John Mark Reynolds On "The Book Of Mormon"

[Bernard Gui]

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.

My discussion is not about the "truth" of the play, but about the mock

sincerity of the authors in interviews when they claim they really like Mormons

and don't really want to offend because Mormons are "so **** nice" . Given their

history with things Mormon and their sarcastic, mocking, judgmental style,

those statements are just part of their scam ...

making lots of money by telling stupid stories to people. How does one determine

the veracity of professional jivers?

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

Except if one is an entertainer. Then, anything goes. And the further it goes,

the greater its reward.

Bernard

Edited June 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[OUmd]

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?

I have said nothing of mockery, only blasphemy (def - the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God).

The only bigotry (def - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) I have seen in this thread is from those that denounce the musical.

As far as mockery (def - Derision; ridicule), your bolded statement might fit that one.

I am done.

[cinepro]

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?

If you look at my post, I actually quoted you above my comment so people could read what you had said that I was responding to.

So, to be clear (again), I was referring to the accusation that the portrayal of the missionaries in The Book of Mormon musical is "minstrel" like in its presentation of their innocence, optimism, naivety, and cheerfulness.

The other elements you refer to aren't applicable to the "minstrel" accusation as far as I can tell.

Although the issue of whether or not Saturday's Warrior makes fun of other belief systems can't be answered without exhibit A:

Idiots indeed.

Edited June 22, 2011 by cinepro

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Would you please look at the thread I started

entitled "Have you seen it?"

Thanks.

Bernard

[Pahoran]

I have said nothing of mockery, only blasphemy (def - the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God).

The only bigotry (def - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) I have seen in this thread is from those that denounce the musical.

As far as mockery (def - Derision; ridicule), your bolded statement might fit that one.

I am done.

So it's "bigotry" to hold that respect for matters that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints is a higher value than mere entertainment.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

I have said nothing of mockery, only blasphemy (def - the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God).

The only bigotry (def - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) I have seen in this thread is from those that denounce the musical.

As far as mockery (def - Derision; ridicule), your bolded statement might fit that one.

I am done.

Amazing. You blame the victim in order to justify your position. Mormons are supposed to be able to "take it"? They are supposed to say that being mocked and ridiculed is a good thing? One wonders if you apply such intellectual standards to women and races also? Or are you able to see the implications of the logic you present to us here in this forum?

As far as mockery (def - Derision; ridicule), your bolded statement might fit that one.

I stated:

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

In response of your somewhat strange statement that you felt like a better Mormon after seeing the play. One wonders then, if they had gone a little further and perhaps makes a colorful "coat of many colors" comedy sketch of the temple rites we Latter-day Saints go through, how much BETTER you would have felt as a Mormon. I have never known someone who felt better about who they were when people mocked, reviled and attacked them. Usually those are trials of faith... Unless of course we give up and join the mob in the attacks.

Sheesh, you felt better.

[Bernard Gui]

So, to be clear (again), I was referring to the accusation that the portrayal of the missionaries in The Book of Mormon musical is "minstrel" like in its presentation of their innocence, optimism, naivety, and cheerfulness.

I don't believe those are the reasons the reviewer in the OP

compared BoM to a minstrel show. Having performed in minstrel

shows as a youth, I assure you those were not the characteristics

of black people that were the stock stereotyped characters. And to preclude any

unwarranted conjecture, I was not in blackface, but was merely one

of the musical skits in the shows. I did learn to play the "bones" from

the white man who played Mr. Bones. Man, could he tap dance!

Bernard

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Jeff K.]

If you look at my post, I actually quoted you above my comment so people could read what you had said that I was responding to.

So, to be clear (again), I was referring to the accusation that the portrayal of the missionaries in The Book of Mormon musical is "minstrel" like in its presentation of their innocence, optimism, naivety, and cheerfulness.

The other elements you refer to aren't applicable to the "minstrel" accusation as far as I can tell.

Although the issue of whether or not Saturday's Warrior makes fun of other belief systems can't be answered without exhibit A:

Idiots indeed.

