John Mark Reynolds On "The Book Of Mormon"

[KevinG]

The word feelings can refer to a deeply held belief and a divine manifestation of the truth in an emotionally intimate way. It can also refer to a whim based on a superficial emotional response.

Which meaning do you suppose the LDS mean when they speak of their witness of Christ and His Gospel?

Which meaning do you suppose is portrayed by critics and comedians? (Not that we don't have our superficial people in the Church)

Symantic games over "feelings" is really beneath an intelligent discussion of a witness of the truth and gospel and "God changed his mind" is a simple minded caracature of LDS beliefs and debates over the reasons for the 1978 revelation and our practices prior to that time.

[Bernard Gui]

Can't wait to see the apologetics for Orgazmo.

Bernard

I'm a little mystified that you are taking exception to that line. LDS regularly refer to the promptings of the Holy Ghost as "feelings", and Moroni 10:5 says "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye shall know the truth of all things." That's the LDS version. I don't know what the antimormon version says.

And in D&C 9, the Lord teaches us how the Holy Ghost communicates with us:

So, if we know the truthfulness of the Church by the power of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost speaks to us through feelings, I don't see why it's so controversial for a missionary to sing:

He fully acknowledges that it is being revealed by the Lord. As for Alma 32, earlier in the song, he sings:

Letting your spirit "grow" is certainly inline with what Alma teaches.

Additional Church teachings on the Holy Ghost and "feelings":

So it appears to me that the Church consistently teaches that we can know the truth by "feeling it", and having a missionary sing about it is in line with the doctrine on the subject.

[Pahoran]

Here are some things that we "believe":

• And I Believe; that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people!
  You can be a Mormon
  A Mormon who just believes! ........
  You can be a Mormon: you'll feel it
  And you'll know it's all true: you just... feel it
  Believe; that God lives on a planet called Kolob
  I Believe; that Jesus has his own planet as well.....
  I Believe; that plan involves me getting my own planet
  

And you do not have a problem with this?

The plan of God is to get all of us our own planet -- that's the Plan of Salvation in a nutshell .... there is no place for doubt..... our belief is based on feelings (not revelation, not study, not meditation -- just a feeling)....

.........God changed his mind about blacks....

This cartoonish description of our religion paints us as unthinking morons, idiots.

Of course it does.

That's why the usual suspects love it so much.

From the review:

"Some Americans will allow it to confirm unthinking prejudice, while cowardly Mormons will applaud it hoping for crumbs of respectability."

Prophecy fulfilled. On both fronts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

Can't wait to see the apologetics for Orgazmo.

Bernard

There's no excuse for that awful movie. Or Baseketball, for that matter.

[Nathair/|\]

There's no excuse for that awful movie. Or Baseketball, for that matter.

Cannibal: The Musical hasn't been mentioned for some reason.

[cinepro]

"Some Americans will allow it to confirm unthinking prejudice, while cowardly Mormons will applaud it hoping for crumbs of respectability."

Prophecy fulfilled. On both fronts.

Regards,

Pahoran

I can understand "cowardly" Mormons applauding it to the world hoping for crumbs of respectability. But the easily "respectable" response in front of an LDS crowd would be righteous indignation.

Obviously for LDS, the most offended is the most righteous.

[Jeff K.]

Bernard Gui, on 19 June 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

Can't wait to see the apologetics for Orgazmo.

Bernard

There's no excuse for that awful movie. Or Baseketball, for that matter.

But wait, aren't people going to say you cannot judge it, unless you have seen it?

[Bernard Gui]

There's no excuse for that awful movie. Or Baseketball, for that matter.

Nor is there any excuse for "Book of Mormon: The Musical."

Same old puerile trash, just with higher production values, from the

black-hole cesspool of American pop culture.

Bernard

Edited June 20, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I can understand "cowardly" Mormons applauding it to the world hoping for crumbs of respectability. But the easily "respectable" response in front of an LDS crowd would be righteous indignation.

Obviously for LDS, the most offended is the most righteous.

Nonsense.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

But wait, aren't people going to say you cannot judge it, unless you have seen it?

It has a redeeming social message and treats naive Mormon missionaries with bemused respect and admiration.

Only morally uptight Mormons would object to it.

