BoM The Musical in SLC

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Have you seen the BOM Musical?   I have and while I agree that it is crude it is also a fantastic entertaining show.  Yes, they do poke fun at Mormonism but I was also surprised that it did contain a good message in the end.

The primary message I got was that Africans are easily led gullible morons who will believe anything no matter how ridiculous and a 19 year old Mormon teenager with a made up hodgepodge of beliefs can lead them with ease.

I thought Mormons were not the group that came out looking the worst from this.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

It's been a while since we talked about it, but I don't remember him mentioning that piece at all. Is that supposed to be the signature song or something?

I think it would be strange for me to ask him about this, specifically, out of the blue. But if the subject comes up again, I'll try to remember to ask. 

Why?  You're the one who has indicted the rest of us for our squeamishness about the not-a-big-deal play, remember?  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

It's been a while since we talked about it, but I don't remember him mentioning that piece at all. Is that supposed to be the signature song or something?

I think it would be strange for me to ask him about this, specifically, out of the blue. But if the subject comes up again, I'll try to remember to ask. 

Oh yes. The signature song. Content warning if anyone Googles it.  You can buy the t-shirt, coffee mug, the drink cup, the pillowcase, the cuddly lion cub, the ring tone for your phone, the hooded sweat shirt, the mouse pad with the logo. A shining example of theatrical brilliance. 

And then there's Joseph Smith:American Moses (serious warning on text), Spooky Mormon Hell Dream, Turn It Off, gems every one.

Would you share your assessment of Hasa Diga Eebowai and Joseph Smith:American Moses? Seriously. I would like to hear your thoughts.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The primary message I got was that Africans are easily led gullible morons who will believe anything no matter how ridiculous and a 19 year old Mormon teenager with a made up hodgepodge of beliefs can lead them with ease.

I thought Mormons were not the group that came out looking the worst from this.

Yes, that's the other thing critics point out....they use the worst stereotypes for the Africans portraying them as you describe. 19 year old befuddled white teenager saves them from themselves. But somehow they get a pass and people keep buying tickets.

[CA Steve]

I have heard it described as chloroform in song.

 

[cdowis]

21 hours ago, Amulek said:

I am aware of thy lyrics. They are vulgar and irreverent - definitely not the sort of fare that most Latter-day Saints can stomach. 

But what comes to my mind more than anything is the saying that goes something like "It's a fool who takes offense where none is intended, but it's a greater fool who takes offense where offense IS intended."

Stuff like this ought to roll of the Latter-day Saints like water off a duck's back. 

Are you familiar with the concept of righteous indignation.  I seem to remember a certain holy individual offended by the vendors and money changes on the temple grounds.  He did NOT have a "water off a duck's back" response.

These people who, with a full understanding of their actions, make money by mocking and trash talking sacred things.  The greatest fool  of all is one who has become immune to such things.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I have heard it described as chloroform in song.

 

The musical?

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why?  You're the one who has indicted the rest of us for our squeamishness about the not-a-big-deal play, remember?  

Because I don't feel an overwhelming desire to pose your gotcha questions to my friend. If you want to know what a believing Mormon thinks about some particular aspect of the play, you are more than welcome to find one and ask him yourself.

Look, I'm sorry if I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. In my opinion, it's just a musical version of a comedy roast of Mormonism. I can understand why many people wouldn't care to watch that. Can you understand why some people might not take it too seriously though?

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh yes. The signature song. Content warning if anyone Googles it.  You can buy the t-shirt, coffee mug, the drink cup, the pillowcase, the cuddly lion cub, the ring tone for your phone, the hooded sweat shirt, the mouse pad with the logo. A shining example of theatrical brilliance. 

I can't tell if you're being serious. Let me ask the question another way: Is Hasa Diga Eebowai to The Book of Mormon Musical what Memories is to Cats? Or what Let It Go is to Frozen? Or is it more Reindeer Are Better Than People?

 

Quote

Would you share your assessment of Hasa Diga Eebowai and Joseph Smith:American Moses? Seriously. I would like to hear your thoughts.

As I said before, I find the lyrics to be vulgar and irreverent. What more do you want me to say?

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Are you familiar with the concept of righteous indignation.  I seem to remember a certain holy individual offended by the vendors and money changes on the temple grounds.  He did NOT have a "water off a duck's back" response.

These people who, with a full understanding of their actions, make money by mocking and trash talking sacred things.  The greatest fool  of all is one who has become immune to such things.

I'm familiar with the concept. Of course, the people that Christ drove out were temple authorities. The people who made the musical are atheists. You do recognize that there might be an accountability difference between those two groups of people, right?

