in their areas of specialization.

Were he really the intellectual that Peterson makes him out to be, to begin with he would have taken the time to see the play, before proving a scathing review. Most certainly, he would have noticed that in the play, they "mock" certain aspects of mormon beliefs while they praise and elevate others.

So then as Mormonism is a religion, which is not a "private thing," it makes "assertions about reality that can be tested," that one is free to reject, what is wrong with rejecting those claims in a humorous manner ... such as lampooning.

Whoever wrote the play obviously rejects the concept that God lives on another planet, and that he changed his mind about black people, and used humor to communicate his rejection of those "assertions about reality."

If, as Reynolds says, those beliefs are assertions of reality. If its wrong to "mock" those beliefs, is it equally wrong to mock the belief that George Bush conspired to bring down the towers on 911, or that Obama was born in Kenya, and is a secret muslim, or that bigfoot walks the earth?

I believe that the earth is 5,000 years old, that man is the product of evolution, that homosexuals are as natural as redheads, and lefties. I believe that the earth is getting warmer, and man has contributed to that warming. I even that AL Gore played an important role in proving the funding that launched the internet. I say mock away. I have even been known to laugh at a good Al Gore joke. I guess that makes me a craven coward.

[Mars]

I do find interesting is that he treats Mormons as a minority class, and its beliefs as sacred, which need to be protected from public ridicule. Whereas, by contrast in earlier article he has referred to Christianity as a concept, reality or truth that can be studied and tested.

I don't equate public ridicule with testing/studying a truth claim.

* * *

This is really silly.

If I'm not too fond of American governmental ideals, would I be incorrect in saying that The Federalist Papers are works I'd disagree with without having read them? If I didn't agree with French existentialism, and declined reading L'Etranger for it, would I be wrong in my assessment of what the book was about and my follow-on decision not to read it?

I'm done arguing about this musical. I've made up my mind about its intent because I know what respectful gems its authors have produced in the past.

[Stargazer]

That wasn't a serious question was it?

I think it was. The term has been used in recent decades only in connection with actions against African Americans, and might be considered by some to be a racially connected term.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I like this comment.

People that can and will laugh at themselves are craven cowards.

Jaybeared!!! Were was this comment in the article? I missed that one.

What a judgmental and narrow minded perspective for someone characterized as an "intellectual."

I agree it is an interesting view. I don't think the author if that article holds that view though.

I do find interesting is that he treats Mormons as a minority class,

Jaybeared! Again!

Earth to Jaybear, we are a minority class. We make up 1% of the population. Do you call that a majority?

and its beliefs as sacred,

They are sacred.

which need to be protected from public ridicule.

Who said anything about this? That is not what the author has stated. As far as I know, no one as argued that they should be protected from public ridicule. That would go against the constitution.

Whereas, by contrast in earlier article he has referred to Christianity as a concept, reality or truth that can be studied and tested.

As it should be.

Were he really the intellectual that Peterson makes him out to be, to begin with he would have taken the time to see the play, before proving a scathing review. Most certainly, he would have noticed that in the play, they "mock" certain aspects of mormon beliefs while they praise and elevate others.

I am sure they do praise other beliefs. What beliefs do they praise? Of the clip I saw it seemed every second was a mock.

So then as Mormonism is a religion, which is not a "private thing," it makes "assertions about reality that can be tested," that one is free to reject, what is wrong with rejecting those claims in a humorous manner ... such as lampooning.

I guess if you are not moral you would not have an issue with it.

Whoever wrote the play obviously rejects the concept that God lives on another planet, and that he changed his mind about black people, and used humor to communicate his rejection of those "assertions about reality."

The issue here is 1. there is a misrepresentation of belief,2 it is done in a mocking manner. Well played jaybear.

If, as Reynolds says, those beliefs are assertions of reality. If its wrong to "mock" those beliefs, is it equally wrong to mock the belief that George Bush conspired to bring down the towers on 911, or that Obama was born in Kenya, and is a secret muslim, or that bigfoot walks the earth?

I don't think your comparisons hold any water. People are not mocking Bush for the 9/11 attacks. They are blaming him for them. People are not mocking Obama because they think he was born in Kenya, and so on. Or did you mean to say that it is ok to mock people who are 9/11 truethers or birthers?

Either way fools mock and they shall mourn.

I believe that the earth is 5,000 years old, that man is the product of evolution, that homosexuals are as natural as redheads, and lefties. I believe that the earth is getting warmer, and man has contributed to that warming. I even that AL Gore played an important role in proving the funding that launched the internet. I say mock away. I have even been known to laugh at a good Al Gore joke. I guess that makes me a craven coward.

I prefer to educate than to mock.

And you totally misrepresented the authors words. Not were did he says "People that can and will laugh at themselves are craven cowards"

Here is the only time the word coward is used "First, the writers are cowards." He calls them cowards for "They inflict pain and mockery on those already despised while going soft on the tired assumptions of their rich and powerful patrons".

That is a far cry form your misrepresentation.