Bernard

Edited June 20, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Daniel2]

So when someone says "Oh no, the play doesn't mock our religion" (despite the fact the author states as much) and it doesn't portray Mormons as idiots (based on their belief not their human foibles which can be idiotic). They lose all credibility in being able to honestly assess anything in regards to our belief system or even what color the sky is.

Ah, Jeff.... I can see you're h***-bent on voraciously, fully condemning something of which you still have only limited exposure and understanding.

I agree that you certainly don't need to fully experience or see something in order to know it may not be congruent with your taste or views. You don't have to "eat the whole thing" to know that you won't like it.

However, even though you can experience enough to know you'd prefer to avoid something, I submit it's foolish to then attempt to make any definitive statements about it. For example, if one trys a chocolate lava cake, and only nibbles on the outside of the cake itself, one might presume, "Wow... that's really chocolatey, but also really dry!" If you don't like chocolate, or eating chocolate is against your principles, you know enough not to eat the whole cake and leave it alone. But if chocolate is OK in your book, but you really prefer moist chocolate, but then decide to immediately abandon eating the cake because of it's dryness, you'd miss out on the liquid chocolate in the center of the cake, which is meant to enhance the outer shell of the chocolate lava cake, itself.

Of course, that's an oversimplification. And by golly, I continue to maintain that most Latter-day Saints would be highly offended by much of what goes on in this play, and would be wise to avoid seeing it or listening to the soundtrack. I support their choice to limit their exposure to media that would offend their sensitibilities, and this one is certainly, understandably one such example of media that would do so.

HOWEVER... as I've said, I think it's foolish to then presume you can know exactly what the ultimate experience or "take away" is, from the play. It's foolish to think you can definitively know and proclaim just exactly what the point is, or what others were thinking or feeling when they left the theatre--because you choose not to be there (which most certainly IS your choice!). You have tasted the drier outer edge of the chocolate cake, without the moist, gooey center. And that left a bad taste in your mouth--and THAT'S OK. You shouldn't eat more.

You may want to consider trying to avoid taking a level of offense, however, that doesn't seem to be there. Your Faith is likely served better by following the LDS church's subdued response to this play, rather than writing words that come across as you having taken irrational offense at the play.

One more note of clarification: I'm not sure I've seen or read the kind of contempt from the play's authors that you have suggested they've expressed. For example, that "the fact the author states as much" (meaning, they've said their play "mocks" the LDS religion). I'd welcome you posting whichever of the author's comments you're referring to, because I think it's helpful to see them in their full context. Here's several quotes by the authors from three different interviews, which I think help give a fuller understanding of the playwrights' views and intentions about trying to write about the Mormon Faith, vs. Mormons, themselves:

If you think the musical skewers Mormons, though, think again. Parker and Stone do challenge the literal credibility of the story of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But the Mormons they write about come across as lovable and optimistic.

"I don't think anybody would want to see a two-hour-long Mormon-bashing, and we wouldn't want to see that either," Parker tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "We love the goofiness of Mormon stories. Some of them are incredulous, and we loved almost all the Mormons that we had ever met. So this was sort of this conundrum that we like to talk about — we think what they believe is really, really ridiculous, and yet they seem like pretty happy people."

"The official church response was something along the lines of 'The Book of Mormon the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon,' — the book as scripture — 'will change your life through Jesus,' " Stone says. "Which we actually completely agree with. The Mormon church's response to this musical is almost like our Q.E.D. at the end of it. That's a cool, American response to a ribbing — a big musical that's done in their name."

"Before the church responded, a lot of people would ask us, 'Are you afraid of what the church would say?' And Trey and I were like, 'They're going to be cool.' And they were like, 'No, they're not. There are going to be protests.' And we were like, 'Nope, they're going to be cool.' We weren't that surprised by the church's response. We had faith in them."

On religion

Parker: "I have religious friends, and they're like, 'Well, if you look, it's proven.' And you're like, 'No, it's not proven.' Don't try to tell me that you can prove this stuff. Just say 'I believe it,' and I'm down with you. Don't mix the two together. Because you can't logically say, 'We know that Jews came from Jerusalem and settled in America and turned into Native Americans.' That just doesn't make any sense. But at the same time, if you say, 'I believe this,' I say, 'OK. Cool, man.' Because at the end of the day, we all have certain beliefs and deeply held things that probably don't make a lot of sense to anybody else."

