BoM The Musical in SLC

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

I've seen the play. It's very juvenile with some laugh out loud moments. It's not worth a second ticket, though. ...

If it's not worth a second ticket, then I think the question must be asked, Why was it worth a first?

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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

 

I see.  So you have evidence, then, that the reason why those folks are smiling is specifically because they have both seen the play and read the book?  Color me doubtful.  

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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/.

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.) 

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.

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"? 

I'm just describing the actual story of the play. In the play, the villagers were initially excited to hear a message that would help them, but then became frustrated when the actual contents of the message seemed irrelevant to their lives. Elder Cunningham salvages the discussion by making up some things that make it relevant, and a new branch of Mormonism quickly evolves into existence. That's what the play is about. If you think the one and only religion that works for everybody is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was incorporated in 1851, that is your prerogative. But the play is about a different view where churches evolve to meet the changing needs of people.

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I see.  So you have evidence, then, that the reason why those folks are smiling is specifically because they have both seen the play and read the book?  Color me doubtful.  

No. I think the reason these folks are smiling is because they are professional models who were instructed to smile for this particular photo shoot. But I do have evidence that these photos were chosen for this ad campaign because the advertisers hope they will help transfer positive emotions about the play to the book.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

 

The guy on the left looks strikingly like Alex Boyé to me. I'm fairly certain Alex joined the Church of Jesus Christ long before the advent of "Book of Mormon: the Musical," and that his interest in the Book of Mormon did not stem from his having viewed the play -- if indeed he ever saw the play.

I think what is being conveyed here is the happiness that comes from reading the Book of Mormon and embracing its message, not necessarily seeing the play first and only then reading the book. As the ad copy says, "the book is always better."

And pardon me, but your unsubstantiated assertion about PR firms and focus groups and "soon-to-be-leaked" information strikes me as less than credible support for the notion that the Church took out ad space in the Playbill because it believes the play is "uplifting."

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If it's not worth a second ticket, then I think the question must be asked, Why was it worth a first?

It's kind of like The Phantom Menace (Star Wars!) or Star Trek Generations (Kirk!).  I had to see both on the big screen but I wouldn't pay to see them in a theater again. 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The guy on the left looks strikingly like Alex Boyé to me. I'm fairly certain Alex joined the Church of Jesus Christ long before the advent of "Book of Mormon: the Musical," and that his interest in the Book of Mormon did not stem from his having viewed the play -- if indeed he ever saw the play.

I think what is being conveyed here is the happiness that comes from reading the Book of Mormon and embracing its message, not necessarily seeing the play first and only then reading the book. As the ad copy says, "the book is always better."

 

It has to be Boye even if I am rotten with faces, Boye has a space between his two front teeth just like I had as a kid (so that is one of the rare things I actually notice in faces...sometimes):

https://www.templesquare.com/blog/alex-boye/

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The guy on the left looks strikingly like Alex Boyé to me. I'm fairly certain Alex joined the Church of Jesus Christ long before the advent of "Book of Mormon: the Musical," and that his interest in the Book of Mormon did not stem from his having viewed the play -- if indeed he ever saw the play.

I think what is being conveyed here is the happiness that comes from reading the Book of Mormon and embracing its message, not necessarily seeing the play first and only then reading the book. As the ad copy says, "the book is always better."

And pardon me, but your unsubstantiated assertion about PR firms and focus groups and "soon-to-be-leaked" information strikes me as less than credible support for the notion that the Church took out ad space in the Playbill because it believes the play is "uplifting."

 

I'm not somehow claiming that the church believes happiness necessarily comes from seeing the play first and only then reading the book. Rather, I'm claiming that the advertisers are employing transfer, which in this case includes transferring the positive emotions from the play onto the book itself.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not somehow claiming that the church believes happiness necessarily comes from seeing the play first and only then reading the book. Rather, I'm claiming that the advertisers are employing transfer, which in this case includes transferring the positive emotions from the play onto the book itself.

 

I think you are dubiously equating being entertained with being "uplifted," which means to be elevated or stimulated morally or spiritually.

You might think the two terms are synonymous, but I'm confident you would have a hard time proving that the Church of Jesus Christ agrees.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Raingirl]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not somehow claiming that the church believes happiness necessarily comes from seeing the play first and only then reading the book. Rather, I'm claiming that the advertisers are employing transfer, which in this case includes transferring the positive emotions from the play onto the book itself.