The play is not a very good one. Granted. You however have attempted to sidestep the mockery, and attempted to state a play that was sincerely put together is of the same level of mockery and denigration (which by the way minstral shows often were. You can also look at Uncle Remus and early Warner Brothers cartoons for other stereotypes). I think you attempted to misplace a bad play with a deliberately snide and mocking one. The intent is very clear on both. I think it more than a little disengenuous for you to attempt as much. It implies you are either dishonest, or somehow cannot distinguish between the motivation to denigrate and deride, and the inability to write a good musical.

I am sure the musical of Parker et al is superior in many many ways. But their motivation is to deride and reinforce bigotry. On the other hand the authors of the musical Saturday's Warriors, while short on talent to perhaps writing something adequate, had no desire to reinforce bigotry or deride a religion, any religion.

So your point is moot and merely an attempt to evade the responsibility of endorsing a musical that plays into bigotry. How sad for you.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jeff K.

[cdowis]

Very basic question:

do you see a group of missionaries, a group of LDS youth singing songs from Saturday's Warrior on stage in an LDS chapel? Has this actually happened.

Now I want you to envision a missionary or LDS youth singing "I believe" to a group of LDS. Close your eyes and see it happen.

The former has indeed occured. If you can honestly see the second happening, I think you have fallen off the cliff. You just do not see what that song does to our religion.

+++++++++++++++

..........steps approaching the door of the great building. It opens.

You peek inside and see some things that you can participate and assist in their activities. Many of them have little practical knowledge of Mormon doctrine and you teach them how their mockery actually fits into church history. Someone mentioned creating planets. That puts a wide grin on their face, so that becomes grist for their mill. You give aid and comfort for those who may feel uncomfortable shouting and laughing at Mormon doctrine.

They eagerly listen.

"They really do believe that", you declare. And they feel so much better.

Edited June 23, 2011 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

You peek inside and see some things that you can participate and assist in their activities. Many of them have little practical knowledge of Mormon doctrine and you teach them how their mockery actually fits into church history. Someone mentioned creating planets. That puts a wide grin on their face, so that becomes grist for their mill. You give aid and comfort for those who may feel uncomfortable shouting and laughing at Mormon doctrine.

They eagerly listen.

"They really do believe that", you declare. And they feel so much better.

Well, if it wins the Tony, it must be good. All those theater folks can't be wrong.

Bernard

[cinepro]

"They really do believe that", you declare. And they feel so much better.

Now you've got me curious. Suppose you were at work and someone pulled you aside and said "Hey cdowis, I know you're a Mormon and I saw the Tony awards last week. Do you guys really believe you'll get your own planet one day?"*

How would you respond? Would you simply say "No, we don't believe that"? Would explain that we usually only allude to it and use carefully reinforced euphemisms since it sounds kind of weird to non-Mormons if we just plainly say it? Would you say "Yes, we do, would you like to learn more?"

I'm comfortable with the idea that LDS believe exaltation involves becoming Gods of our own planet(s). I might prefer that non-Mormons not write plays about Mormon missionaries singing about this being something they believe, but I'm not going to accuse them of misrepresenting Mormon beliefs after they've done so.

*Bonus question: The guy then says that he was curious so he went to the Church website to see what we teach, and in a book called "Gospel Principles" he read that our goal is "Exaltation", and this involves becoming the "father of spirit children" and a "creator" like God is. His understanding is that God "created" this planet, and so this sounds like the manual is saying we also get to be "creators" of something similar. Is he reading this wrong?

Edited June 23, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

The play is not a very good one. Granted. You however have attempted to sidestep the mockery, and attempted to state a play that was sincerely put together is of the same level of mockery and denigration (which by the way minstral shows often were. You can also look at Uncle Remus and early Warner Brothers cartoons for other stereotypes). I think you attempted to misplace a bad play with a deliberately snide and mocking one. The intent is very clear on both. I think it more than a little disengenuous for you to attempt as much. It implies you are either dishonest, or somehow cannot distinguish between the motivation to denigrate and deride, and the inability to write a good musical.