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Amulek
Edit: Fixed juxtaposition

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Because I don't feel an overwhelming desire to pose your gotcha questions to my friend. If you want to know what a believing Mormon thinks about some particular aspect of the play, you are more than welcome to find one and ask him yourself.

Look, I'm sorry if I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. In my opinion, it's just a musical version of a comedy roast of Mormonism. I can understand why many people wouldn't care to watch that. Can you understand why some people might not take it too seriously though?

If I saw the question under discussion as simply a "gotcha" question, I would never suggest that you pose it to anyone else.  It simply seemed to me that perhaps you were employing a double standard by intimating that those who find the musical offensive should lighten up, on the one hand, while, at the same time, being hesitant to pose such question to your Mormon friend who has seen the play on the other hand.  

How seriously you take the play is up to you, and how seriously anyone else takes it is up to him or her.  As I mentioned in the link I posted in my first post on this thread, my dislike for the play is not driven by a propensity to take my faith too seriously; it's not that I don't think there's anything to laugh about in Mormonism, or that I'm oblivious to its cultural quirks.  It's not that I have a complete inability to appreciate satire: there's good satire, and there's not-so-good satire, and, with apologies to anyone who feels different, I think this musical falls into the latter category. 

Contrast the treatment of Mormonism by Parker, Stone, and Lopez with that of say, Robert Kirby of The Salt Lake Tribune.  While I don't always agree with Mr. Kirby (full disclosure: His brother was my dad's last boss before my dad retired), at least the elder Mr. Kirby has made an effort to couch his Mormon-themed humor in shared experience which is common to many Latter-day Saints.  Part of the reason why, often, I "get" where he's coming from is because we've shared so many experiences in common. Parker, Stone, and Lopez, on the other hand, made minimal if any effort to understand their subject as its insiders understand it because they were simply going for cheap, often-tawdry "humor."

Edited August 5, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I can't tell if you're being serious. Let me ask the question another way: Is Hasa Diga Eebowai to The Book of Mormon Musical what Memories is to Cats? Or what Let It Go is to Frozen? Or is it more Reindeer Are Better Than People?

As I said before, I find the lyrics to be vulgar and irreverent. What more do you want me to say?

 

Yes, it is the signature song. Hence all the available gear. 

Nothing. You've said it all.

Since I have not conversed with a Mormon who found the show entertainingly enjoyable, and you have a friend that does find it entertaining and actually has callings, I thought maybe you or he/she would have some special insights to share about its two signature songs and what makes them enjoyable and worthy of awards.

No worries, though.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

... Look, I'm sorry if I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. In my opinion, it's just a musical version of a comedy roast of Mormonism. I can understand why many people wouldn't care to watch that. Can you understand why some people might not take it too seriously though?

If someone were interested in doing a genuine comedy roast of Mormonism ... if the purveyor of such comedy actually were interested in aiming for genuine cleverness and comedy ... even most observant (or striving) Latter-day Saints recognize that the roast's purveyor would have plenty of legitimate material, and that might be something for which I might consider expending my time, my effort, my money, and my other resources (e.g., fuel).  Despite their protestations to the contrary, Parker, Stone, and Lopez, by contrast, simply seem interested in seeing how many people they can p!$$ off and how much money they can make while they do it. ("Dang! Did we p!$$ you off instead of making you laugh?  Then we did it wrong.  Guess we'll simply have to flog ourselves extra hard for a whole extra minute before we cash our next royalty checks!" )

Edited August 5, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Johnnie Cake]

Looking forward to this. Going Aug 17th. Very excited to see it again 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Looking forward to this. Going Aug 17th. Very excited to see it again 

How nice. Hope you enjoy it. What has you so twitterpated?

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

Here's the "money quote" from the Mark Steyn op-ed to which I linked earlier in the thread:

Quote

 removed, political

And as I myself wrote regarding the show:

Quote

 

Although I have a disability, I was “mainstreamed” in school from Day One.  That was both a blessing and a curse: it was a blessing because it forced me to engage the world on its terms rather than demanding or expecting the world to engage me on my terms; it was a curse because I was scorned, ridiculed, and bullied.  I found that my classmates could be divided, roughly, into three classes: those who were laughing at me; a much smaller number comprised of those who joined me in attempting to find the humor in my plight by laughing with me; and those who tried to convince me they were in the second group, but who were really in the first.