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/19/136142322/book-of-mormon-creators-on-their-broadway-smash

When Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker met Mr. Lopez on a visit to “Avenue Q” in 2003, they discovered they shared a fascination with Mormonism and its founder, Joseph Smith, and a desire to make a musical about his teachings.

Growing up in Colorado, the “South Park” creators frequently encountered Mormons, including Mr. Parker’s first serious girlfriend. (“I remember going to family home evening at her house,” he said, “and just being like, ‘What are you people doing?’ But in a good way.”)

Mr. Lopez, who studied with Harold Bloom at Yale, said he was interested in “the idea of the Bible as literature — a story that can change the world, but in the end it’s just a story.”

In particular, Mr. Lopez said he was drawn to the Book of Mormon, the sacred texts Smith said he translated from golden plates he was led to by an angel, because it was “Bible fan fiction.” “It’s such a load of baloney,” he said, “But people believe in it so strongly, and their lives are demonstrably changed for the good by it.”

Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone made it clear they did not believe in Mormonism or any other organized religion either. (“In a way,” Mr. Parker said, “ ‘Star Wars’ was our religion, and Spider-Man’s a religion. That affected our lives way more than Jesus, but they were still stories.”)

But having found that his Mormon neighbors were always good members of the community, Mr. Stone said, he had to wonder: “Do goofy stories make people nice? What if, in their goofiness, these stories somehow inspire that in the right way. Is that a social good?”

…he said there was also a sweetness in the show that may not be obvious from its cruder songs: “It’s about what can happen to a village in the most dire straits imaginable when they open their hearts up to believing in a higher purpose.”

…Mr. Parker, who counts himself as a fan of shows like “Wicked” and “Jersey Boys,” said, “We wanted to make this not just cynical and Mormon bashing, but hopeful and happy, because to me that’s what musicals are about.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/theater/20mormon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1308579508-udJ4xSxh5OhvwCCJARYwFw

Q.

Trey and Matt, why do Mormon characters and ideas about Mormonism often appear in your work?

A.

PARKER A lot it is because we grew up in Colorado, right next to Utah.

STONE My best friend, when I was sixth grade, was a Mormon.

PARKER My first serious girlfriend was a Mormon. I remember going to family home evening at her house, and just being like, “What are you people doing?” But in a good way. I was actually going home to my parents and being like, “Can we play a board game?” They were like: “What? No, we’re watching TV.”

STONE They seemed like the perfect way to talk about religion because you talk to a Catholic, and it’s like, “Uch, Mormons, come on.” To me, it’s not that different. Mormons believe that Jesus, in the three days between crucifixion and resurrection, in that period was one of the times he appears in the Americas to the Israelites that came here. And seriously, Catholics will be like: “Come on. He came all the way across the ocean? How he’d do that?”

PARKER [nasal voice] “How’d he do that? He was dead.”

STONE If they’re your next-door neighbors, you’re lucky. They’re really good people to have in your community. Of course that’s a huge, broad-brush stereotype. And then you look at what they believe and you go, that is just goofy. And then you start going, well, do those goofy stories have something to do with the niceness? Do goofy stories make these people nice? What if, in their goofiness, these stories somehow inspire that, in the right way? Is that a social good?

Q.

You’ve said that “Book of Mormon,” for all its satire and strong language, is ultimately a sweet show. So where does the sweetness come from?

A.

STONE The boys who go on the mission are goodhearted. They’re not bad guys, and they’re not hellfire religious guys. They’re just two 19-year-old kids trying to do the right thing. And most of the Africans, they’re really good people stuck in the [worst] place on earth, with no hope to get out. You put them in there. Seemed like that should be funny.

LOPEZ It’s “The Music Man.” They’ve got a town with a problem. Instead of a pool table, it’s AIDS and warlords. These guys are trying to sell a lie to them, but the lie turns out to be true in a different way.

STONE The Africans are sweet, too.

PARKER One of the Africans who hears about this stuff – she doesn’t hear anything about the religion, she just hears about this place, Salt Lake City, and she confuses that with a real paradise on earth, where there’s going to be waterfalls and unicorns and rainbows, and all this stuff. And as soon as you know that she’s going to try to follow this because she thinks she can actually go to that place, it starts to have a heart there.

Q.

Do you think that “Book of Mormon” could open you up to similarly extreme responses?

A.

PARKER All we can do is what we always do, try to let the show speak for itself. The most [upset] ones will be the ones that won’t even watch it.