As far as I can tell, everything "Mormon" in the Book of Mormon musical is represented by missionaries. There are no regular members of the Church.

So if we're talking about how the missionaries are presented in the play and going to accuse Parker, Stone and Lopez of "mocking" them and creating a minstrel-type show that denigrates the missionaries and the Church, I think it's valid to look at how LDS playwrights have presented missionaries in our plays (and Saturday's Warrior is the most popular LDS musical of all time, so it's a great example).

I am sure the musical of Parker et al is superior in many many ways. But their motivation is to deride and reinforce bigotry. On the other hand the authors of the musical Saturday's Warriors, while short on talent to perhaps writing something adequate, had no desire to reinforce bigotry or deride a religion, any religion.

So your point is moot and merely an attempt to evade the responsibility of endorsing a musical that plays into bigotry. How sad for you.

I'm not sure I understand your use of the word "bigotry". In what way are the people who see the Book of Mormon musical more likely to feel bigotry towards the missionaries, the Church, or its doctrines?

Frankly, I would give anything to be a missionary in New York City right now. They must be minor celebrities.

Edited June 23, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 22 June 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

The play is not a very good one. Granted. You however have attempted to sidestep the mockery, and attempted to state a play that was sincerely put together is of the same level of mockery and denigration (which by the way minstral shows often were. You can also look at Uncle Remus and early Warner Brothers cartoons for other stereotypes). I think you attempted to misplace a bad play with a deliberately snide and mocking one. The intent is very clear on both. I think it more than a little disengenuous for you to attempt as much. It implies you are either dishonest, or somehow cannot distinguish between the motivation to denigrate and deride, and the inability to write a good musical.

As far as I can tell, everything "Mormon" in the Book of Mormon musical is represented by missionaries. There are no regular members of the Church.

So if we're talking about how the missionaries are presented in the play and going to accuse Parker, Stone and Lopez of "mocking" them and creating a minstrel-type show that denigrates the missionaries and the Church, I think it's valid to look at how LDS playwrights have presented missionaries in our plays (and Saturday's Warrior is the most popular LDS musical of all time, so it's a great example).

Jefferson slept with Salley Hemming, a slave. Was he a rapist? I am sure if you were anti Jeffersonian then yes. If you thought better of Jefferson, than no (Sally bore a strking resemblence to his dead wife, her half sister). Nothing is "misrepresented" except context and the ability to condemn.

So if we're talking about how the missionaries are presented in the play and going to accuse Parker, Stone and Lopez of "mocking" them and creating a minstrel-type show that denigrates the missionaries and the Church, I think it's valid to look at how LDS playwrights have presented missionaries in our plays (and Saturday's Warrior is the most popular LDS musical of all time, so it's a great example

No, its not.

I tire of repeating myself...

The play is not a very good one. Granted. You however have attempted to sidestep the mockery, and attempted to state a play that was sincerely put together is of the same level of mockery and denigration (which by the way minstral shows often were. You can also look at Uncle Remus and early Warner Brothers cartoons for other stereotypes). I think you attempted to misplace a bad play with a deliberately snide and mocking one. The intent is very clear on both. I think it more than a little disengenuous for you to attempt as much. It implies you are either dishonest, or somehow cannot distinguish between the motivation to denigrate and deride, and the inability to write a good musical.

Quote

I am sure the musical of Parker et al is superior in many many ways. But their motivation is to deride and reinforce bigotry. On the other hand the authors of the musical Saturday's Warriors, while short on talent to perhaps writing something adequate, had no desire to reinforce bigotry or deride a religion, any religion.

So your point is moot and merely an attempt to evade the responsibility of endorsing a musical that plays into bigotry. How sad for you.

I'm not sure I understand your use of the word "bigotry". In what way are the people who see the Book of Mormon musical more likely to feel bigotry towards the missionaries, the Church, or its doctrines?

.

