california boy Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Calm said: "Things only get worse from there. Elder Price’s reward for baring his soul is sexual assault. There were a few gasps from the Salt Lake audience when this plot turn was revealed, but it was followed by laughter. In some twisted way this was the writers’ ultimate achievement. Congratulations guys, you made a brutal rape comedic, and it’s okay because the weapon was literally Mormon scripture and the victim a dumb missionary. Yes, this is make-believe. Yes, this is parody. Yes, I can take a joke, but at that point in the show, the audience was as complicit as the goons that guard the Ugandan warlord. We laugh at the cruelty; Elder Price is no longer a human being. We have entered the realm of bigotry. Behold the power of theater." "Just because we can say something doesn’t mean we should. If a satirist chooses to ridicule an already marginalized group he is now in a position of privilege that can contribute to a dangerous unawareness of how his unbridled speech can degrade the humanity of his targets. The consequence of that abuse of power is that those targets start to see themselves as victims and become vulnerable to demagogues who preach retribution. Hate breaks out all over.... Bless your hearts, Parker, Stone, and Lopez. You are now pillars of the Church of American Musical Theater. “The Book of Mormon” is bursting with loving references to that tradition. You have been compared to Rogers and Hammerstein. I saw groundbreaking creativity on display, but no engagement with improving the human condition, the foundation of powerful satire. The production was another sad skirmish in the culture wars, isolating Mormons instead of bringing them, and other conservative people of faith, into the conversation. While the giants of the Broadway musical used this medium to expose bigotry, you have given intolerance a whole new life — drumming it into the dear little ears of worldwide audiences six nights a week. Bravo." http://onbeing.org/blog/nothing-sacred-satire-comes-to-salt-lake-city/ This last is the only one I posted from a believing LDS. What is your point Calm? Some people didn't like the play? Nothing new here. Yet, it won the most Tony's for that year. "The Book of Mormon has one of the highest grossing box offices. Someone must of liked it. Quote The Book of Mormon, the irreverent and hilarious Broadway debut of South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, won nine awards at last night's Tonys, including Best Musical, Best Original Score and Best Book of a Musical. The show, which was nominated for a total of 14 awards, also won for sound, lighting, direction, orchestration, set design and actress in a featured role. I personally didn't like La La Land. I thought it was trite, portrayed a shallow view of Hollywood and didn't have particularly any memorable music. But it appears I was in the minority. Is 'The Book of Mormon" a Rogers and Hammerstein musical? No. It isn't suppose to be. Would it help if I posted a dozen good reviews of the play? I could show you bad reviews for virtually every play ever written. It doesn't always mean they are bad plays. It means that some people didn't like them. I am not really defending the critics review of the play. The only thing I am saying is that some people really enjoyed the show, did not find it anti-Mormon, and is hardly the worst piece of pop culture ever to be produced. I am just curious how others on this board felt about the musical that have actually SEEN it. I for one did not find it to be anti-Mormon propaganda and may possibly lead to some wanting to find out more about the church. I highly doubt it changed anyone's mind about what they think of Mormonism either for good or bad. There is plenty of information about the church out there for others to judge how they feel about Mormonism. This is hardly a pivotal piece of entertainment designed to turn everyone away from Mormonism. And I don't believe that just because you are Mormon you are going to hate this play or even find it offensive. Edited March 20, 2017 by california boy
