John Mark Reynolds On "The Book Of Mormon"

[Daniel2]

...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.

With that statement, Deb, you express a sentiment that many of the Protestant ministers of Joseph Smith likely felt back in the 1830's with the advent of "The Book of Mormon."

Daniel2

[Jaybear]

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.

Let me make this clear. The play mocks some beliefs of some Mormons. I don't agree with those who say otherwise.

When you say "justify it." I don't even know what that means in this context. Art need no justification. Art is subjective. This play is not for everyone. I don't blame you for not wanting to attend. I don't want to see it either.

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?

If being mocked bothered me, I wouldn't post here. I did not report you violating the board rules of civility, as I feel its up to you, not me, to choose how to respond. I am not a fan of censorship. The only time I have ever reported another poster is when I was accused of lying.

I was simply noting an inconsistency. You seemed to disdain mockery and employ mockery in the same post.

[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.

As I respect yours, Mola. (And yeah--I was going for the latter point you made, above--not the former).

Daniel2

Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel2

[frankenstein]

I agree that one need not see the play to understand if there is mockery, sacrilege or blasphemy....one of the song is about a LDS figure doing naughty things to frogs, which in turn is the cure for aids - really vulgar stuff; another song is about why God and suck on lemon (thats the highly edited message from the song).

Apart from the easily known falsehoods that the elder makes up, and entire song is dedicated that what Mormons believe. Whether or not a missionary knows where they will serve before they leave on mission is really a futile and pointless point to bring up, as there are greater issues that might need to be dispelled or explained in the song "I believe".

But yes, those who haven't seen or heard the songs, and don't think you need too, well You are correct save your ears from the vulgarity.

[KevinG]

The collective LDS reaction to this musical has been "oh well, another day another parody". The comments on these mainstram news articles and editorials by LDS are revealing.

I am somewhat gratified by the Evangelicals, Jews and others who have risen to defend our honor in the matter of this musical, but I don't get the impression that the Saints are living up to their famed "persecution complex" when it comes to the BOM musical.

In fact the most passionate arguments against seeing it have been about the vulgarity.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Yes. I think I posted a reference to it here earlier. (I subscribe to The New Criterion.) It's excellent.

[Deborah]

With that statement, Deb, you express a sentiment that many of the Protestant ministers of Joseph Smith likely felt back in the 1830's with the advent of "The Book of Mormon."

Except the BOM wasn't replacing the Bible but in fact supporting it.

[Jeff K.]

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.

Perhaps the most telling aspect for some of our fellow saints. This I think is the saddest part. Like the boy who sides with bully's when kicking a minority. He hopes for those crumbs of respectability, that he can "take a joke and a poke".

[KevinG]

Perhaps the most telling aspect for some of our fellow saints. This I think is the saddest part. Like the boy who sides with bully's when kicking a minority. He hopes for those crumbs of respectability, that he can "take a joke and a poke".

Fortunately I have not seen too many Saints side with the bully. The plurality of LDS responses has been to acknowledge the jokes poke fun at popular notions and misconceptions of what Mormons are without validating them as truthful.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You seemed to disdain mockery and employ mockery in the same post.

Indeed, I explained why this was.

What I am getting at is perhaps we as a country or people should try to be a little more sensitive to others.

And not just dismiss when things are being mocked. Perhaps I am possibly projecting this dismissal from others onto you.

Carry on.

[KevinG]

Let he who is without sarcasm post the first mockery.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Believe me I don't have a problem with an occassional profanity, or even blasphemy. I can't see a Johhn Wayne type saying "OH goshy darn" when he gets shot. But gratuitous violence, sex scenes, profanity, or even blasphemy, along with mocking others race or the sacred beliefs just don't appeal to me. I don't approve of mocking Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, or Zoroasterian believers. I don't have to believe their religion to not mock it.

[Deborah]

The plurality of LDS responses has been to acknowledge the jokes poke fun at popular notions and misconceptions of what Mormons are without validating them as truthful.

I don't think LDS have a problem laughing at themselves at all, note movies like "The R.M", "The Singles Ward", "The Home Teacher" etc. Those take our quirks and exaggerate them and we can laugh about it, and those are decidedly mediocre in production.

But to present certain things are true, which aren't, and then to exaggerate those and make fun of them in a profane way is different. I would love to see the BOM musical with the true foibles and quirks of our missionaries played for laughs in a clean and uplifting way that allows one to laugh but for the right reasons.

[Jeff K.]

Fortunately I have not seen too many Saints side with the bully. The plurality of LDS responses has been to acknowledge the jokes poke fun at popular notions and misconceptions of what Mormons are without validating them as truthful.

The problem is that we cannot compartmentalize a play anymore than we could compartmentalize a serial rapist that works as a volunteer. I believe the pluraity of responses is an attempt to overlook the mockery of what we do hold sacred (and I do not mean the entire play as going against the sacred, indeed there are probably like most plays, a chuckle at the foibles of people on a cross cultural level), the manner in which God is mocked, in which the sacrifices of missionaries that do good work and God's work is demeaned. The general demeanor isn't about what might be viewed as misunderstood foibles or misunderstood cultural points, but of beliefs that are dragged through the mud.

It is like the man who was given a beating because he was the smallest man, and did not fit in exactly well with other protected groups. How that man is then picked up clapped on the back with a hearty "come on, can't you take a joke". His brother who wants to be part of the crowd will of course pipe up "Yeah, can't you take a joke".