STONE We tried to make a show in which, at the end of the day, religion – our definition, our new definition – religion wins the day. And it’s a source of good. We all feel that way.

LOPEZ It’s pro-faith.

STONE It’s a pro-faith show. It is. It gets there a funny way, but it’s our version of that argument.

Q.

How is it pro-faith?

A.

PARKER Because of what faith is to us. We all grew up with “Star Wars.” In a way “Star Wars” was our religion, and Spider-Man’s a religion. That affected our lives way more than Jesus, but they were still stories. And they were great stories, and that’s why they affected our lives.

LOPEZ It doesn’t matter whether they’re true or not – whether you believe in them literally.

STONE Joseph Smith, you can either look at him like a prophet or a pathological liar. But whatever he did, he put himself and he put America at the center of the narrative. “Let’s make ourselves the star of the story.” It’s such a powerful thing. You can imagine Americans in the 1850s and 1860s, these poor settlers, and it’s like: “No, no no, you’re not just a poor settler. You’re a main actor in a cosmic narrative.” Of course you’re going to be like, “That’s better than being Joe Schmo.” “Star Wars,” whatever you think about it, they’ll be talking about it in 800 years. And they’ll talking about Jesus, and they’ll be talking about Joseph Smith.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/holy-terrors-a-conversation-with-the-creators-of-the-book-of-mormon/?ref=theater

Daniel2

[Mars]

So... we're goofy, good-natured liars? Fantastic. Oh, it's ok, though, because they dated Mormons and were friends with Mormons.

In particular, Mr. Lopez said he was drawn to the Book of Mormon, the sacred texts Smith said he translated from golden plates he was led to by an angel, because it was “Bible fan fiction.” “It’s such a load of baloney,” he said, “But people believe in it so strongly, and their lives are demonstrably changed for the good by it.”

I wonder if Daniel2, cinepro, LDSToronto, and Craig Paxton feel the driving need to go and exert every possible measure of scrutiny against Lopez's understanding of the Book of Mormon based on his opinion of it. After all, you can't just have seen a clip, read a review, or nibbled around the edge. You have to have subjected yourself to the WHOLE thing just like they did and then you can't retain your original opinion, because then you'd be closed-minded. Nosiree. None of that closed-minded stuff 'round these parts.

Go ahead, guys, I'm sure you want to be fair and balanced... Let Mr. Lopez have it.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Mars

[Daniel2]

So... we're goofy, good-natured liars? Fantastic. Oh, it's ok, though, because they dated Mormons and were friends with Mormons.

I wonder if Daniel2, cinepro, LDSToronto, and Craig Paxton feel the driving need to go and exert every possible measure of scrutiny against Lopez's understanding of the Book of Mormon based on his opinion of it. After all, you can't just have seen a clip, read a review, or nibbled around the edge. You have to have subjected yourself to the WHOLE thing just like they did and then you can't retain your original opinion, because then you'd be closed-minded. Nosiree. None of that closed-minded stuff 'round these parts.

Go ahead, guys, I'm sure you want to be fair and balanced... Let Mr. Lopez have it.

Mars,

Hmmm... I don't recall any of them saying Mormons are "liars."

It sounds like you think I'm trying to insinuate that anyone who doesn't see this play (or subjected themselves to "the WHOLE thing") is "closed-minded."

That isn't my feeling, at all.

One doesn't need to view EVERYTHING to be open-minded.

And as I've repeatedly said, I can understand why most Latter-day Saints would be offended by this play, and I believe they should avoid it.

I'd probably be most offended by pro-reparative therapy stuff, and avoid exposing myself pro-reparative therapy programs, today. I wouldn't count myself as 'closed minded,' however, just as I wouldn't count Latter-day Saints 'closed minded' as they avoid the BOM.

I appreciate message boards like this because they allow for an open exchange of conflicting views in a--hopefully--respectful setting. I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake, even if no one's views are changed. It allows me to understand how others think, even if I maintain my view; or sometimes I have slightly shifted how I approach an issue, as I have sometimes seen other slightly shift; and occasionally, I'll make a dramatic shift in position, as well. That's the beauty of discussion. Thanks for contributing your thoughts, too.