I do understand the word bigotry and use it in the correct context. Stupid slow thinking Mormons who are naive and idiotic in their beliefs, this is what the play wants us to see. Such is a bigoted stance.

Frankly, I would give anything to be a missionary in New York City right now. They must be minor celebrities

I hope you do not have that opportunity. Based on your ability to go along with the mocking and denigrating of Mormons is fine, ie your endorsement of that overly spacious house across the river, I do not think you would represent the church very well.

You are on your way to being suspended. Clean up the attitude and tone in your posts.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Minos

[TAO]

Now you've got me curious. Suppose you were at work and someone pulled you aside and said "Hey cdowis, I know you're a Mormon and I saw the Tony awards last week. Do you guys really believe you'll get your own planet one day?"*

How would you respond? Would you simply say "No, we don't believe that"? Would explain that we usually only allude to it and use carefully reinforced euphemisms since it sounds kind of weird to non-Mormons if we just plainly say it? Would you say "Yes, we do, would you like to learn more?"

I would respond, no, we do not believe that. I would then say 'we believe though, that we can become like God by following him'. And that would probably be good to leave it at =).

I'm comfortable with the idea that LDS believe exaltation involves becoming Gods of our own planet(s). I might prefer that non-Mormons not write plays about Mormon missionaries singing about this being something they believe, but I'm not going to accuse them of misrepresenting Mormon beliefs after they've done so.

However, that is not what exaltation is about, so I think it's misrepresentative. Which means, that representing it as the important thing, isn't correct. Also... again... even if it was the case, how do you know it would just be planets? Either way, it is a bit of a misnomer, which is why I complain a bit about it.

*Bonus question: The guy then says that he was curious so he went to the Church website to see what we teach, and in a book called "Gospel Principles" he read that our goal is "Exaltation", and this involves becoming the "father of spirit children" and a "creator" like God is. His understanding is that God "created" this planet, and so this sounds like the manual is saying we also get to be "creators" of something similar. Is he reading this wrong?

I would say this is correct. Then I would ask him why we go through hard trials. After all, we only go through hard trials to teach us, to prepare us for something. But for what? This is what we believe it will be =). This is what we prepare for in life, the goal of it all, the reason why people suffer, for goodness, 'but for a moment'. That is why =D.

[cinepro]

I do understand the word bigotry and use it in the correct context. Stupid slow thinking Mormons who are naive and idiotic in their beliefs, this is what the play wants us to see. Such is a bigoted stance.

Every definition of "bigot" that I could find uses words like "hatred" and "intolerance".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot?show=0&t=1308854775

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

Is it your feeling that Parker and Stone feel hatred, intolerance or animosity towards the Church?

Since we're all so sensitive about mind reading and putting words into other peoples' mouths on this board, I'll let Parker and Stone

:

Parker: We didn't sit down and say "Alright let's bash Mormons...let's spend seven years of our lives writing a Broadway musical so that we can rip on Mormons..."

Stone: Even if we did hate Mormons that would be a weird thing to do...

Parker: Yeah, that's just a big waste of time. We really just wanted to make a very traditional, classical musical, just like a Rogers and Hammerstien kind of musical, but instead of being about people in Oklahoma or in the islands during World War II, we wanted to make it about Mormons, and so right away, we knew what we were doing, we knew this wasn't a big screw-you to Mormons.

They then go on to talk about the positive reaction they've gotten from Mormons who have actually seen the show.

Bigots indeed.

Edited June 23, 2011 by cinepro

[Deborah]

Funny that Saturday's Warrior was brought up. My g-kids just watched it again this weekend and love it and know all the songs.

SW was a light-hearted look at Mormonism done my Mormons who are aware of our foibles but present them with affection. And I think most LDS, including the kids, recognize the exaggerations and non-doctrinal theories. My g-kids were laughing at the cheesy parts and just had fun with it.

From what I've read there is no affection on the part of the writers of the BOM musical. These guys mock all things sacred and twist everything to fit their own irreverent view of all things religious. They may have hit some points on the truth of the human condition, but any redeeming factors should be lost in the profanity and mockery of the church, except for those few who will strain to find some redeeming factor to appear open minded yet still faithful.