The question I have is "Why should he have to?" Just as when I ask why Jews should have to, blacks, gay men and women.... the list goes on.

So when someone says "but it has a good message". You could probably find someone who says the same about "Debbie does Dallas" and then have them complain because "you haven't seen it to judge".

Fallacious arguments and compartmentalization to much to dehumanize our religion's adherents without understanding the religion.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Let he who is without sarcasm post the first mockery.

I sarcastically mock your mockery.

[Daniel2]

Fallacious arguments and compartmentalization to much to dehumanize our religion's adherents without understanding the religion.

Jeff, you and I obviously approach this play from different paradigms, and most of what you say I will leave uncontested, simply because your reaction is, of course, your own and something that is just as valid for you as mine is, to me.

Just wanted to make one comment: this particular play doesn't "dehumanize" Mormonism's adherents--in fact, it does exactly the opposite, much like "God's Army" humanized missionaries by portraying real life crises of faith in ways that aren't portrayed in "Called to Serve" or "Labor of Love."

My view,

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Look up the meaning of parody. We do not ridicule the human experience. A single line or feel good point at the end of the play does little to nothing when it comes to mitigating the overall feel that Mormons are somehow idiots, but nice idiots. Idiots have their place, their ghettos, but we should never be associated with idiots beyond humoring them. This underlies the play.

One need not see the movie to understand the outcome which has been very carefully detailed by those for and against the play.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[KevinG]

Jeff, you and I obviously approach this play from different paradigms, and most of what you say I will leave uncontested, simply because your reaction is, of course, your own and something that is just as valid for you as mine is, to me.

Just wanted to make one comment: this particular play doesn't "dehumanize" Mormonism's adherents--in fact, it does exactly the opposite, much like "God's Army" humanized missionaries by portraying real life crises of faith in ways that aren't portrayed in "Called to Serve" or "Labor of Love."

My view,

Daniel2

I respectfully disagree. The level that the missionaries and all believers are mocked in this production is designed to turn them into characatures. By its very nature dehumanizing. God's army was a very different portrayal and was if anything a deeper look into the human condition not an attempt to create caracatures of the protagonists.

[Calm]

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.

I think it is more that people associate it with only hanging as opposed to death by mob or vigilante 'justice' in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

[Jeff K.]

God's army was not a parody. While I found it objectionable on some level, I did not see it as a demeaning production per se. But the Book of Mormon Musical did indeed create and put forth the most negative caricature. The best analogy was what the author brought up Amos and Andy. The original show showed the African American to be incredibly stupid but nice and trying to do the right thing. In effect it dehumanized the African American to a caricature of the experience. It fits perfectly with the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

Most certainly, he would have noticed that in the play, they "mock" certain aspects of mormon beliefs while they praise and elevate others.

I have never understood why some think it is permissible to ridicule someone or something as long as they include something along the lines of "but this part is okay.....". Does that somehow change the mocking into something neutral as if language is equivalent to math where one adds up the negatives and the positive and if balanced just right they cancel each other out to zero. If one were to use a bigoted vulgarity to describe a black woman would adding "but she's very smart and great in business" somehow make the vulgarity less vulgar or the comment less bigoted?

Edited June 17, 2011 by calmoriah

[Daniel2]

Look up the meaning of parody. We do not ridicule the human experience. A single line or feel good point at the end of the play does little to nothing when it comes to mitigating the overall feel that Mormons are somehow idiots, but nice idiots. Idiots have their place, their ghettos, but we should never be associated with idiots beyond humoring them. This underlies the play.

One need not see the movie to understand the outcome which has been very carefully detailed by those for and against the play.

In the play, no one is suggesting that Mormons are "idiots," nor is there any insuation even remotely connected to the idea that anyone should have or stick to a "ghetto," or that one should avoid interacting with Mormons, etc.

These comments are indicative of the kind of mis-judgements that are made by someone who hasn't seen the play, but seems to feel as if he has a full understanding of the take-away of the play is.

Daniel2

Edited June 17, 2011 by Daniel2

[Calm]

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?

Especially if you had read a significant portion that had been quoted elsewhere...(the songs of the musical are available to hear or the lyrics to read even if one hasn't seen the play plus there are numerous positive and negative reviews out there that describe the plot in great detail so one can place the songs into their context, for example wiki has a write up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_(musical) ).

[Daniel2]

I respectfully disagree. The level that the missionaries and all believers are mocked in this production is designed to turn them into characatures. By its very nature dehumanizing. God's army was a very different portrayal and was if anything a deeper look into the human condition not an attempt to create caracatures of the protagonists.

I respect that we disagree on that aspect, DaddyG. Again, as a returned missionary and life-long member of the LDS Faith, I felt this play was very humanizing, not dehumanizing, and delves, quite surprisingly, into "the human condition." Of course, as with anything, that's only true for those who are open to reflection of such (or, to use a Christian phrase, who "have ears to hear, and have eyes to see.")

The latter half of the soundtrack especially doesn't convey large portions of the story as portrayed on the stage, given that there's less singing and more on-stage action in the latter half of the production.

My view,

Daniel2

[Calm]

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.

So your opinion is that as long as something is ultimately socially redeeming, this will justify anything that it does along the way? If not (and I am assuming this is your position as I see it highly doubtful that you would see genocide as a valid means to the laudable goal of eliminating world hunger for example), if there are some limits to what is allowed before someone goes too far, what limits do you see?

(If you have already answered this for someone else, feel free to ignore)