Best,

Daniel2

Edited June 20, 2011 by Daniel2

[Mars]

LOPEZ It’s “The Music Man.” They’ve got a town with a problem. Instead of a pool table, it’s AIDS and warlords. These guys are trying to sell a lie to them, but the lie turns out to be true in a different way.

This is what tripped me up, Daniel.

You've mentioned you've served a mission, yes? That line most certainly does not accurately summarize my mission. I was certainly not a liar, and I hope nothing's changed in that regard...

And as I've repeatedly said, I can understand why most Latter-day Saints would be offended by this play, and I believe they should avoid it.

And as I've repeatedly said, I am not offended by the subject matter. (I actually LOL'd at the Book of Mormon being 'Bible fan fiction.') I just don't want there to be any confusion: The play is a mockery of Mormonism, Mormons, missionaries, and don't try and convince me otherwise. Perhaps you agree with that, perhaps you don't.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Mars

[Daniel2]

This is what tripped me up, Daniel.

You've mentioned you've served a mission, yes? That line most certainly does not accurately summarize my mission. I was certainly not a liar, and I hope nothing's changed in that regard...

I see how you could get tripped up on that sentence. My reading of that line and its surrounding context suggests that the playwrights aren't suggesting that the missionaries are liars, even though their beliefs are "a lie" (as in, an "untruth"). In fact, in the final musical number, Sister Kimba, one of the Ugandan converts to "The Book of Arnold" is knocking doors as a missionary for her new Faith, and she emphatically sings, "We swear--this is not a scam!" And even though the audience KNOWS that her new Faith is founded on the obvious falsehoods (or lies) of Arnold Cunningham, who made up stories on the spot to directly prevent the atrocities these Africans have been suffering, the audience doesn't doubt that Sister Kimba is speaking earnestly and sympathetically. I would suggest the audience doesn't think of Sister Kimba, Elder Motumbo, or Elder ****-******* Naked as disingenuous or lying as they attempt to share their new-found Faith.

Yes, I served a mission, and I can honestly say I was ernest and as sincere as anyone ever has been. I was far more steeped in the doctrine than the two missionaries in this play were (I'd read the Book of Mormon seven times, prior to my mission--not that that made me better than them--and II had a few companions that had never read the scriptures, until starting their mission). Regardless--I would emphatically disagree that Latter-day Saints are "liars"--certainly no more than any other well-intentioned person or group of people may be, and in many ways, even less so.

I loved my mission. I developed a deep love for the people I served. We shared the gospel, did some service, and like most RMs, I learned a greater sense of humility, responsibility, and self- and world-awareness that most kids our age don't think about (unless they're also undergoing a similar type of self-sacrificing program away from the comfort of their own home and life). I don't regretting going on my mission, and wouldn't change that fact--it was a centrally-influential aspect of my life that continues to inform my actions, even today. It made me a better man--as I'd wager missions do, for most of us that serve.

And as I've repeatedly said, I am not offended by the subject matter. (I actually LOL'd at the Book of Mormon being 'Bible fan fiction.') I just don't want there to be any confusion: The play is a mockery of Mormonism, Mormons, missionaries, and don't try and convince me otherwise. Perhaps you agree with that, perhaps you don't.

I certainly respect your view.

Daniel

Edited June 20, 2011 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Another (IMO, excellent) take on the play, this time, from the SLTrib:

'Book of Mormon’ musical can inspire doubters to stay

By adam ford

First published Jun 17 2011 04:15PM

After “The Book of Mormon” opened on Broadway, The New York Times quoted me as calling the musical “inspired.” The American Theatre Wing agreed, awarding the production nine Tony Awards — including Best Musical — the third-highest number ever awarded a single show.

But I used the term not to denote the high quality of the acting, music, choreography, costume or set design. I meant that Matt Parker and Trey Stone may well have been stirred by the divine in their writing of the musical.

In spite of my enthusiastic response, Michael Otterson, the head of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was adamant that he would not see the play. According to Otterson, the unworthy point of the production was “the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naiveté.”

The risk in reviewing a play you refuse to see is that you might miss its point. Perhaps biased by reports of its rough language, Otterson got it completely wrong.

The play’s main message is simple and beautiful: If a belief leads people to happiness and a better quality of life, that belief is a good thing — and (here is the key) people shouldn’t allow doubts about the truthfulness of that belief to interfere with its impact.