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, california boy said: What is your point Calm? Some people didn't like the play? Nothing new here. Yet, it won the most Tony's for that year. "The Book of Mormon has one of the highest grossing box offices. Someone must of liked it. I personally didn't like La La Land. I thought it was trite, portrayed a shallow view of Hollywood and didn't have particularly any memorable music. But it appears I was in the minority. Is 'The Book of Mormon" a Rogers and Hammerstein musical? No. It isn't suppose to be. Would it help if I posted a dozen good reviews of the play? I could show you bad reviews for virtually every play ever written. It doesn't always mean they are bad plays. It means that some people didn't like them. I am not really defending the critics review of the play. The only thing I am saying is that some people really enjoyed the show, did not find it anti-Mormon, and is hardly the worst piece of pop culture ever to be produced. I am just curious how others on this board felt about the musical that have actually SEEN it. I for one did not find it to be anti-Mormon propaganda and may possibly lead to some wanting to find out more about the church. I highly doubt it changed anyone's mind about what they think of Mormonism either for good or bad. There is plenty of information about the church out there for others to judge how they feel about Mormonism. This is hardly a pivotal piece of entertainment designed to turn everyone away from Mormonism. And I don't believe that just because you are Mormon you are going to hate this play or even find it offensive. I didn't care all that much for La-la Land either. I haven't see the "Book of Mormon Musical", but when I see the two missionaries it makes me think of "Saturday's Warrior". And how endearing those two were. It kind of has that vibe in some ways from what I've seen of it.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 13 hours ago, cinepro said: If "The Book of Mormon" musical is in some way supposed to have a net benefit for the Church, then based on the shows that have come out in the last few years about Scientology, they should just be going like gangbusters right now. Actually, this only works when people are basically lying about you: The early Christians and modern Mormons are really quite harmless and kind, nothing like the monstrous sects such as the suicidal People's Temple, the sexually abusive FLDS, or the viscious and unrelenting Scientology. Totalitarian and violent tendencies are present in some groups, but not among the Mormons. That is why it is so easy to ridicule them. Imagine what might have happened if Trey Parker and Matt Stone had composed such a production about the Qur'an. A sense of perspective helps to condition our natural tendency to cynicism. 1
Rain Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 41 minutes ago, california boy said: What is your point Calm? Some people didn't like the play? Nothing new here. Yet, it won the most Tony's for that year. "The Book of Mormon has one of the highest grossing box offices. Someone must of liked it. I personally didn't like La La Land. I thought it was trite, portrayed a shallow view of Hollywood and didn't have particularly any memorable music. But it appears I was in the minority. Is 'The Book of Mormon" a Rogers and Hammerstein musical? No. It isn't suppose to be. Would it help if I posted a dozen good reviews of the play? I could show you bad reviews for virtually every play ever written. It doesn't always mean they are bad plays. It means that some people didn't like them. I am not really defending the critics review of the play. The only thing I am saying is that some people really enjoyed the show, did not find it anti-Mormon, and is hardly the worst piece of pop culture ever to be produced. I am just curious how others on this board felt about the musical that have actually SEEN it. I for one did not find it to be anti-Mormon propaganda and may possibly lead to some wanting to find out more about the church. I highly doubt it changed anyone's mind about what they think of Mormonism either for good or bad. There is plenty of information about the church out there for others to judge how they feel about Mormonism. This is hardly a pivotal piece of entertainment designed to turn everyone away from Mormonism. And I don't believe that just because you are Mormon you are going to hate this play or even find it offensive. The point I get from what she was posting was that it was NOT something any ward would want to have shown minus the two songs. After you posted I thought I might look up the lyrics, but then you posted some before I got the end of the thread. For the most part I found it inane though I recognize that the written script may have been lacking actions that made it less so, but I didn't appreciate a spot that I figure came for laughs that basically had the character saying the Lord's name in vain. Then calm quoted the things against the Ugandans and the crude jokes etc. It really doesn't sound like something I want to see at a ward party.