Lets continue, the part you quoted says that "while cowardly Mormons will applaud it hoping for crumbs of respectability." I think this is true. I think that some LDS the will applaud it and will do so in hopes of getting respectability. Again "People that can and will laugh at themselves are craven cowards" is not what the author said.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't equate public ridicule with testing/studying a truth claim.

Good catch. I guess Jaybear does. Jaybeared! Again!!

[Grundelwalken]

Thanks DCP!! It's nice to have someone else see mockery for what it is. And especially nice that it is someone not normally on our side.

MW

Okay. I've been eagerly looking for a justification to launch another thread about Broadway's The Book of Mormon, as I think that we're suffering from too few of them.

Finally, I found this remarkable article by a prominent Evangelical intellectual:

http://www.washingto...lHPWH_blog.html

[Grundelwalken]

Thanks DCP!! It's nice to have someone else see mockery for what it is. And especially nice that it is someone not normally on our side.

MW

Okay. I've been eagerly looking for a justification to launch another thread about Broadway's The Book of Mormon, as I think that we're suffering from too few of them.

Finally, I found this remarkable article by a prominent Evangelical intellectual:

http://www.washingto...lHPWH_blog.html

[Daniel2]

Were he really the intellectual that Peterson makes him out to be, to begin with he would have taken the time to see the play, before proving a scathing review. Most certainly, he would have noticed that in the play, they "mock" certain aspects of mormon beliefs while they praise and elevate others.

:thumbs up:

I thought the same thing, Jay... Really....? ANOTHER review by someone who didn't even seen the play...???

Daniel2

Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel2

[Deborah]

I think it was. The term has been used in recent decades only in connection with actions against African Americans, and might be considered by some to be a racially connected term.

No, lynching was often done in the Old West. Cattle Rustlers for example would be lynched on the spot. Have you ever seen the classic "The Ox-Bow Incident"? That was all about lynching and it's aftermath.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

:thumbs up:

I thought the same thing, Jay... Really....? ANOTHER review by someone who didn't even seen the play...???

Daniel2

He only said that he has not seen the whole play. What is it with you guys thinking you need to see the whole thing to make a judgment. Of the clip I saw it was clearly a mockery. Should I suppose that the rest is different? Considering who the authors are. Really? Do you think I should go see the whole play now?

A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, that comes to mind.

It would be one thing to say "I don't like any of the melodies of the songs I bet they are all lame. I only heard one though."

Oh well.

[Anijen]

So am I reading this right from Danial and Jaybear that it is alright to "mock someones belief as long as they praise and elevate others?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So am I reading this right from Danial and Jaybear that it is alright to "mock someones belief as long as they praise and elevate others?"

The ends justify the means.

[Mars]

So am I reading this right from Danial and Jaybear that it is alright to "mock someones belief as long as they praise and elevate others?"

Ha.

"Hey honey, you know you're getting fat but your cooking is amazing. What?! I said your cooking was amazing! Why are you looking at me like that?"

[Daniel2]

He only said that he has not seen the whole play. What is it with you guys thinking you need to see the whole thing to make a judgment. Of the clip I saw it was clearly a mockery. Should I suppose that the rest is different? Considering who the authors are. Really? Do you think I should go see the whole play now?

A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, that comes to mind.

It would be one thing to say "I don't like any of the melodies of the songs I bet they are all lame. I only heard one though."

Oh well.

I'd suppose that we all make judgements about things we're only partially aware of.

Sometimes, the snippet's of any given subject that we're exposed to may lead to a fairly accurate understanding and appreciation of the whole--or those snippets may give us an inaccurate or incomplete understanding. In fact, taking a few things out of context--without, for example, fully seeing the resolution or fully realized plot points--can give entirely the opposite impression.

Mola, you and everyone else is free to completely avoid "The Book of Mormon" musical, based on being offended by whatever snippets you've already found offensive. I would fully support your decision to avoid theatre that may be offensive to you (or has already offended your sensibilities enough, already). In so doing, however, it follows that you won't have a full understanding or appreciation for what the play itself really ultimately is saying.

My view,

Daniel2

[LeSellers]

you won't have a full understanding or appreciation for what the play itself really ultimately is saying.

So, since you must have seen it (given you are attacking others for commenting on it without having done so), what is "the play itself really ultimately ... saying"?

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

it follows that you won't have a full understanding or appreciation for what the play itself really ultimately is saying.

My view,

Daniel2

Well that is an extremely optimistic view. I won't be able to have a full appreciation for my beliefs being mocked if I don't watch the whole thing?

You realize how silly that must sound.

Oh I see, you think that if I see the whole play then maybe I can come away with a different opinion that it really was not a mockery. And that it really praises Mormonism and that it really is tells how great a religion it is and is logical and practical religion.

Yeah.....

I can respect your opinion I just don't agree with it.

[cinepro]

I believe that the earth is 5,000 years old, that man is the product of evolution, that homosexuals are as natural as redheads, and lefties. I believe that the earth is getting warmer, and man has contributed to that warming. I even that AL Gore played an important role in proving the funding that launched the internet. I say mock away. I have even been known to laugh at a good Al Gore joke. I guess that makes me a craven coward.

I'm sorry, but how old is the Earth?