Please don’t get the wrong idea: I’m not comparing The Book of Mormon Musical viewers (or its creators) to my chief tormentors. If you want to make fun of my religion (or of me for trying to adhere to it), go right ahead.  I wouldn’t stop you even if I could.  I’m a big boy who’s grown a thick skin, and I certainly can take it.  If you go, I hope you enjoy the show; I would be the last to suggest that there isn’t anything to laugh about in Mormonism.  But I invite you to consider this: if the object of the scorn, ridicule, and bullying were my religion rather than my disability, which one of the three groups I describe above would you belong to?

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Looking forward to this. Going Aug 17th. Very excited to see it again 

This is Danite informant Nehor, we have a location on an approved target on the 17th. Prepare to mobilize.

Edit: Sorry, that was supposed to be a PM to my handler. Messed up. My apologies.

Edited August 5, 2017 by The Nehor

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is Danite informant Nehor, we have a location on an approved target on the 17th. Prepare to mobilize.

Edit: Sorry, that was supposed to be a PM to my handler. Messed up. My apologies.

Target Compromise Remedies in progress!  

[Spammer]

I've seen the play. It's very juvenile with some laugh out loud moments. It's not worth a second ticket, though. About Hasa Diga Ebowai, the lyrics are standard atheist apologetics seeking to undermine the idea of a loving God.  I've thought and spoken those same words myself, only in English, back when I became an atheist after I was angry at God for not answering my sincere prayers about whether he exists and saving/fixing my now destroyed family. My problems were nothing compared to those faced by the fictional Ugandan tribe in the play, based on a reality faced by many in Africa: genital mutilation, rape, warlords and murder. The point of the song in the play is to point out that the Africans the missionaries encounter have no reason to believe God loves them. They greet the missionaries by singing that song. It's the standard atheist critique of Christianity, channeled by Stone and Parker through the African stereotypes portrayed on stage. Yes, it's offensive and juvenile, but it resonates for those who have difficulty reconciling human suffering with a loving God. It's the same issue being discussed in the 'existence of evil' thread. I have atheist friends who love the song for that reason. They also love Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".  Critiquing the song merely for its vulgarity misses the point. It's a gauntlet thrown down to anyone (like me) who believes God is Love.

FWIW

Edited August 6, 2017 by Spammer

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How nice. Hope you enjoy it. What has you so twitterpated?

It's a fun show...seriously who wouldn't enjoy a singing and dancing Joseph Smith?  Plus the music is inspiring, the songs "I believe" and "Sal Tala Ka Siti" are both beautiful inspiring songs.  I'm also looking forward to seeing the line of tap dancing missionaries and the dancing Starbucks coffee cups....like I said, it's a fun show

[Analytics]

Personally, I thought the play was good and had a valid, uplifting message. The missionaries weren't portrayed any worse than the ones in Saturday's Warrior. The basic message was that these folks in Africa were facing some incredibly real and serious issues, and the correlated Mormonism that was presented to them was impotent to help. The missionaries were good guys who wanted to help, but their ability to help was limited. Saturday's Warrior captures the same feeling of missionaries going out thinking they'll be the next Ammon and then getting humbled by reality. I think most missionaries have felt this in one way or another. 

The twist in the plot is that because of his propensity to make things up, Elder Cunningham provides teachings that are a blend of Mormonism, American values, Star Wars, Star Trek, and the Lord of the Rings that directly addresses the actual issues these Ugandans were facing, and a new religion that worked for these people evolved out of Mormonism. Was this new religion true? Of course not, but it still provided the sociological benefits of religion. In the end this new religion believes in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Cunningham.

The message that secularists get from the play is that religion really can be a good thing that provides positive sociological benefits--having healthy rules to live by, faith, and belonging to a religious community are good things. The takeaway is empathy for religions and for missionaries who are trying to make the world a better place.

In the end, the play is uplifting and portrays the missionaries well. I think that is the reason the LDS Church decides to advertise in the play bills--something I'm sure they don't do for Saturday's Voyeur.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Personally, I thought the play was good and had a valid, uplifting message. The missionaries weren't portrayed any worse than the ones in Saturday's Warrior. The basic message was that these folks in Africa were facing some incredibly real and serious issues, and the correlated Mormonism that was presented to them was impotent to help. The missionaries were good guys who wanted to help, but their ability to help was limited. Saturday's Warrior captures the same feeling of missionaries going out thinking they'll be the next Ammon and then getting humbled by reality. I think most missionaries have felt this in one way or another. 

The twist in the plot is that because of his propensity to make things up, Elder Cunningham provides teachings that are a blend of Mormonism, American values, Star Wars, Star Trek, and the Lord of the Rings that directly addresses the actual issues these Ugandans were facing, and a new religion that worked for these people evolved out of Mormonism. Was this new religion true? Of course not, but it still provided the sociological benefits of religion. In the end this new religion believes in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Cunningham.