Bernard Gui Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, california boy said: Ok let's look at these vile evil trash lyrics. Nothing like bringing them out to the light of day. Here is the first number. Got any problem with this one? Yes I have problems with the mockery of the Book of Mormon displayed by the cartoonish actions of the actors and the hoots of derision from the audience in that scene. Do you? Please post Turn it Off, Joseph Smith American Moses, and Hasa Diga Eebowai. Let's expose them to the light of day. The baptism song as a metaphor of seduction of a virgin girl? The audience guffawed at the murder of Joseph Smith and laughingly mocked Jesus "climbing up on the cross" and cheered when the cast extended middle fingers to heaven and shouted obscenities at God over and over and over. Got any problems with those, or with implied Mormon spousal abuse over sports scores, AIDS, baby rape as a laugh line,female genital mutilation for laughs, or with maggots in your scrotum? This has become the honored epitome of American musical theater? I rest my case. Edited March 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 9 hours ago, Calm said: I suppose I might be able to tolerate the antiMormon material, but from the lyrics and descriptions, I find the portrayal of the Ugandans racist. "Somehow the portrayal of Africans as credulous idiots is forgiven because the main intended target is a more culturally acceptable target of mockery." I find it remarkable that this is happening. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-barber/mormon-show-paints-africa_b_3807463.html ""The musical…gives off a lot of Parker and Stone’s familiar comic heat, as well as their familiar lack of illumination... The laughter is hip; the formula is Hollywood. AIDS, female circumcision, assassination, Jesus, and the despoiled African population as a collective Stepin Fetchit routine are the targets here; one African character, for instance, finds a typewriter at a local market and thinks she’s “texting”—big racist gag. The show is smart enough to test the waters of outrage but not brazen enough to take a genuine plunge." I played some of the cast recording for my friend, Ryan, back in 2012, after he’d just returned from a 3-year stint with the Peace Corps in Uganda. He was less than amused, offended not for me (an ex-Mormon), but for all the joyous, smart, and faithful people he’d just left behind in Africa. Ugandans, he insisted, were deeply religious people; they had much more awareness of the issues facing them than the musical was giving them credit for." http://www.backwordsblog.com/single-post/2016/06/07/Americanism-on-Broadway-The-Book-of-Mormon-Musical It manages to demean both Mormons and Ugandans. I am reminded of the gently comic treatment of the rabbi in Fiddler on the Roof. We laugh with him, not ridicule him, and in the end his goodness is affirmed. None of that in this awful "love letter." 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Actually, this only works when people are basically lying about you: The early Christians and modern Mormons are really quite harmless and kind, nothing like the monstrous sects such as the suicidal People's Temple, the sexually abusive FLDS, or the viscious and unrelenting Scientology. Totalitarian and violent tendencies are present in some groups, but not among the Mormons. That is why it is so easy to ridicule them. Imagine what might have happened if Trey Parker and Matt Stone had composed such a production about the Qur'an. A sense of perspective helps to condition our natural tendency to cynicism. Or, it's easy to bully a soft target. 1
Maestrophil Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 In response to the original post: I think the response is amazingly cool. Shows that we are not afraid of criticism and lampooning. Do you think it would have served the public image of the church better if we had just quietly slinked away?