The history and doctrine of the LDS Church is the vehicle for this message. The show is about Mormons but its message is much broader. It is about celebrating the good work done in the world by people holding peculiar tenets — Mormon missionaries happen to be exhibit A.

The play contrasts some actual Mormon beliefs (for instance, the Garden of Eden was in Missouri’s Jackson County) with some strange ideas invented by a stumbling missionary. The listeners are Ugandans who suffer a parade of horrible realities. The people are touched and inspired by the missionary’s mixed message and they begin to change their lives for the better.

Eventually the elder’s non-canonical tales are exposed. A young believer is devastated. Another well-meaning villager comforts her, telling her that the rest of the villagers never really believed the stories were actually true.

Exposing the lie doesn’t enlighten and bless the villagers. Rather, they feel foolish and are shamed. They go away crestfallen — until the elder and his companion decide to stay and continue their work. The evil warlord changes his ways, as do others, and a happy ending leaves the audience euphoric.

Truth can be the enemy of good; fables can shape behavior for the benefit of all society. If religious stories help people love their neighbor and treat them with dignity and respect, they are noble, regardless of historical or metaphysical reliability. Being a part of a church organization that tells a story or professes doctrine that might not be entirely correct may be worth it. In fact, the stories are often key in giving members the strength to make the world a better place.

In today’s information age, Mormons in unprecedented numbers are discovering unpleasant and inconsistent aspects of their historical narrative. Some express doubt about doctrines in ever-morphing online communities. “The Book of Mormon” (the musical) encourages Mormons experiencing crises of faith to stay and keep their shoulder to the wheel, in spite of their diminished confidence.

Everything might not be as it seemed in Primary and seminary, but the LDS Church remains a community striving to make the world a better place, and it is having a positive impact.

So stay, doubts and disagreements and all. If heard, this message could save to the church many thousands who are tempted to leave. In this way, the musical could be helpful in strengthening the LDS Church. So maybe the hand of God did inspire it, rough language and all.

Adam Ford is the managing partner of the law firm Ford & Huff in South Jordan. He lives in Alpine.

[cinepro]

PARKER: All we can do is what we always do, try to let the show speak for itself. The most [upset] ones will be the ones that won’t even watch it.

QFT!

[Jeff K.]

Ah, Jeff.... I can see you're h***-bent on voraciously, fully condemning something of which you still have only limited exposure and understanding.

I agree that you certainly don't need to fully experience or see something in order to know it may not be congruent with your taste or views. You don't have to "eat the whole thing" to know that you won't like it.

However, even though you can experience enough to know you'd prefer to avoid something, I submit it's foolish to then attempt to make any definitive statements about it. For example, if one trys a chocolate lava cake, and only nibbles on the outside of the cake itself, one might presume, "Wow... that's really chocolatey, but also really dry!" If you don't like chocolate, or eating chocolate is against your principles, you know enough not to eat the whole cake and leave it alone. But if chocolate is OK in your book, but you really prefer moist chocolate, but then decide to immediately abandon eating the cake because of it's dryness, you'd miss out on the liquid chocolate in the center of the cake, which is meant to enhance the outer shell of the chocolate lava cake, itself.

Of course, that's an oversimplification. And by golly, I continue to maintain that most Latter-day Saints would be highly offended by much of what goes on in this play, and would be wise to avoid seeing it or listening to the soundtrack. I support their choice to limit their exposure to media that would offend their sensitibilities, and this one is certainly, understandably one such example of media that would do so.

HOWEVER... as I've said, I think it's foolish to then presume you can know exactly what the ultimate experience or "take away" is, from the play. It's foolish to think you can definitively know and proclaim just exactly what the point is, or what others were thinking or feeling when they left the theatre--because you choose not to be there (which most certainly IS your choice!). You have tasted the drier outer edge of the chocolate cake, without the moist, gooey center. And that left a bad taste in your mouth--and THAT'S OK. You shouldn't eat more.

You may want to consider trying to avoid taking a level of offense, however, that doesn't seem to be there. Your Faith is likely served better by following the LDS church's subdued response to this play, rather than writing words that come across as you having taken irrational offense at the play.