The message that secularists get from the play is that religion really can be a good thing that provides positive sociological benefits--having healthy rules to live by, faith, and belonging to a religious community are good things. The takeaway is empathy for religions and for missionaries who are trying to make the world a better place.

In the end, the play is uplifting and portrays the missionaries well. I think that is the reason the LDS Church decides to advertise in the play bills--something I'm sure they don't do for Saturday's Voyeur.

CFR that the Church of Jesus Christ "decides to advertise in the play bills" because the Church thinks the play is "uplifting".

gmab.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that the Church of Jesus Christ "decides to advertise in the play bills" because the Church thinks the play is "uplifting".

gmab.

The P.R. firm of Jesus Christ conducted focus group research on people who saw the play. The research indicated that people find the play to be uplifting and that after seeing it, they are more sympathetic to Mormon missionaries and more curious about their message. This information was in fact a key part of their strategy of embracing the situation by advertising in the playbill. I've heard that the report on this research will soon be leaked, but I don't know when.

The smiling faces below illustrate the positive feelings about the play that the advertisement is attempting to transfer to the book.

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Analytics

[Kenngo1969]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

... The basic message was that these folks in Africa were facing some incredibly real and serious issues, and the correlated Mormonism that was presented to them was impotent to help. ...

Hmm.  Interesting.  How, then, does one account for the fact that, contrary to the play's caricatures of religion in general, of Mormonism in particular, and of Mormon missionary work, it is not in the increasingly-atheistic and religously apathetic United States of America where so-called "correlated Mormonism" is resonating most, but, rather, in some of the very places whose culture Parker, Stone, and Lopez ridicule and lampoon?  For one instance tending to provide evidence for this, see here: http://www.normons.com/what-the-book-of-mormon-musical-wont-tell-you/.

Quote

The twist in the plot is that because of his propensity to make things up, Elder Cunningham provides teachings that are a blend of Mormonism, American values, Star Wars, Star Trek, and the Lord of the Rings that directly addresses the actual issues these Ugandans were facing, and a new religion that worked for these people evolved out of Mormonism.

Again, contrary to Parker, Stone, and Lopez's caricature, it's not "a new religion . . . that evolved out of Mormonism" that is working for these people; rather, it is simple, genuine, honest-to-goodness, undiluted, uncaricatured Mormonism ... the real thing ... that is working for these people.  (I refer you again to the link I provide above, and I'm sure more examples may be found readily.) 

Quote

Was this new religion true? Of course not, but it still provided the sociological benefits of religion. In the end this new religion believes in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Cunningham.

I would be the last to suggest that one should give up religion even if the primary benefits one derives from it are social or sociological in nature rather than deriving any deeper benefit from it.  (Half a loaf is better than none, as the old saying goes.)  However, as the receptivity of Africans to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ seems to indicate, the vast majority of those people derive much more than simple social or sociological benefits from their membership and participation in the Church of Jesus Christ.  Also, you seem to be falling prey to a double standard here: On the one hand, you claim that "correlated Mormonism" doesn't offer any genuine solutions to real problems (or at least, that this is Parker, Stone, and Lopez's thesis), yet, on the other hand, you claim that simple social or sociological benefits are why religion resonates most with people.  The two positions seem inconsistent.

Quote

The message that secularists get from the play is that religion really can be a good thing that provides positive sociological benefits--having healthy rules to live by, faith, and belonging to a religious community are good things. The takeaway is empathy for religions and for missionaries who are trying to make the world a better place.

How can that be the play's central message when it ridicules and marginalizes genuine religious faith (which actually does provide the benefits you mention, along with others, which are even more important (as I have already pointed out)) and favors, instead, the caricature of religious faith found in "The Gospel of Elder Cunningham"? 

Quote

In the end, the play is uplifting and portrays the missionaries well. I think that is the reason the LDS Church decides to advertise in the play bills--something I'm sure they don't do for Saturday's Voyeur.

Perhaps (though you can color me exceedingly doubtful on that score).  On the other hand, perhaps the difference in the response of the Church of Jesus Christ to Saturday's Voyeur as opposed to its response to The Book of Mormon: The Musical stems simply from the difference in reach of the two productions.  No disrespect to Saturday's Voyeur, but I doubt it's in any danger of becoming a Tony winner (though there's no accounting for taste) anytime soon.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

... .like I said, it's a fun show

Well, one man's "fun" is another man's ... well, you know.