Popular Post Calm Posted March 20, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rain said: The point I get from what she was posting was that it was NOT something any ward would want to have shown minus the two songs. After you posted I thought I might look up the lyrics, but then you posted some before I got the end of the thread. For the most part I found it inane though I recognize that the written script may have been lacking actions that made it less so, but I didn't appreciate a spot that I figure came for laughs that basically had the character saying the Lord's name in vain. Then calm quoted the things against the Ugandans and the crude jokes etc. It really doesn't sound like something I want to see at a ward party. CB, the musical is racist, sexist, and bigoted against religions. The last I don't care about, I find its other sins much more appalling. I could care less about the typical Mormon stuff, that comes with the territory. The only reason I posted the last was the reference of the use of sexual assault to get laughs. I find it interesting you focus on the Mormon stuff as if I posted nothing else and was offended only by that when it should be obvious by now that the Mormon stuff is trivial in my eyes and it is the racism, the portrayal of female degradation and genital mutilation as unrealistic and therefore acceptable as comic, raping babies as a running gag, sexual assault as a punch line to vulnerability, etc. Is the humor so well done that you just glaze over the moral implications? Or is it so easy to justify with something like 'it was all done with fondness for the culture and their people?' I did not post the reviews because they were good or bad, I posted them because they exposed the actual racist and sexist content. How many laughs a show get, how well it dresses up racism and sexism into something acceptable to laugh at is no more an indicator of moral quality than the past popularity of Amos and Andy, ministrel shows done in blackface, ethnic jokes. Edited March 20, 2017 by Calm 5
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes I have problems with the mockery of the Book of Mormon displayed by the cartoonish actions of the actors and the hoots of derision from the audience in that scene. Do you? Please post Turn it Off, Joseph Smith American Moses, and Hasa Diga Eebowai. Let's expose them to the light of day. The baptism song as a metaphor of seduction of a virgin girl? The audience guffawed at the murder of Joseph Smith and laughingly mocked Jesus "climbing up on the cross" and cheered when the cast extended middle fingers to heaven and shouted obscenities at God over and over and over. Got any problems with those, or with implied Mormon spousal abuse over sports scores, AIDS, baby rape as a laugh line,female genital mutilation for laughs, or with maggots in your scrotum? This has become the honored epitome of American musical theater? I rest my case. From this description, I would have a problem. Are you sure this was in the play, because that is definitely sick.
Calm Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show Quote Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted,[1] lazy,[1] buffoonish,[1][2]superstitious and happy-go-lucky,.[1] Minstrel shows emerged as brief burlesques and comic entr'actes in the early 1830s and were developed into full-fledged form in the next decade. By 1848, blackface minstrel shows were the national artform, translating formal art such as opera into popular terms for a general audience.[3 Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) Tacenda, read the wiki synopsis if you don't trust the reviews I posted from nonMormons...can't quote most of it due to constant vulgarity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_(musical) Will post the finale...not surprisingly given the rest of the story of hapless Africans, it is the whites that ride in to save the day at the end. For all their rejection of religion, Trey and Parker appear to highly approve of the "white savior" myth, even or especially if achieved through deception. Quote Cunningham returns, making everyone believe that he had "risen" after being eaten by lions. Price and Cunningham then drive the general away, telling him he can't hurt the "undead", and threaten to use the power of Christ to turn him into a lesbian. The missionaries are set to depart when Price suggests to them that since they came to the village to help people, they can still do so even with their mission officially terminated. Price rallies the Mormons and the Ugandans to work together to make this their paradise because, after all, they are all Latter-Day Saints. Later, the newly minted Ugandan elders (including the newly converted general) go door to door (or rather mud hut to mud hut) to evangelize "The Book of Arnold." ("Tomorrow Is a Latter Day"/"Hello! (Reprise)"/"Finale"). Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm
bcuzbcuz Posted March 20, 2017 Author Posted March 20, 2017 22 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: I've heard more than one person say they joined the church as a result of the musical. Joining the church because of a musical. It boggles the mind. That's like buying a Ford Pinto in the 1970's after watching the car explode in the crash test videos. There were certainly people who thought, "Wow! Now we can a Pinto even CHEAPER!"
bluebell Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 38 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Joining the church because of a musical. It boggles the mind. That's like buying a Ford Pinto in the 1970's after watching the car explode in the crash test videos. There were certainly people who thought, "Wow! Now we can a Pinto even CHEAPER!" I think most people realize that no one joined the church because of the musical but that the musical caused people to wonder about the church, and after investigating it for themselves, people decided to join. 3
california boy Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Rain said: The point I get from what she was posting was that it was NOT something any ward would want to have shown minus the two songs. After you posted I thought I might look up the lyrics, but then you posted some before I got the end of the thread. For the most part I found it inane though I recognize that the written script may have been lacking actions that made it less so, but I didn't appreciate a spot that I figure came for laughs that basically had the character saying the Lord's name in vain. Then calm quoted the things against the Ugandans and the crude jokes etc. It really doesn't sound like something I want to see at a ward party. If you go on Youtube, you can hear them sung if you are really interested.