One more note of clarification: I'm not sure I've seen or read the kind of contempt from the play's authors that you have suggested they've expressed. For example, that "the fact the author states as much" (meaning, they've said their play "mocks" the LDS religion). I'd welcome you posting whichever of the author's comments you're referring to, because I think it's helpful to see them in their full context. Here's several quotes by the authors from three different interviews, which I think help give a fuller understanding of the playwrights' views and intentions about trying to write about the Mormon Faith, vs. Mormons, themselves:

Daniel2

Daniel it appears you have no credibility on the issue. The quotes you used are the equivalent of anti-Mormons stating they don't hate our religion, they just want to show how "wrong" we are. The moment you tell us that the play isn't a mockery of our religion and denigrates us is the moment that your credibility slid down the drain. It is the equivalent of saying rape is foreplay. Or joking about blacks being somewhat slow witted is really just good natured joshing. None of that gives the author credibility and the fact that you offer the quote after quote about "how good natured the stupid Mormons are" reflects a deep schism between you and honest.

So go see the play and how it makes fun of Mormons, Africans, about how stupid they both are, how inferior they are in the use of logic. And then tell us it was light natured "joshing", something souttherners use alot. Same mental leaps, only now its coming from you, not from them.

Lets see how your own words would sound if we remove chocolate which you seem intent on everyone trying and place in it something that is the equivalent of denigrating a people...

However, even though you can experience enough to know you'd prefer to avoid something, I submit it's foolish to then attempt to make any definitive statements about it. For example, if one trys pedophilia, and tries a little bit, one might presume, "Wow... that's really interesting, but also really unique!" If you don't like pedophilia, or acts of pedophilia is against your principles, you know enough not to eat the whole cake and leave it alone. But if pedophilia is OK in your book, but you really prefer other types of pedophilia, but then decide to immediately abandon carrying out the act because of it's obvious problems, you'd miss out on the other aspects of pedophilia in the other aspects of the act, which is meant to enhance the earlier smaller acts of the pedophilia, itself.

Chocolate is neutral. Denigration of a religion, like pedophilia hurts someone to give someone else pleasure. Is this a position you realy want to have? I personally find such a position to illogical if one wishes to be conssitently ethical in respecting other groups, even groups you have dispute with.

[cinepro]

Yesterday, I was talking about The Book of Mormon musical with some people after Church, and one of them asked what I thought the overall effect on the Church would be. I was about to explain how people who had seen the show would have greater respect for LDS (and missionaries), and would better appreciate the good that LDS and religion in general can do.

But it occurred to me that any positives would be inconsequential in light of the real message non-LDS will take away. They will have been exposed to the Joseph Smith story, including the First Vision and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but done so in a way that it will be almost impossible for them to take it seriously.

Most missionaries are used to teaching people who haven't heard anything about Joseph Smith (or who think he's "John Smith"). But if the Book of Mormon musical gains traction and becomes more popular, there could be very many people who have learned to appreciate Mormon good intentions but will only laugh at the Joseph Smith story.

And the real clincher is that, contrary to the protests of some, the play presents the story pretty dang accurately in spite of itself. So the missionaries won't be able to counter these initial impressions by sharing "the Truth"; the story the missionaries share will be almost identical to the one the people have already heard. They can point out that there were witnesses to the plates, but in general, it's the same story. One is told to a disco beat, the other told in hushed tones with an exhortation to pray about it.

But ultimately, the Book of Mormon musical may end up being a good example of the principle of inoculation being used against apologetics instead of being used for it.

Edited June 20, 2011 by cinepro

[Bernard Gui]

Orgazmo.

Ah, Jeff.... I can see you're h***-bent on voraciously, fully condemning something of which you still have only limited exposure and understanding.

I agree that you certainly don't need to fully experience or see something in order to know it may not be congruent with your taste or views. You don't have to "eat the whole thing" to know that you won't like it.

However, even though you can experience enough to know you'd prefer to avoid something, I submit it's foolish to then attempt to make any definitive statements about it. For example, if one trys a chocolate lava cake, and only nibbles on the outside of the cake itself, one might presume, "Wow... that's really chocolatey, but also really dry!" If you don't like chocolate, or eating chocolate is against your principles, you know enough not to eat the whole cake and leave it alone. But if chocolate is OK in your book, but you really prefer moist chocolate, but then decide to immediately abandon eating the cake because of it's dryness, you'd miss out on the liquid chocolate in the center of the cake, which is meant to enhance the outer shell of the chocolate lava cake, itself.

