John Mark Reynolds On "The Book Of Mormon"

[Bernard Gui]

I think its obvious that writer of the play intended to poke fun of some beliefs of some Mormons.

Given his track record, Parker is doing much more than poking fun at some beliefs.

I read Daniel as saying that not all Mormons will or should take offense, and that if they were to see the play, many Mormons might be surprised to find that they enjoyed the play.

No doubt they would. Let's have some who have seen it describe what they enjoyed...other than the "catchy" tunes.

Most certainly he did not say that you should shut up, or even that you should not share your opinion, if you have not seen the play.

Feel free to comment, but be prepared to be foolish:

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. If you haven't seen the play, are you really in the position to dispute the fact that some Mormons may find themselves having a good time?

If you haven't seen the play, are you really in the position to dispute the fact that some Mormons may find themselves having a good time?

The fact that some might enjoy the desecration of their religion is not in dispute. We've already established that only the most self-righteous among us would

take offense at that. Any open-minded Mormon would readily recognize the play as the sincere love letter it was meant to be. Maybe some could comment.

I'll start a new thread on that issue.

Bernard

[Daniel2]

I appreciate your words, Mola, Jaybear, and Nathair.

Feel free to comment, but be prepared to be foolish:

Bernard

Bernard,

Re-read my words that you quoted. It's not "comments" about plays by individuals who choose not to see them that I find foolish:

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...

I would consider myself just as foolish if I presumed I could definitively speak to "what it's like to grow up Catholic," having not done so; or presumed to fully understand, know, and speak to "what an addict faces," or "what it feels like to be mentally ill," or any number of other issues, just because I read a book on it.

Could I offer valid concerns, meaningful criticisms, and observations on any or all of the above, having had some experience, albeit limited, with them? Of course I could. Would my comments be worth contributing to a discussion? Most definitely they would.

Foolishness comes from asserting a perfect knowledge about something I haven't personally experienced, and potentially even the extreme of asserting that I am more of an authority on an issue that I've only heard or read about, or experienced only in part, over than someone who fully experienced the event, itself.

My view,

Daniel2

Edited June 21, 2011 by Daniel2

[Bernard Gui]

Foolishness comes from asserting a perfect knowledge about something I haven't personally experienced, and potentially even the extreme of feeling like more of an authority on an issue than someone who's participated in the event, itself.

I agree that Parker and Stone foolishly set themselves up as authorities on organized religion, Mormonism in particular, because they have

never participated in them.

Bernard

[Daniel2]

I agree that Parker and Stone foolishly set themselves up as authorities on organized religion, Mormonism in particular, because they have

never participated in them.

Bernard

I agree that Parker and Stone have an incomplete view of what it means to be Mormon, because they've never experienced it fully for themselves.

Could you point to where they've specifically "set themselves up as authorities"?

Are you suggesting you agree with the concept that those who write books or plays about a given topic aren't or shouldn't be viewed as absolute authorities, if they haven't participated in said topic?

Daniel2

Edited June 21, 2011 by Daniel2

[Bernard Gui]

Could you point to where they've specifically "set themselves up as authorities"?

All of their published works.

Are you suggesting you agree with the concept that those who write books or plays about a given topic aren't or shouldn't be viewed as absolute authorities, if they haven't participated in said topic?

No more than that those who criticize them should not comment if they haven't seen the whole work. For example, I have never used controlled substances, but I have loved ones who paid dearly for their addictions. I can pass judgement on the wonderful world of drug use without ever using myself. The same is true with the issue at hand.

Bernard

Bernard

[cinepro]

All of their published works.

No more than that those who criticize them should not comment if they haven't seen the whole work. For example, I have never used controlled substances, but I have loved ones who paid dearly for their addictions. I can pass judgement on the wonderful world of drug use without ever using myself. The same is true with the issue at hand.

Bernard

Bernard

You can "pass judgment" on anything you want for any reason you want.

I could say that the city of Colcord, Oklahoma is a terrible place to live, and that anyone who moves there will be miserable. But I would also say that I have never been to Colcord, nor lived there, and have not even visited its website (if it even has one), but instead have based my judgement on the city having two c's and an even number of letters in its name.

So I have passed judgement, but what is the value of the judgment? If you talked with people who actually lived there, how much would you value my judgment in comparison to those who lived there?

Ultimately, there are some things you can divine about a broadway play from a description of its plot, the music and lyrics of the songs, and the reports of others who have seen it. But there are still some judgements that can't be made.