california boy Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Calm said: CB, the musical is racist, sexist, and bigoted against religions. The last I don't care about, I find its other sins much more appalling. I could care less about the typical Mormon stuff, that comes with the territory. The only reason I posted the last was the reference of the use of sexual assault to get laughs. I find it interesting you focus on the Mormon stuff as if I posted nothing else and was offended only by that when it should be obvious by now that the Mormon stuff is trivial in my eyes and it is the racism, the portrayal of female degradation and genital mutilation as unrealistic and therefore acceptable as comic, raping babies as a running gag, sexual assault as a punch line to vulnerability, etc. Is the humor so well done that you just glaze over the moral implications? Or is it so easy to justify with something like 'it was all done with fondness for the culture and their people?' I did not post the reviews because they were good or bad, I posted them because they exposed the actual racist and sexist content. How many laughs a show get, how well it dresses up racism and sexism into something acceptable to laugh at is no more an indicator of moral quality than the past popularity of Amos and Andy, ministrel shows done in blackface, ethnic jokes. I focused on the Mormon stuff because I thought that was the op of this thread. Calm, I find you to be quite reasonable and willing to look at both sides. I get that you haven't seen the play and are going off the comments of others. But in your logical mind, do you think that someone could do a racist play degrading women and raping babies in this day and age would receive the wide acceptance and 9 tony awards including best musical and have the strong box office success this play has had without any riots in the streets or protests at every single opening? I didn't intend to find myself in defending "The Book of Mormon" and all that it entails. My intent was simply to say that I personally feel many Mormons could see this play and not be offended in the least. It is not the evil anti-Mormon, worst piece of pop culture to ever come out. There is genuine reasons why this play has been so popular and received so much positive attention. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. Is every active Mormon that sees the play going to be offended and feel attacked? Absolutely not. Is every black person that sees the play going to feel like they just set through 2 hours of racism? Absolutely not. Is every woman going to feel like the play demeans and shames women? Absolutely not. Are some of each of these groups going to be offended. Yes. Would you be offended? I don't think so, but you might be. Just my opinion. I am not really going to comment much more on this issue. Honestly I have said more than I intended to say.
rongo Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, california boy said: I focused on the Mormon stuff because I thought that was the op of this thread. Calm, I find you to be quite reasonable and willing to look at both sides. I get that you haven't seen the play and are going off the comments of others. But in your logical mind, do you think that someone could do a racist play degrading women and raping babies in this day and age would receive the wide acceptance and 9 tony awards including best musical and have the strong box office success this play has had without any riots in the streets or protests at every single opening? If the targets of ridicule are the Mormons and Ugandans, absolutely. Ugandans are different from American blacks to the liberal people who are eating up the BoM musical (the type of people bcuzbcuz described in the OP).