Of course, that's an oversimplification. And by golly, I continue to maintain that most Latter-day Saints would be highly offended by much of what goes on in this play, and would be wise to avoid seeing it or listening to the soundtrack. I support their choice to limit their exposure to media that would offend their sensitibilities, and this one is certainly, understandably one such example of media that would do so.

HOWEVER... as I've said, I think it's foolish to then presume you can know exactly what the ultimate experience or "take away" is, from the play. It's foolish to think you can definitively know and proclaim just exactly what the point is, or what others were thinking or feeling when they left the theatre--because you choose not to be there (which most certainly IS your choice!). You have tasted the drier outer edge of the chocolate cake, without the moist, gooey center. And that left a bad taste in your mouth--and THAT'S OK. You shouldn't eat more.

You may want to consider trying to avoid taking a level of offense, however, that doesn't seem to be there. Your Faith is likely served better by following the LDS church's subdued response to this play, rather than writing words that come across as you having taken irrational offense at the play.

One more note of clarification: I'm not sure I've seen or read the kind of contempt from the play's authors that you have suggested they've expressed. For example, that "the fact the author states as much" (meaning, they've said their play "mocks" the LDS religion). I'd welcome you posting whichever of the author's comments you're referring to, because I think it's helpful to see them in their full context. Here's several quotes by the authors from three different interviews, which I think help give a fuller understanding of the playwrights' views and intentions about trying to write about the Mormon Faith, vs. Mormons, themselves:

Daniel2

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And the real clincher is that, contrary to the protests of some, the play presents the story pretty dang accurately in spite of itself. So the missionaries won't be able to counter these initial impressions by sharing "the Truth"; the story the missionaries share will be almost identical to the one the people have already heard. They can point out that there were witnesses to the plates, but in general, it's the same story. One is told to a disco beat, the other told in hushed tones with an exhortation to pray about it.

Maybe, what the missionaries should do then, is just get a copy of this play and present it as part of the lessons they present. I am sure they will get more converts by this uplifting, witty, non mocking, play.

Good call Cinepro.

[Daniel2]

Orgazmo.

Saw it. Didn't like it at all, and don't believe it is much like "The Book of Mormon Musical" (despite having been penned by one of the same authors).

Jeff, from my perspective, your responses don't reflect what I've said or intended to say, at all. I think you and I have such radically different viewpoints, and the divergence between my comparisons and yours seem (to me) to be so hyperbolic, that meaningful conversation between you and I appears to be pretty much impossible. (For example, equating rape and pedophilia to this musical is outlandish, IMO). As the saying goes, one definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting to get a different result. Given all of the above, for the most part, I'll probably avoid responding to your posts in this thread. Feel free to knock yourself out with the last word.

Daniel2

Edited June 20, 2011 by Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Saw it. Didn't like it at all, and don't believe it is much like "The Book of Mormon Musical" (despite having been penned by one of the same authors).

Jeff, from my perspective, your responses don't reflect what I've said or intended to say, at all. I think you and I have such radically different viewpoints, and the divergence between my comparisons and yours seem (to me) to be so hyperbolic, that meaningful conversation between you and I appears to be pretty much impossible. (For example, equating rape and pedophilia to this musical is outlandish, IMO). As the saying goes, one definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting to get a different result. Given all of the above, for the most part, I'll probably avoid responding to your posts in this thread. Feel free to knock yourself out with the last word.

Daniel2

Having used your own words against you the rejoinder by you is impossible since it exposes the flaws in your thinking. In your ethics if you will.

I used your own words. You seem to think that denigration of groups or religion is ok. I can't seem to understand how you yourself a minority with your sexual orientation feels that its ok to denigrate one group or have laughter at the expense of what that group holds important. Hyperbole isn't what I was attempting to show you, rather I was attempting to show you how you viewed the denigration of our religion, which we hold important, as being a neutral thing like chocolate. But chocolate does not provide pleasure to one group over the expense of other groups. The analogy fails miserably when I apply an issue that gives pleasure to one specific group over that of a minority.

As to the definition of insanity, yes. One must actually believe that by always saying that mockery of any religion, smearing what a minority holds important, belittling the sacrifices made, that somehow these things are good? Now that is insanity.

[OUmd]

Another (IMO, excellent) take on the play, this time, from the SLTrib:

Thanks for posting. I could relate.

[Bernard Gui]

QFT!

Orgazmo...do you have to see it in order to criticize

it?

Bernard