Jaybear Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Jaybeared!!! Were was this comment in the article? I missed that one.I agree it is an interesting view. I don't think the author if that article holds that view though."Jaybeared!!!" I see you enjoy mocking my name, even though its blatent violation of the board rule: "Be respectful of each other."I don't mind, but its usually a good indication that discussion of an otherwise interest issue is going to devolve. As for the quote, as I used cut and paste function, you should look harder. Try opening opening up the article and using the search function. I guess if you are not moral you would not have an issue with it.Please clarify. Are you saying those who mock the sacred belief of others are not moral? 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. So if the answer is mocking others for their belief is wrong, why are you mocking me with this repeated "jaybeared" simply because I don't belief that beliefs are sacred. I don't understand this lack of consistency. You want mormons to be treated politely by others, but you are openly rude to me.
Daniel2 Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) ...(given you are attacking others for commenting on it without having done so)...LehiThat's a given...?? I'm "attacking" others?Strange. I've been perceiving a calm, civil discussion.As to what I think the play is saying, I'd agree with many of the other reviewers I've read. Most of us seem to have come away with the similar impression that the play suggests that:a) Many religiously-devout individuals may have bought into a seemingly-peculiar set of beliefs that may sound strange to non-believers,b) Ultimately, whether or not any given belief is historically accurate or not, religion often offers hope and has great potential to improve the lives of those who embrace it.c) Despite the strangeness of some of their beliefs and the naivety of fresh-faced 19-year-old missionaries, Mormons are good-hearted, well-intentioned, polite, and genuine people.d) There are two central heroes of the play: Joseph Smith, and Arnold Cunningham--both of whom display a spirit of prophecy and revelation to adapt meaningful religious tradition into relevant truths for the contemporary circumstances in which they found themselves. Far from demeaning either, the play actually suggests that humanity could benefit from more of this type of ongoing prophetic spirit.Of course, there are many other messages that one could take away from the play--and which will touch different chords in different people.As I've said before, my impression of the play made me simultaneously proud of my LDS heritage, proud of my mission, and proud to be a post-Mormon--and all three aspects aren't clearly going to be universally-true of every other patron--even those that may share some or all of those personal experiences.My view,Daniel2 Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel2
OUmd Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 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"? LehiIt is saying whatever you want it to say. Art is subjective. People take away what they want from anything and everything. Some people take away that the actual Book of Mormon is from God and complete truth. Some people think it is the "tool of the devil"? Why would a musical be any different, or better?
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 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.Assuming the play has a "message" or "theme", can you summarize it for me? And if you were to stand at the exit of the theater after a performance and ask people how their feelings about Mormon missionaries and the Church were compared to when they entered the theater, what do you think most people would say based on what they had just seen?I honestly wonder what it's like to be a missionary in New York city right now. I imagine they're minor celebrities.
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) cinepro:So we can expect to see a hugh increase in coverts in New York city amoungst the Broadway set? Edited June 17, 2011 by thesometimesaint
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) "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.Ironically, such a quote suggests that the reviewer may have been so focused on the religious aspects of the show that he totally missed the racial misfires...I cringed in my seat at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre as I watched talented African American actors hamming up “African-ness” for cheap laughs. It brought to mind the long, shameful history of Americans—black and white—performing blackness (often in blackface) on stage for white audiences. The Book of Mormon wants to have it both ways. It wants to make fun of The Lion King and its African stereotypes by substituting more authentic stereotypes. It wants to be transgressive and conventional, blasphemous and saccharine. This combination is not impossible, but incredibly difficult to achieve. Parker, Stone, and Lopez don’t pull it off.And that same reviewer's take on the presentation of the missionaries...From personal knowledge, I can tell you that many of the play’s zingers about 19-year-old Mormon “elders” fall on target. A surprising number of these Christian soldiers haven’t in fact read the Book of Mormon (“Another Testament of Jesus Christ”). Pairs of missionaries (“companions”) do often resent each other; sexual tension, homophobia, homesickness, and boredom strain the relationships of these co-workers/roommates. Many missionaries