Calm Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: I get that you haven't seen the play and are going off the comments of others. But in your logical mind, do you think that someone could do a racist play degrading women and raping babies in this day and age would receive the wide acceptance and 9 tony awards including best musical and have the strong box office success this play has had without any riots in the streets or protests at every single opening? ... Is every black person that sees the play going to feel like they just set through 2 hours of racism? Absolutely not. Is every woman going to feel like the play demeans and shames women? Absolutely not. Are some of each of these groups going to be offended. Yes. I don't see it as all that antimormon. I see it as racist and sexist. And yes, I do tend to be offended at stuff other than AntiMormon crap. And it would appear likely that due to the racism/sexism being tied up in a pretty and frivolous enough bow, it doesn't occur to much of the audience to take it seriously enough to think about what stereotypes it is selling about Africans. Especially given the poor education Americans have of African culture and the headlines being primarily about wars, warlords, and famines. Since multiple sources confirm the plot, including wiki, even sources that applaud the play, I see no reason to doubt that people are too distracted by the silly Mormon stuff or perhaps something else (the song and dance, the "sweetness") to see through to the racism and sexism underlying it. Feel free to point out where anything in my quotes is inaccurate. 1) Please show how this characterization is inaccurate: Quote the villagers are portrayed as poor, naive, backwards, crass, and hyper sexualized. 2) Is there any depth to the villagers' religious feelings or are they easily swayed to an absurd mix of Mormonism, local culture feel good mash up at the end of the plays.^^^^ 3) Is the raping a baby theme (because there are no older virgins around and it is seen as a cure for AIDS) not present in the play****? 4) Is the FGM turned into a caricature of the harsh reality by making the reason for it absurd and nothing to do with the actual reason FGM occurs? 5) Do they not present the female lead as too uneducated to know that typing on a typewriter is not the same thing as texting? 6) Is not the Elder raped with a book of Mormon#### (or is that okay because it is apparently off scene)? 7) Does not the end of the play have the black villain driven off by threats from the white elders? Is it not the white man who rallies everyone at the end to make a better life for themselves? ^^^^from a previous quote: Quote I played some of the cast recording for my friend, Ryan, back in 2012, after he’d just returned from a 3-year stint with the Peace Corps in Uganda. He was less than amused, offended not for me (an ex-Mormon), but for all the joyous, smart, and faithful people he’d just left behind in Africa. Ugandans, he insisted, were deeply religious people; they had much more awareness of the issues facing them than the musical was giving them credit for. *** Quote Remember the very real and present danger that exists for virgins in some African societies where it is believed that having sex with a virgin can cure one of AIDS? Well, to get a hearty laugh, Book of Mormon throws in a line about there being no virgins left except babies. Hence, the need to rape babies, hence a running joke about raping babies. And if you were wondering, yes, that ‘joke’ got laughs every time... #### Quote Yet, by act two, the humor abandons all inhibitions and progresses to the epitome of offensiveness: The Book of Mormon is literally shoved up a missionary's rectum. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1966797-155/op-ed-why-is-book-of-mormon Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Another article about someone converting due to seeing the musical: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2016/11/15/how-irreverent-book-mormon-led-one-nashville-mans-conversion/93447544/
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Quote Such religious ridicule would never be deemed acceptable directed at other religions. Imagine what would happen if a musical titled The Torah or The Quran hit Broadway, similarly demeaning the beliefs and lifestyles of their respective religions. Protests and claims of anti-Semitism and racism would inevitably break out. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1966797-155/op-ed-why-is-book-of-mormon So everyone should find a play where a Jew or a Muslim is sodomized with the Torah or a Koran sweet and reasonably funny? 1
Ouagadougou Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 On 18.03.2017 at 6:43 PM, bcuzbcuz said: My wife went with a group of work collegues to see the musical "The Book of Mormon" on Friday night. It was their Ladies Night out and the musical had them in laughter for the whole show. To anyone who hasn't seen the musical, it is about a missionary in Africa who, when confronted with difficult questions and issues from contacts, just makes stuff up. His advice for men with aids is hilarious but disturbing. His partners attempts to convert a local war lard and the ensuing x-ray had the audience in stitches. Trey Parker and Matt Stone of "South Park" fame are the writers of the musical, which explains some of the raw moments. The part that neither my wife nor I understand is that, following the play, positioned outside all the exit doors, were groups of missionaries, each wearing the identifying name tags, handing out Books of Mormon to any and all who would accept them. A sort of "now that you've seen the musical, why not read the real book?". To understand the ludicrous in the missionary's actions is to understand the juxtaposition the musical has to the Mormon beliefs. The musical offers entertainment value of having a good belly laugh, but the not so hidden message is that this missionary, the one who just makes stuff up, is no different from Joseph Smith, who was exceedingly creative to make up all the Mormon "stuff". My wife observed a young couple travelling home on the same bus, late on this Friday night, regailing themselves in laughter by flipping open to pages in their free copy of the BofM and reading a passage. They would read a lline or two and then laugh out loud. So I repeat my question. Just what does the church hope to gain from spending time and effort in handing out the Book of Mormon at a theater play that has absolutely no connection to anything Mormon? Quite the contrary, the musical laughs repeatedly at the church. Should missionaries be spending their time and efforts in such an environment with light mindedness, heavily laughter, and mockery of the very church they represent? I guess in some ways this is very commendable, IMO: it's turning the other cheek and serving, regardless of circumstances or people that mock you. On the other hand, I can see how this might affect some missionaries in some ways emotionally.