[Pahoran]

You can "pass judgment" on anything you want for any reason you want.

I could say that the city of Colcord, Oklahoma is a terrible place to live, and that anyone who moves there will be miserable. But I would also say that I have never been to Colcord, nor lived there, and have not even visited its website (if it even has one), but instead have based my judgement on the city having two c's and an even number of letters in its name.

So I have passed judgement, but what is the value of the judgment? If you talked with people who actually lived there, how much would you value my judgment in comparison to those who lived there?

Ultimately, there are some things you can divine about a broadway play from a description of its plot, the music and lyrics of the songs, and the reports of others who have seen it. But there are still some judgements that can't be made.

The judgement that it blasphemes and mocks the faith of the Latter-day Saints is one of the things that is very clearly available on the evidence before us.

The judgement that such considerations are more important than whether the tunes are catchy, or the Mormons are "nice" in some kind of patronising who-wouldn't-like-the-village-idiot way is likewise available to us.

The further judgement that such considerations don't matter a tinker's damn to you is also available.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

The judgement that it blasphemes and mocks the faith of the Latter-day Saints is one of the things that is very clearly available on the evidence before us.

The judgement that such considerations are more important than whether the tunes are catchy, or the Mormons are "nice" in some kind of patronising who-wouldn't-like-the-village-idiot way is likewise available to us.

The further judgement that such considerations don't matter a tinker's damn to you is also available.

Regards,

Pahoran

Its like the opposite of say water quality standards, You can either have glass full of 99.99999% poo and .00001% water or you can 99.99999% and .00001% poo. Yes both have water, and water is good, ... I think the point is well made by many other here.

[Bernard Gui]

I suspect a lot of these perceptions are influenced by how much exposure people have had to South Park (not that I blame anyone for not watching it). If you've watched the show with any regularity, it's not too hard to see the difference between the Parker/Stone humor towards Catholics, Muslims and Scientologists compared to Mormons. There can be a huge difference in how they treat people that they "like", and those they hold in disdain.

As I said, a whole career built on sarcasm, mockery, and judging others...how do you know when they are telling the truth?

It's safe to assume they're still jiving us even when they say we are so ***** nice.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Ultimately, there are some things you can divine about a broadway play from a description of its plot, the music and lyrics of the songs, and the reports of others who have seen it. But there are still some judgements that can't be made.

All those years I spent reading Shakespeare...I'll never get them back. I'm down with Blackadder punching the old bard out in revenge!

What are some of those judgements that can't be made?

Like how compassionate the porn dudes were with the LDS missionary?

Bernard

[OUmd]

As I said, a whole career built on sarcasm, mockery, and judging others...how do you know when they are telling the truth?

It's safe to assume they're still jiving us even when they say we are so ***** nice.

Bernard

Does it matter if they are "telling the truth"? They are entertainers. Anyone that goes to see The Book of Mormon to learn "the truth" about Mormons and not be entertained is about as bright as someone that goes to X-Men expecting to learn the "truth" about genetic mutation. This doesn't mean that there might not be elements of truth in these productions.

The discussions on this musical over the past few months have been fascinating to me, but as many discussions/arguments there just seems to be a constant back and forth. One theme that I continue to see is one side that can understand the "blasphemy" and perhaps look beyond it (for whatever end result) vs. those that feel it is "blasphemous" and for that sole reason it should be avoided, disdained, and ignored (and perhaps go as far to say any LDS person that "supports" the musical is a "coward").

I can certainly understand both sides. I am LDS, saw the musical and took my wife. I posted my review months ago in a previous thread and I still hold strongly to that review. She can laugh at South Park and I think she had a fairly good idea what to expect before going in, but she still eventually went ENTIRELY for me. She struggled through it, and still does to a large extent until I made one comment to her that I think helped her.

The day after the performance we were discussing the show and her concern with the "blasphemy" was so intense that she could not look past anything else. I couldn't even discuss it with her, which was very discouraging to me as I wanted to discuss many of the feelings I had from the experience. I asked her if she understood that much of our basic theology (for example, our understanding of who God really is - our literal Heavenly Father) is largely considered extremely "blasphemous" to much of the Christian world. So much so, that many feel and preach that Mormonism is actually a tool that satan uses to deceive God's followers from the "truth". Are they right? Is their scream of "blasphemy" warranted? Was my wife's feelings of blasphemy (or anyone else's) about the show any different? Does the concern with "blasphemy" close the mind so much that "truth" can't get through? Where is the line drawn? Does it do any good to try and convince someone else that their line of blasphemy is too short, or too long?

Empathy and humility is an important principle that all of us should remember when discussing things.

[Jeff K.]

I look at it this way. There is a small morsel of filet mignon. However we have buried it in a pile of cow manure. To get to that morsel, you will have to eat your way through the pile of manure.

Isn't it great! Lets talk about how great it is. Isn't that filet lovely. Oh, don't pay attention to the bad taste in your mouth, isn't the filet worth it? Don't you just love the way it tastes. And that filet was put there for you. So buck up and enjoy and try not to complain about the very large stinking pile you had to sit, er eat through.

Another analogy.

Racist bigots who spend their entire lives putting down African Americans finally put together a minstral show. They show how much rythm those "boys have" and they show how they are dumb, easily manipulated, but in the end honest hard workers. Just kinda slow.

Really, they were being sincere. "Them n******** are such wunnerful people, I even have a friend who is one....."

How is it, that people who claim to be tolerant and educated are so blind to what is actually being done?

[Pahoran]

The day after the performance we were discussing the show and her concern with the "blasphemy" was so intense that she could not look past anything else. I couldn't even discuss it with her, which was very discouraging to me as I wanted to discuss many of the feelings I had from the experience. I asked her if she understood that much of our basic theology (for example, our understanding of who God really is - our literal Heavenly Father) is largely considered extremely "blasphemous" to much of the Christian world. So much so, that many feel and preach that Mormonism is actually a tool that satan uses to deceive God's followers from the "truth". Are they right? Is their scream of "blasphemy" warranted? Was my wife's feelings of blasphemy (or anyone else's) about the show any different? Does the concern with "blasphemy" close the mind so much that "truth" can't get through? Where is the line drawn? Does it do any good to try and convince someone else that their line of blasphemy is too short, or too long?

There is, of course, a fundamental difference in what you are comparing here. When "Christian" zealots take it upon themselves to declare our genuinely held beliefs "blasphemous," they are merely saying that they don't like the way we talk about our beliefs. This would be parallel, therefore, if Stone and Parker's cheap exploitation piece were merely talking about their own beliefs, and we were objecting to it.

But, as you know, that is not the case. The case is that that pair of conscienceless exploiters are making money by trashing our beliefs.

Not theirs; ours.

Empathy and humility is an important principle that all of us should remember when discussing things.

True.

So when do you plan to become humble enough to show some empathy towards your wife's sensitivity for sacred matters, which, when all is said and done, are infinitely more important that mere "entertainment?"

Or should that be "exploitainment?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

I asked her if she understood that much of our basic theology (for example, our understanding of who God really is - our literal Heavenly Father) is largely considered extremely "blasphemous" to much of the Christian world. So much so, that many feel and preach that Mormonism is actually a tool that satan uses to deceive God's followers from the "truth". Are they right? Is their scream of "blasphemy" warranted? Was my wife's feelings of blasphemy (or anyone else's) about the show any different? Does the concern with "blasphemy" close the mind so much that "truth" can't get through? Where is the line drawn? Does it do any good to try and convince someone else that their line of blasphemy is too short, or too long?

It is a silly comparison. Consider for a moment, that there can be a serious difference of opinion between Latter-day Saints and other religions regarding a whole issue of doctrines. But in no sense has our church or other churches sought to denigrate their beliefs, even as we disagreed with them. We respect their difference of opinion, we do not laugh at them, we do not tell them they are idiots for believing it, we do not insinuate their belief systems are stupid. Nor do we make vapid jokes about them.

You have artificially elevated a perverted presentation of a belief system which does denigrate, make light of, and mock different religions, to a theological discussion regarding differences in beliefs. Do you really think the comparison is either accurate or even acceptable between sincere thinking individuals of distinct religious beliefs? Do you believe that making up songs that denigrate another religion is the same as discussing differences? I don't, never have, and I cannot for the life of me understand how someone who is a Latter-day Saint would attend the play, or a similar play if it did the same to other churches.

So, go ahead and say "Can't you take a joke". There are some jokes that are meant to hurt, to denigrate, and used to reinforce bigotry. Should we have to take it?

[Jeff K.]

Empathy and humility is an important principle that all of us should remember when discussing things.

Apparently the empathy and humility you have is for those who malign and degrade us. Your wife's view was correct. You apparently can't see it.

[OUmd]

How is it, that people who claim to be tolerant and educated are so blind to what is actually being done?

Good question.