[cinepro]

I would respond, no, we do not believe that. I would then say 'we believe though, that we can become like God by following him'. And that would probably be good to leave it at =).

However, that is not what exaltation is about, so I think it's misrepresentative. Which means, that representing it as the important thing, isn't correct. Also... again... even if it was the case, how do you know it would just be planets? Either way, it is a bit of a misnomer, which is why I complain a bit about it.

I would say this is correct. Then I would ask him why we go through hard trials. After all, we only go through hard trials to teach us, to prepare us for something. But for what? This is what we believe it will be =). This is what we prepare for in life, the goal of it all, the reason why people suffer, for goodness, 'but for a moment'. That is why =D.

That's one way to say it.

The other would be "I believe that God has a plan of us… and that that plan involves me getting my own planet."

[Jeff K.]

Every definition of "bigot" that I could find uses words like "hatred" and "intolerance".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot?show=0&t=1308854775

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

Is it your feeling that Parker and Stone feel hatred, intolerance or animosity towards the Church?

Since we're all so sensitive about mind reading and putting words into other peoples' mouths on this board, I'll let Parker and Stone

:

They then go on to talk about the positive reaction they've gotten from Mormons who have actually seen the show.

Bigots indeed.

You can find black men who endorsed the Amos and Andy radio show (done by a white group).

Yes, bigots indeed.

[Jeff K.]

bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

I take it you believe denigration and mockery do not reflect bigotry?

[cinepro]

Yes, bigots indeed.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing it as bigotry. Maybe you could be a little more specific, since it's kind of a general label.

Which statements from Parker and Stone do you find the most bigoted? Or which parts of the musical display hatred, animosity or intolerance towards the Church?

I've already provided one quote as an example of how Parker and Stone express their attitudes towards members of the Church, and that quote is consistent with everything I've ever heard them say on the subject before. And I have listened to the entire soundtrack for the musical and can't recall hearing anything that was hateful or intolerant towards Mormons or our beliefs, but I may have missed something.

So do share.

[Jeff K.]

You know, a klans man may never say anything directly bad about someone while he is nailing the cross, while he putting gas on the cross, and staking it on his African American neighbors house. Even as he lights the match.

Not one bigoted thing, just a gleeful aww shucks

By their works you shall know them...

It is a shame you cannot tell the difference. It is sad that you would look at the burning cross and say "Well they didn't say anything bad, and at least more people know about African Americans now", and you will probably defend them and say "I am not sure that they are bigoted"

The saddest part about such collaboration with bigots is that one justifies so many different intolerant viewpoints of our church and soon you justify anything.

I wouldn't want to be in that crowd. But some are very comfortable in it.

As you say Cinepro, do share. Tell us how it feels to justify mockery of the church.

This is over the top. You have already been banned from one thread. Now you are suspended.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Minos

[cinepro]

You know, a klans man may never say anything directly bad about someone while he is nailing the cross, while he putting gas on the cross, and staking it on his African American neighbors house. Even as he lights the match.

Not one bigoted thing, just a gleeful aww shucks

By their works you shall know them...

It is a shame you cannot tell the difference. It is sad that you would look at the burning cross and say "Well they didn't say anything bad, and at least more people know about African Americans now", and you will probably defend them and say "I am not sure that they are bigoted"

The saddest part about such collaboration with bigots is that one justifies so many different intolerant viewpoints of our church and soon you justify anything.

I wouldn't want to be in that crowd. But some are very comfortable in it.

As you say Cinepro, do share. Tell us how it feels to justify mockery of the church.

Good example. A Klan burning of a cross to terrorize someone is a great, specific example of a bigoted act. Ironically, Parker and Stone have also shown it can also be very funny*.

Since I'm fairly certain Parker and Stone aren't members of the KKK and have never actually set fire to a cross on someone's lawn, do you have any similarly specific examples that pertain to them?