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 An article on cellphone use in Uganda (and yet their female lead, the most intelligent and independent African in the musical if I understand it correctly, doesn't have a clue what texting actually is). https://durangoherald.com/articles/61231-everyone-well-almost-has-a-cellphone-or-three-in-uganda?wallit_nosession=1 Quote Kampala, Uganda – Never mind the Internet, where’s the nearest cell phone tower? That is what’s most important to people in Africa, especially Uganda, where a huge part of the population has not just one cellphone but always two and sometimes more. For a developing country, I have been surprised not only at the widespread use of cellphones but also the extent of coverage. Even in rural villages far away from a city, you can almost always get a cellphone signal. Those of us who live in rural Colorado have much to envy... Smartphones are not as common as old-school phones. But even those old-school phones let you access Facebook (nice market penetration, Zuckerberg), Yahoo! news and a radio. Many Ugandans get their news by listening to the radio as they travel in a busy city. It has been interesting to me to see how even some of the poorest Ugandans own cellphones. Often, it doesn’t matter if it’s a businessman outside his office or a resident of a slum, odds are, the person has at least one cellphone.
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Is there any sense that the Ugandans are either Christian or Muslim in faith? What picture of their faith besides despair is presented? Have the writers ever talked to refugees from war areas or traveled to such places to see what type of faith/attitude can exist there or is it is all a likely guess based off of what they would feel like if they were in that situation....of course, they would be more enlightened than the uneducated, superstitious, gullible Ugandans of their story.
california boy Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: I don't see it as all that antimormon. I see it as racist and sexist. And yes, I do tend to be offended at stuff other than AntiMormon crap. And it would appear likely that due to the racism/sexism being tied up in a pretty and frivolous enough bow, it doesn't occur to much of the audience to take it seriously enough to think about what stereotypes it is selling about Africans. Especially given the poor education Americans have of African culture and the headlines being primarily about wars, warlords, and famines. Since multiple sources confirm the plot, including wiki, even sources that applaud the play, I see no reason to doubt that people are too distracted by the silly Mormon stuff or perhaps something else (the song and dance, the "sweetness") to see through to the racism and sexism underlying it. Calm, these are fair questions. And I think you bring up some valid points that didn't occur to me when I was watching the play. I will answer them as truthfully as I can from my perspective. I saw the play about a year ago, so quite honestly, I don't remember some of the things you are asked about. Quote Feel free to point out where anything in my quotes is inaccurate. 1) Please show how this characterization is inaccurate: 2) Is there any depth to the villagers' religious feelings or are they easily swayed to an absurd mix of Mormonism, local culture feel good mash up at the end of the plays.^^^^ So this is my recollection. I am hoping that I remember things well enough to answer these specific questions. The villagers are portrayed just like any other group of potential investigators. The missionaries introduce the church to them and they react to the message. Some are skeptical. Mostly they don't relate to many of the teachings they are presented. They live in a very different environment with very different social background. So what makes sense to most westerners, doesn't make any sense to them. One woman believes and embraces the message. She ends up being the main lead of the villagers. There is also a big subplot to the play that you haven't addressed. There is this conflict between the missionary that has been there for a while and the "greenery". The senior companion thinks he is God's gift to the people of Uganda. He plays a strong heroic self granulized role, kind of like Birdie, in Bye Bye Birdy. He thinks he can just tell the villagers what they should know and they should accept it because he has given up two years of his life to give them the message and it is God's message after all. And that is the exact reason why the mission has had absolutely zero baptisms. It takes the nerdy "greenery" that actually listens to the villagers and identifies with what their needs actually