[OUmd]

So when do you plan to become humble enough to show some empathy towards your wife's sensitivity for sacred matters, which, when all is said and done, are infinitely more important that mere "entertainment?"

Or should that be "exploitainment?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Perhaps, the moment I said "I can certainly understand both sides".

[Jeff K.]

If you understand both sides, then explain to us what creates the right of one side to entirely disrespect religion, while the other side remains respectful? How do you reconcile that if you "understand both sides"?

Sometimes wrong is just wrong, and going along with the crowd cannot be justified.

[OUmd]

Apparently the empathy and humility you have is for those who malign and degrade us. Your wife's view was correct. You apparently can't see it.

No, you can't see what I was trying to say. I never said she was "wrong" and I was "right".

[OUmd]

If you understand both sides, then explain to us what creates the right of one side to entirely disrespect religion, while the other side remains respectful? How do you reconcile that if you "understand both sides"?

Sometimes wrong is just wrong, and going along with the crowd cannot be justified.

Yes, but believe it - or not - some people believe that it is wrong to be LDS. So what is exactly "wrong"?

[Jeff K.]

Again you miss the point. Difference of opinion is not the equivalent of mockery that you seem to think it is.

The mockery and denigration itself is wrong, whether you believe in a religion or not.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Jeff K.

[OUmd]

Again you miss the point. Difference of opinion is not the equivalent of mockery that you seem to think it is.

The mockery and denigration itself is wrong, whether you believe in a religion or not.

I am not "missing the point". I think you are. This is not a "difference of opinion" among religions. There are those that believe it is blasphemous to believe that God is our literal spiritual Father. There are those that believe seeing two-young men wearing LDS garments on stage is blasphemous. I can empathize with BOTH beliefs. Doesn't mean I agree with them, it means I can empathize with them.

When I walked out of The Book of Mormon musical, I felt like a better Mormon. Period. When I listen to the soundtrack, I feel like a better Mormon. No one can take that feeling away from me. My wife doesn't feel the same way. This doesn't make her "wrong" or me "right". It does mean that I have enough respect for her that I don't play it while she is in the car with me and/or I don't try and convince her to have the same feelings towards it that I do.

Edited June 22, 2011 by OUmd

[cinepro]

Racist bigots who spend their entire lives putting down African Americans finally put together a minstral show. They show how much rythm those "boys have" and they show how they are dumb, easily manipulated, but in the end honest hard workers. Just kinda slow.

Really, they were being sincere. "Them n******** are such wunnerful people, I even have a friend who is one....."

Jeff K., did you ever see "Saturday's Warrior"? Were you offended at how

?

[Jeff K.]

When I walked out of The Book of Mormon musical, I felt like a better Mormon. Period. When I listen to the soundtrack, I feel like a better Mormon. No one can take that feeling away from me. My wife doesn't feel the same way. This doesn't make her "wrong" or me "right". It does mean that I have enough respect for her that I don't play it while she is in the car with me and/or I don't try and convince her to have the same feelings towards it that I do.

Having been a convert I will tell you that you do not see the difference. Yes, people strongly believe we are wrong in our religion. But the better ones do not mock us, they worry, they argue, and sometimes they yell. But that is because religion by its nature is important.

You seem to think so lightly of religion that you believe mockery is the same as a difference of opinion, which is bizarre because most people know the difference. You seem to think denigrating someone is the same as worrying about them returning to Heavenly Father, or worrying that a Mormon will get to heaven. Perhaps the English language confuses you and so you erroneous believe that blasphemy and mockery are exactly the equivalent of each other? I am not sure, but I can tell you that I was willing to walk away from people and let my digust be known when they made bigoted remarks about African Americans, or Catholics, or women. You seem to want to empathize with that sort of thing, you seem to think (in comparison) well some women are irrational, some African Americans are not very bright, and some Catholics are pedophiles, so the jokes are ok with you, after all, you understand their point of view.

Wonderful... but such denigration and mockery have no place, not in this church and not in most I know of, and certainly should not be endorsed in any sense of the word by members.'

It seems you are straining to go along with crowd.....

You felt like a better Mormon when you left the play? One wonders what kind of Mormon you were before?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., did you ever see "Saturday's Warrior"? Were you offended at how

?

Not a big fan of the play. Why do you ask? Did it make fun of other religions? Did it make fun of our religion? Perhaps it was the foul language? Or maybe Saturday's Warrior made incredible fun of belief systems and thought if you believed them you had to be an idiot? Are those the parts that offended you?