dislike their geographic assignments. Even as they compete against each other for baptisms in the field, missionaries often struggle to convert a single person in two years of service.The musical’s main character, Elder Price, is a recognizable alpha-Mormon type: a hyper-masculine priesthood holder who wraps his spiritual arrogance in self-professed humility. (In Mormonism, unlike most patriarchal systems, men must rule through meekness.) Price is certain that his life will be “awesome” because he deserves it. He can’t understand why Heavenly Father sent him to Uganda instead of his favorite place on Earth—Orlando!The recurring musical outbursts about Orlando, Florida, were for me the funniest parts of the show. There are indeed striking similarities between Temple Square and Disney World: the fantasy-castle architecture; the immaculate, artificial neatness; the perky helpfulness of “cast members”/missionaries; the imagineering and the edutainment in service of a well-groomed corporate brand. Edited June 17, 2011 by cinepro
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Hmmm...I actually really like this review...Mormons are ideal subjects for musical parody because they have their own homegrown traditions of musical theater. Not counting its uniformed missionaries, the most recognizable Mormon “product” in the religious marketplace is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (“MoTab”), which specializes in milquetoast Americana, including Broadway favorites. From the 1950s through the 1990s, Utah wards (congregations) staged summer “roadshows”—touring musical skits in church-wide competition. Today, Mormons are among the last Americans to preserve the once-popular tradition of community pageants.The cheesiness parodied in The Book of Mormon is nothing compared the annual Miracle of Mormon Pageant in Manti, Utah, or the Hill Cumorah Pageant in Palmyra, New York. On a more professional level, the LDS Church’s film division (originally operated out of BYU) has produced hundreds of schmaltzy movies over the years. There is a distinctive heavy-handed theatricality about contemporary Mormon productions, a sensibility not too far from Rogers & Hammerstein. In many ways, including cuisine, Utah is a time capsule of mid-twentieth century American tastes.If Latter-day Saints lend themselves to musical treatment, and if the Mormon mission, a classic rite of passage, lends itself to theater, the same cannot be said about the Book of Mormon. It’s simply too hard to read—even for most Mormons. It’s misleading to imply, as the musical does, that this scripture was somehow pragmatically useful to converts of the nineteenth century.For those too lazy to click the link, here's the excellent wrap up:Ultimately it’s disappointing that Trey Parker and Matt Stone—two of the best satirists around—should have chosen such soft religious targets: missionaries from Utah. The finale to season 14 of South Park (the censured episode about the propriety of depicting Mohammed in a bear costume) was gutsier by far. By comparison, poking fun at clueless Mormon teenagers is a cop-out. It’s a waste of theatrical talent. (Andrew Rannells, who plays Elder Price, is particularly good.)The play’s take-home message—that all religions and scriptures are preposterous yet potentially useful and uplifting—is hardly a revelation. To call The Book of Mormon a daring piece of religious satire is like calling Jesus Christ Superstar a great opera. With low-budget animation, South Park manages to do more with less. The 2003 episode about Joseph Smith (“All About Mormons”) is funnier, smarter, and spikier than The Book of Mormon—and you can watch it online for free.Satire, like blasphemy, is not supposed to be crowd-pleasing entertainment. It is supposed to be discomfiting. Instead of inspiring religious debate, The Book of Mormon has mainly inspired a lot of self-admiration from pop culture mavens, people who evidently believe that singing Mormons and starving Africans are now retro-cool.As Eric Cartman might say: “Lame!” Edited June 17, 2011 by cinepro
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 cinepro:So we can expect to see a hugh increase in coverts in New York city amoungst the Broadway set? The show is sold out through the end of the year. I'd say it has reached far beyond "the Broadway set". And with upcoming national and worldwide tours, and the inevitable film version, it might not be too early to start to consider how this play affects perceptions towards the Church. We should at least be ready to counteract or capitalize on it.
Jaybear Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 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?"My position: I don't believe that opinions and beliefs about facts, history and reality are sacrosanct. Mocking is the form that some people choose to use to communicate their disagreement. If you are afraid that someone will mock you for your beliefs and opinion, then perhaps you should reevaluate your beliefs and opinions, or grow a thinker skin.
Sky Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 :thumbs up: I thought the same thing, Jay... Really....? ANOTHER review by someone who didn't even seen the play...???Daniel2Seeing the play is not a prerequisite to be informed about it. I have read plenty of articles about it to get the gist of what it’s about, and accordingly I have made a conscious choice to not see it.The fact that the play takes the name of the Lord in vain (i.e. **** you god) is reason enough for me to not see it. It’s vulgar and blasphemous.
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 cinepro:The movie "Birth of a Nation" was such a rousing success at advancing civil rights that I'm sure we'll see massive increases in conversions just because of this play. 1
Deborah Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I'd suppose that we all make judgements about things we're only partially aware of.Having read the full synopsis on Wiki I don't think there's anything that can overcome the offensive things. BOM MusicalThere appear to be so many falsehoods in the story itself. It starts out giving the impression missionaries don't know where they are going until they get to the mission home instead of knowing beforehand where they will go. The General's name is obscene. There is profanity throughout. The one missionary "lacks much knowledge of the Book of Mormon, but he makes up stories that combine what he knows of Mormon doctrine with bits and pieces of science fiction and other cultural ideas." The way it ends is offensive. Yes there are positive messages of learning to appreciate the culture and loving others but those seem to get lost in the profanity and outright lies about missionaries that are presented.
Deborah Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 or grow a thinker skin.I like that. Is that a skin that is able to think through things rather than getting offended at the ignorance of others?
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Jaybear:The Blacks just need to grow a thicker skin if they're offended at their treatment here in America. Edited June 17, 2011 by thesometimesaint
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Seeing the play is not a prerequisite to be informed about it. I have read plenty of articles about it to get the gist of what it’s about, and accordingly I have made a conscious choice to not see it.The fact that the play takes the name of the Lord in vain (i.e. **** you god) is reason enough for me to not see it. It’s vulgar and blasphemous.Just to be clear, a "play" is not a person, nor can it "say" anything. A "play" cannot "take the name of the Lord in vain". You need to say "the characters in the play take the name of the Lord in vain".We then get into the thorny issue of whether or not the depiction of sin or evil in a work of fiction is the same as an actual sin. After all, I would consider murdering the Prophet Joseph Smith to be a greater sin than cursing the name of God, and yet the Church has produced several films and plays that depict the events of June 27, 1844. Edited June 17, 2011 by cinepro
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 cinepro :While I haven't seen ALL of the films produced by the Church about the death of JS. I'm probably correct in saying that we don't mock it.
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 The one missionary "lacks much knowledge of the Book of Mormon, but he makes up stories that combine what he knows of Mormon doctrine with bits and pieces of science fiction and other cultural ideas." I actually had a missionary in my MTC district that didn't know the events of the Book of Mormon took place in the New World. So the "lacking much knowledge" was not unbelievable for me.
Daniel2 Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Seeing the play is not a prerequisite to be informed about it. I have read plenty of articles about it to get the gist of what it’s about, and accordingly I have made a conscious choice to not see it.The fact that the play takes the name of the Lord in vain (i.e. **** you god) is reason enough for me to not see it. It’s vulgar and blasphemous.Having read the full synopsis on Wiki I don't think there's anything that can overcome the offensive things. BOM MusicalThere appear to be so many falsehoods in the story itself. It starts out giving the impression missionaries don't know where they are going until they get to the mission home instead of knowing beforehand where they will go. The General's name is obscene. There is profanity throughout. The one missionary "lacks much knowledge of the Book of Mormon, but he makes up stories that combine what he knows of Mormon doctrine with bits and pieces of science fiction and other cultural ideas." The way it ends is offensive. Yes there are positive messages of learning to appreciate the culture and loving others but those seem to get lost in the profanity and outright lies about missionaries that are presented.I would agree with both of you, Sky and Deborah, that the vulgarities and perceived blasmpheme of the play itself is likely to be so offensive to most Latter-day Saints as to deter them from seeing the play, or from appreciating any of the other aspects that I've mentioned.In fact, I would recommend that devout members of the LDS Faith avoid the play, based on the offensive language (the catchiness of many of the songs are likely to having one humming things that members would find inappropriate long after the play is over).Given the type of language used, I think it's clear that the authors of the play were not writing with an LDS audience in mind.Daniel2 Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel2
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 cinepro :While I haven't seen ALL of the films produced by the Church about the death of JS. I'm probably correct in saying that we don't mock it.Exactly. Context is the key. And it's dang hard to know the context if you haven't seen it. Obviously, there are exceptions ("But what about pornography!"), but we should at least try to consider it.And again, I don't argue that we shouldn't avoid media that uses language that offends us (I do it myself). But it's a different matter to judge the value (and rightness) of a play solely by the language some of the characters use. One thing the creators do get right, as far as I can tell, is that the LDS characters don't swear at all. Of course, I had several mission companions who did swear at least once or twice, so it wouldn't have been unbelievable if the Elders in the play did as well. But it does show that the show is aware of the language the characters use.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I don't understand this lack of consistency. You want mormons to be treated politely by others, but you are openly rude to me.Oh no, I am just being witty . Yes, I was rude to you. I am sorry. Jaybear, I was trying to make a point using the ol' "the ends justify the means". I am baffled that you and yours will not see that this play is a mockery. I have said nothing else about this play. It is clear it is a mockery. Just admit it and stop trying to justify it.You did not like it when I did it to you. Are you going to stand up for me mocking you now? Some how I doubt it. And you should not stand up to my actions. They were wrong. Get it?I don't need to see Conan the Barbarian to know that it is not a comedy. I know that it will be an action adventure show. Similarly I don't need to see this whole play to know it is a mockery of my beliefs. I am not offended. I am not telling them not to do it. I think it was done in poor taste. But they have the right to do it.
Jaybear Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I like that. Is that a skin that is able to think through things rather than getting offended at the ignorance of others?If by ignorance, you mean they are mocking you for beliefs that you do not hold, then that's an entirely different issue.This is like mocking Al Gore on the premise that he claimed to invent the internet, though he made no such claim. That just make the mocker look stupid. Jaybear:The Blacks just need to grow a thicker skin if they're offended at their treatment here in America.I disagree, and frankly I expected better from you.
Deborah Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 So the "lacking much knowledge" was not unbelievable for me.Me either. In fact it would be rare to find a missionary who had a lot of knowledge. It's the other part about making stuff up that is disturbing and then ends with evangelizing The Book of Arnold based on the made up stories.
Daniel2 Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) One thing the creators do get right, as far as I can tell, is that the LDS characters don't swear at all. Of course, I had several mission companions who did swear at least once or twice, so it wouldn't have been unbelievable if the Elders in the play did as well. But it does show that the show is aware of the language the characters use.That's a great observation, Cinepro. Another thing that really struck me is that the LDS topics that play's authors actually focused on were confined to current, openly-accessible LDS practices. That is, there wasn't a single pot-shot at polygamy OR temple content or practices, or garments--things which are so often lampooned, mischaracterized, and misunderstood.As one who's intimately familiar with LDS beliefs and practices but no longer subscribe to them, my view is that the play as actually very gentle and sympathetic in how it approaches the stranger aspects of Mormon theology--and, as I've mentioned, I don't perceive that the authors' approach is one of maliciousness or mal-intent--if anything, it's more admiring.As we all discuss this issue, I'm reminded of the discussion that ensured after "Big Love" portrayed a portion of the endowment ceremony and temple clothing. I recall that even though I would characterize that portrayal as something that was highly respectful, tastefully done, and actually very beautiful and moving (as someone who once found great beauty and meaning in the temple ceremonies--in fact, the scene in "Big Love" made me cry, in a good way), many devout Latter-day Saints were appalled and found it highly offensive and inappropriate that the filmmakers would even dare portray something that they believed should never be portrayed in the media. Again, I can understand why Latter-day Saints would react that way--and I similarly felt that Latter-day Saints should avoid that portrayal in "Big Love," if it caused them any discomfort.Daniel2 Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 As for the quote, as I used cut and paste function, you should look harder. Try opening opening up the article and using the search function. On a more serious note, I did use the search function. Coward appeared once and cowardly appeared once. And what was the adjective you used? That was not even in the article. I have read the article 2 times now. I disagree with you that what you recounted is what the author was trying to convey. Shoot, Jaybear I bet we could even be friends. Even go out for pizza?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 That's a great observation, Cinepro. Another thing that really struck me is that the LDS topics that play's authors actually focused on were confined to current, openly-accessible LDS practices. That is, there wasn't a single pot-shot at polygamy OR temple content or practices, or garments--things which are so often lampooned, mischaracterized, and misunderstood.Daniel2Well, shoot, I better go buy tickets right now.Lol.
Recommended Posts