are. And that is what motivates him to change the canned church narrative to something they can identify with. Quote 3) Is the raping a baby theme (because there are no older virgins around and it is seen as a cure for AIDS) not present in the play****? Yes. The witchdoctor of the village believes this superstition. It is one of the things that the missionaries are appalled about. It is so vile to the "greenery" that he is motivated to tell them the story of the gospel in terms that they can more easily relate to. He knows that if he can get the villagers to accept the gospel, they will abandon this superstition. Quote 4) Is the FGM turned into a caricature of the harsh reality by making the reason for it absurd and nothing to do with the actual reason FGM occurs? Quite honestly, I don't remember FGM being a part of the play. It may have been. If it was, it certainly was not a part of the story that I remember. Quote 5) Do they not present the female lead as too uneducated to know that typing on a typewriter is not the same thing as texting? I would say this is actually false. The female lead is actually presented as being very smart. She is the one that grasps the message the elders are teaching, sees the good in the gospel and embraces it. The gag about the typewriter is that she doesn't have a smart phone, but she can still text message by using her typewriter. It is her version of doing something western culture is addicted to with the resources she has. How do you text without a cell phone. Well obviously you use a type writer. I actually think it shows her to be very clever. Quote 6) Is not the Elder raped with a book of Mormon#### (or is that okay because it is apparently off scene)? I don't remember this at all. It doesn't even make sense. Quote 7) Does not the end of the play have the black villain driven off by threats from the white elders? Is it not the white man who rallies everyone at the end to make a better life for themselves? The war lords (black villains as you put them) are tyrants over this village. The villagers live in total fear of them because they have automatic weapons. So the war lords do to the villagers whatever they want. When the villagers unite together by joining the church, they find strength in each other. So it is everyone that fights of the tyranny of the war lords and drives them out bringing freedom back to the village. Personally I think it is a positive message about how the church can enrich and strengthen a community and free people for all kinds of tyranny . That is what I walked away with. It is hardly a bad message. It is in fact the happy feeling you walk out of the theater with. Good triumphing over evil. There is also a message that perhaps the canned narrative that the church uses exactly the same throughout the world may not work for all cultures. I am not suggesting that the church adapt the teachings the jr companion used, but it is certainly something I think the church should consider doing more of. There is only one lesson manual. That exact same manual is used throughout the world just translated in different languages. I remember attending church in Italy with my kids. The lesson presented was the exact lesson they would have been presented if they were home. When he referred to the lesson from the previous week, all of my kids told me they had had that exact same message. Is their room for cultural diversity in the church? It is a good question to ask and one that is raised in the play. Hope that helps. Edited March 21, 2017 by california boy
california boy Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 54 minutes ago, Calm said: Is there any sense that the Ugandans are either Christian or Muslim in faith? What picture of their faith besides despair is presented? Have the writers ever talked to refugees from war areas or traveled to such places to see what type of faith/attitude can exist there or is it is all a likely guess based off of what they would feel like if they were in that situation....of course, they would be more enlightened than the uneducated, superstitious, gullible Ugandans of their story. They don't present any organized religion among the villagers. Yes they do revere the witch doctor as being someone wiser then they are. Is that gulibility? Perhaps you could look at it like that. Or you could look at it as a cultural thing. The location of the village is never pinpointed. There may very well be isolated mountain villages that still retain the old ways. It certainly is not unheard of in todays world in isolated areas. Does that make them automatically uneducated, superstitious, gullible? Or does it simply mean they have a different culture than westerners.
Recommended Posts