Or, in other words, in what way is The Book of Mormon musical like a burning cross on a Mormon's lawn? And are all the positive reviews by LDS reviewers really just a trend of Mormon Uncle Toms begging for gentile approval, or is it possible they really did fail to detect the hatred?

*The context of the clip is that Kobe Bryant and other rich people have moved to South Park, so the poorer locals resent their wealth and decide to send a message and are totally oblivious to the Klan-like nature of their behavior. Especially when they dress up as ghosts to scare them off.

Edited June 23, 2011 by cinepro

[Nathair/|\]

Now you've got me curious. Suppose you were at work and someone pulled you aside and said "Hey cdowis, I know you're a Mormon and I saw the Tony awards last week. Do you guys really believe you'll get your own planet one day?"*

How would you respond? Would you simply say "No, we don't believe that"? Would explain that we usually only allude to it and use carefully reinforced euphemisms since it sounds kind of weird to non-Mormons if we just plainly say it? Would you say "Yes, we do, would you like to learn more?"

I'm comfortable with the idea that LDS believe exaltation involves becoming Gods of our own planet(s). I might prefer that non-Mormons not write plays about Mormon missionaries singing about this being something they believe, but I'm not going to accuse them of misrepresenting Mormon beliefs after they've done so.

*Bonus question: The guy then says that he was curious so he went to the Church website to see what we teach, and in a book called "Gospel Principles" he read that our goal is "Exaltation", and this involves becoming the "father of spirit children" and a "creator" like God is. His understanding is that God "created" this planet, and so this sounds like the manual is saying we also get to be "creators" of something similar. Is he reading this wrong?

I still don't get why people so often limit our exalted authority to merely a single planet rather than an entire universe.

[KevinG]

I still don't get why people so often limit our exalted authority to merely a single planet rather than an entire universe.

They don't have a full concept of what it means to be a joint heir with Christ.

[Bernard Gui]

This is the last comment I will have on this topic.

I've been involved in musical productions for 40 years. I've played and conducted musicals including Fiddler on the Roof, South Pacific,

Music Man, Oklahoma, Annie, Showboat, Porgy and Bess, Once Upon a Mattress, Li'l Abner, Pirates of Penzance. Not once was I ashamed to have friends and relatives see the performances, and I have never hesitated to take my own children or friends' children to the productions.

I cannot say this about Book of Mormon. I could never be a part of the production, and I would never recommend it to anyone.

It's sad what these people have done to a once great American art form. The bar has been

set so low, that we are now defending and honoring the grossest obscenities because they make us laugh. Where will it go from here?

What does the next show have to do in order to win the coveted Tony?

The makers of the show claim they just wanted to do something in the tradition of Rodgers and Hammerstein and the Mormons

were a good vehicle for their excursion...

R & H took on some tough social issues and made serious comments, but they never resorted to offal like BoM.

What a debased mockery of their lives' work!

For the life of me, I cannot understand a Latter-day Saint defending this on any level except maybe at the most basic level, freedom of speech, no less wanting to pay money, their life's blood, to see it and then claim they were honored, entertained, uplifted.

One of the great traditions of Broadway is that good shows can live outside of New York.

Who here will take your children to see BoM when your local musical theater or high school puts it on stage?

I reject the hollow defense that it is "adult" humor. It does not rise above "junior high" humor. There is nothing "adult" about it.

Sophistication is the way racism was treated in South Pacific. Puerility is how religion is treated in BoM.

As Parker said of the Scientologists: they make money selling stupid stories to people. How true, how true. "Life upon the wicked stage..."

Bernard

PS:

I was prepared for scatological humor, generous doses of the F word, and off-color bawdiness—this is South Park without network censorship, remember?—but I wasn’t prepared for my Mormon faith to be lampooned with any sensitivity. I was happy to be wrong.

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/03/a-mormon-reviews-broadway%e2%80%99s-new-book-of-mormon-musical.html#ixzz1Q8P1nALa

Good Lord! A Mormon sucked into the black-hole cesspool of American Pop Culture...prime example.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui