BoM The Musical in SLC

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I have never gotten why some feel that vulgarities are "edgy", pushing the envelope.  There are plenty of people who speak that way, treat others that way, in plenty of places in our society and societies around the world and many of those who are forced to live in such environments would love to get out.  The educated, well off indulging in it for entertainment comes across as "slumming" to me.

I have noticed that many dramas that have limited vulgarity (in order to pass the censors for a more general audience, I suspect) are having the refined, but powerful women be the ones resorting to vulgarity.  The other typical users are lower class thugs.

It is strange to me that writers make a connection that those in power or desiring power think one of the ways to achieve it is to emulate those who usually have little power themselves and often less developed intelligence and only achieve destructive violence.  Would someone moving up in the world continue to get cheap haircuts, wear worn out, cheap clothing of little taste, drive junker cars or would they be putting aside these things for those of better quality? (Not suggesting ostentatiousness, but refinement)

That's why I insist this is not adult humor. There's nothing adult about it. Adults move on beyond it. Besides, most historical obscenities have passed beyond shock to common use, but they still seem to maintain the aura of edginess. The f-bomb is thrown around like salt water taffy in a homecoming parade, but it still gets gasps of surprise, knowingly hip nods, and giddy giggles in the pop culture. Never heard it in a faculty meeting though. Maybe in this generation it will find its way into genteel conversations.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Let's not discard this so quickly.  It appears the poster is admitting to a phenomenon which, if accurately described, would be more highly troubling than an initial glance would justify.

IF people are watching this precisely because they hate Mormons and/or the Church for whatever personal reason motivates them (the poster's reason being Prop 8, etc), then the existence of this play and its continued popularity would be best evidence of more widespread and more virulent bigotry than we suspected.

From what I see on Facebook, it would no surprise me in the slightest.  I had dumped onto my feed last week a whole lot of obscene and rage-filled posts and comments triggered (allegedly) by the lack of an adequate liquor license at SLC's Eccles Theatre preventing intended intoxicated viewership from enjoying the experience.  "F***** Mormons!" was the typical comment.

I think the animus is towards traditional or biblical religions in general. The Mormons make an easy target familiar to all. The demonization of Evangelicals in the media and pop cultural is a regularly occurring theme.

oddly enough, those are words used in one of the BOMTM songs....with a double meaning.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have never gotten why some feel that vulgarities are "edgy", pushing the envelope.  There are plenty of people who speak that way, treat others that way, in plenty of places in our society and societies around the world and many of those who are forced to live in such environments would love to get out.  The educated, well off indulging in it for entertainment comes across as "slumming" to me.

I have noticed that many dramas that have limited vulgarity (in order to pass the censors for a more general audience, I suspect) are having the refined, but powerful women be the ones resorting to vulgarity.  The other typical users are lower class thugs.

It is strange to me that writers make a connection that those in power or desiring power think one of the ways to achieve it is to emulate those who usually have little power themselves and often less developed intelligence and only achieve destructive violence.  Would someone moving up in the world continue to get cheap haircuts, wear worn out, cheap clothing of little taste, drive junker cars or would they be putting aside these things for those of better quality? (Not suggesting ostentatiousness, but refinement)

Regarding portion I have bolded above:

We are living in less formal times in general. Those of us in our fifties or beyond have noticed that in our lifetimes.

There's a movie I watched on the plane going to Europe last year. It's called "The Intern." It stars Robert DeNiro as a 70-year-old widower who, to alleviate boredom from his retirement, hires on as a "senior intern" at an online fashion company. Much of the comedy pertains to the awkwardness he feels fitting in with the 20-somethings with whom he works in the office. The awkwardness pertains to culture, work habits, clothing etc. One memorable line of dialogue from him is his observation, "Nobody tucks anything in anymore."

It's true. The recent adjustment to dress standards at the Church Office Building, while welcomed pretty much universally, and perhaps a good thing, is symptomatic of this growing casualness in our society.

About the time the news came out about the change at the COB, I looked around at my co-workers in the office where I work (it's not just Church News staff, but the workers in an entire newsroom at the DesNews offices) and realized to my sheer amazement that I'm pretty much the only person in the whole newsroom who habitually wears a necktie to work every day. The unwritten rule of thumb seems to be if you could wear it to class on campus, you can wear it to work.

Now, most everyone who would need to do so for an assignment or something can make arrangements to quickly change if needed. But gee whiz, I look at black-and-white photos of the Deseret News newsroom in the 1960s or earlier, and it is clear that all the men came to work dressed in white shirts and ties, if not suits. The women (what few there were in those days) wore dresses. It was typical office or business dress of the day, and not just at the Deseret News.

It hasn't been too long ago that I stopped wearing a white shirt every day to work (except when I have to do an interview or cover a meeting or event that day involving  Church leaders) and felt like I was violating some unwritten taboo for doing so.

I'm afraid we have lost much in the way of gentility and, as you say, refinement.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the animus is towards traditional or biblical religions in general. The Mormons make an easy target familiar to all. The demonization of Evangelicals in the media and pop cultural is a regularly occurring theme.

That (bolded portion above) is because of what the Church of Jesus Christ continues to stand for. In a way, it is a backhanded compliment.

May it ever be so.

I think this is one way that the church of the Lamb of God will continue to have a global presence and influence in the latter days, even though it will be few in numbers, as Nephi beheld in vision.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Never tried other types of squash. IIRC, one year I planted zucchini and cucumbers close to each other and the next year got some unusual hybrids. 

That would be an interesting plate of vegetables.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Never tried other types of squash. IIRC, one year I planted zucchini and cucumbers close to each other and the next year got some unusual hybrids. 

Zuccumbers?  Cucchini?  

[Calm]

There is a difference between casualness and cheapness.  One can be refined and be perfectly casual, imo.

Formality does not automatically equate to refinement either.

Clean, well cared for, well cut more casual clothing can look infinitely more refined than an expensive suit worn by someone who does not put effort into personal hygiene or who is loud and obnoxiousness.

Man makes the clothing more so Imo than clothing makes the man.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That would be an interesting plate of vegetables.

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Zuccumbers?  Cucchini?  

Whatever they were, they were not edible.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a difference between casualness and cheapness.  One can be refined and be perfectly casual, imo.

Formality does not automatically equate to refinement either.

Clean, well cared for, well cut more casual clothing can look infinitely more refined than an expensive suit worn by someone who does not put effort into personal hygiene or who is loud and obnoxiousness.

Man makes the clothing more so Imo than clothing makes the man.

No argument with any of this.

But there's a reason most people wouldn't wear beachwear to church.

Or that typically judges require a certain degree of decorum in apparel in their courtrooms.

But I'm not interested in pursuing this anyway. In fact I think it's a thread derail, isn't it? I've forgotten what the topic is here. Oh yes, zucchini and cucumbers and their impact on society.

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Whatever they were, they were not edible.

The concept of mutant vegetables is distinctly unappetizing.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the animus is towards traditional or biblical religions in general. The Mormons make an easy target familiar to all. The demonization of Evangelicals in the media and pop cultural is a regularly occurring theme.

oddly enough, those are words used in one of the BOMTM songs....with a double meaning.

This is not my experience at all.  In fact, it sounds like we are taking ourselves way too seriously. Most people that I know outside of Utah know little of the mormon religion.  Number wise our church is totally insignificant, and most people can go a lifetime without significant contact with the LDS church.  When was the last time you thought seriously about Christian Scientist or Mary Baker Eddy?   It is a minor religion, and minor religions like Christian Scientist and ours just don't show up on regular people's radar screens that often.  This play and Mitt Romney are biggest PR events to happen for the church in a long time, and I don't think it is a negative thing.  IMO most non-members who see this play will come away thinking it is good entertainment, and that mormons are good-hearted people who are committed to their goofy beliefs.  No harm, no foul.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll just do it here:

http://www.foodandwine.com/recipes/silky-zucchini-soup

We didn't make it with the julienne zucchini strip garnish, although I'm sure that makes it look prettier.

Excited to try it, thanks Scott.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is not my experience at all.  In fact, it sounds like we are taking ourselves way too seriously. Most people that I know outside of Utah know little of the mormon religion.  Number wise our church is totally insignificant, and most people can go a lifetime without significant contact with the LDS church.  When was the last time you thought seriously about Christian Scientist or Mary Baker Eddy?   It is a minor religion, and minor religions like Christian Scientist and ours just don't show up on regular people's radar screens that often.  This play and Mitt Romney are biggest PR events to happen for the church in a long time, and I don't think it is a negative thing.  IMO most non-members who see this play will come away thinking it is good entertainment, and that mormons are good-hearted people who are committed to their goofy beliefs.  No harm, no foul.

You may be right. Time will tell if the foul causes harm.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You may be right. Time will tell if the foul causes harm.

I think the church is better it won't.  They are advertising in the BOM play program.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think the church is better it won't.  They are advertising in the BOM play program.

I don't see that as an endorsement of the play. I think the Church is endeavoring to capitalize on the publicity, a shrewd move on the Church's part.

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/12/2017 at 9:45 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see that as an endorsement of the play. I think the Church is endeavoring to capitalize on the publicity, a shrewd move on the Church's part.

Agreed. There's no way the Church would endorse the musical.

Here's another example of the Church's real relationship with developing countries.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686764/World-Peace-Prize-presented-in-India-to-Mormon-leader.html?_cid=Email-4

Edited August 15, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

On 8/11/2017 at 10:19 PM, sunstoned said:

This is not my experience at all.  In fact, it sounds like we are taking ourselves way too seriously. Most people that I know outside of Utah know little of the mormon religion.  Number wise our church is totally insignificant, and most people can go a lifetime without significant contact with the LDS church.  When was the last time you thought seriously about Christian Scientist or Mary Baker Eddy?   It is a minor religion, and minor religions like Christian Scientist and ours just don't show up on regular people's radar screens that often.  This play and Mitt Romney are biggest PR events to happen for the church in a long time, and I don't think it is a negative thing.  IMO most non-members who see this play will come away thinking it is good entertainment, and that mormons are good-hearted people who are committed to their goofy beliefs.  No harm, no foul.

I agree and I've yet to see the play, but it can't be all that bad or this guy Tanner probably wouldn't have joined. 

Scroll down and you'll see Tanner's video...

https://mormonlifehacker.com/can-the-book-of-mormon-musical-help-people-find-the-church-read-this-reddit-string/

Edited August 15, 2017 by Tacenda

[Navidad]

I have one simple observation on this musical. At the beginning of the play, the Ugandans sing a song in which they curse God. At the end of the play, after the missionaries minister to them (however inadequately) the same song with the same melody is sung, but this time the Ugandans are singing "thank you God" instead. It seems to me that is the simple message of the redemption, of the grace of God where hopelessness is turned into faith; where despair is turned into hope. That is the message of the simple gospel. That is my take-away from the musical. I don't mean to minimize all the negative aspects of the musical; I just want to add one voice that says in that simple transformation that takes place in the Ugandans over 2 hours, I see God's grace.

Perhaps this is because I too as a skinny, inadequate, totally lacking in confidence twenty year old served a mission in the boonies of a country in Africa that was torn by civil war. I saw first hand despair and violence. I also saw how the gospel changed lives. I understand that we see things through our own perspectives and life experiences. I just wanted to share my experience and my observation from the musical. Thanks. 

[hagoth7]

On 8/4/2017 at 0:43 PM, Gray said:

I'll reveal myself to be uncultured and admit I feel the same about all musical theater.

That actually speaks volumes of your ongoing blindspot for the surprising power of music to help the brain remember oral accounts.

Added: I've clearly been harsh on you recently. Have had a bizarre week.

Apologies if I seem to be taking it out on you.

Edited August 29, 2017 by hagoth7