 

No, they are not. They are showing joyful faces that come from what happens after you read the Book of Mormon, INSTEAD OF seeing the play. Experiencing the real thing as opposed to a perversion of it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has to be Boye even if I am rotten with faces, Boye has a space between his two front teeth just like I had as a kid (so that is one of the rare things I actually notice in faces...sometimes):

https://www.templesquare.com/blog/alex-boye/

I confess I Googled him and clicked on the "Images" tab to make certain (the tooth gap was one of the characteristics I looked for).

But I'm pretty good at recognizing him, having traveled with him during the Mormon Tabernacle Choir tour of New York, Maryland and Boston two years ago.

 

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

No. I think the reason these folks are smiling is because they are professional models who were instructed to smile for this particular photo shoot. But I do have evidence that these photos were chosen for this ad campaign because the advertisers hope they will help transfer positive emotions about the play to the book.

We Latter-day Saints have enough "camera-ready" faces among us that we don't need to rely on such sources as Shutterstock to provide art for things such as this.  

Edited August 6, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are dubiously equating being entertained with being "uplifted," which means to be elevated or stimulated morally or spiritually.

You might think the two terms are synonymous, but I'm confident you would have a hard time proving that the Church of Jesus Christ agrees.

No, I stand by my word choice on the issue.

I'm not claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ thinks that being entertained and being uplifted are the same thing, nor am I claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ thinks this play is uplifting. I am claiming that the advertising agency of Jesus Christ did research on how non-Mormons react to the play, and found that the majority of non-members who watch it think that the play is uplifting.

For reference, here is an excerpt from the original review in The New York Times:

Quote

This is to all the doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up. I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water. So hie thee hence, nonbelievers (and believers too), to “The Book of Mormon,” and feast upon its sweetness.

Now you should probably know that this collaboration between the creators of television’s “South Park” (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) and the composer of “Avenue Q” (Robert Lopez) is also blasphemous, scurrilous and more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak. But trust me when I tell you that its heart is as pure as that of a Rodgers and Hammerstein show.

That’s right, the same Rodgers and Hammerstein who wrote the beloved “Sound of Music” and “King and I,” two works specifically (and deliciously) referenced here. Like those wholesome, tuneful shows, “The Book of Mormon” is about naïve but plucky educators set down in an unfamiliar world, who find their feet, affirm their values and learn as much as they teach....

“The Book of Mormon” is utterly fluent in the language of musical entertainment from vaudeville to anthem-laden poperettas like “Les Misérables” and beyond. And it uses this vocabulary with a mixture of reverence and ridicule in which, I would say, reverence has the upper hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/theater/reviews/the-book-of-mormon-at-eugene-oneill-theater-review.html

[emphasis added]

So really, there are only two issues here. Whether non-Mormons generally agree with the Times review and find the show uplifting, and whether the advertising agency of Jesus Christ was able to figure that out.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Analytics

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm just describing the actual story of the play. In the play, the villagers were initially excited to hear a message that would help them, but then became frustrated when the actual contents of the message seemed irrelevant to their lives. Elder Cunningham salvages the discussion by making up some things that make it relevant, and a new branch of Mormonism quickly evolves into existence. That's what the play is about. If you think the one and only religion that works for everybody is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was incorporated in 1851, that is your prerogative. But the play is about a different view where churches evolve to meet the changing needs of people.

This is exactly what the play is about.  Making religion relative to people's actual lives.  It is very irreverent and definitely not run through the church correlation department.  But the people embrace a story and a message that they can identify with.  I think it is very relevant to how a lot of the public views all religion in today's world.  Many are searching for something that has relevance in their lives today.  They are leaving organized religion to find something that doesn't conform to strict beliefs that fit a generation 6000 years ago.  It is actually what Christ was trying to do.  He was discarding the part of the teachings from the Old Testament and trying to make it more relevant to the people of his time.  Many of the things Christ did church leaders of his time thought were irreverent and not run through the correlation department of the church hierarchy .  I am not at all saying that the play is some kind of new gospel.  But I am agreeing that the play's central message is one of making a religion something that has relevance to the people in the village where the play takes place.  And that is the uplifting message that many report having while leaving the theater.  

in some ways, I think we are hearing from those that can't see past the flaws or their own expectations of the play, so they condemn it.  They are not interested in the positive message the play presents.  It is how many approach religion as well.

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

We Latter-day Saints have enough "camera-ready" faces among us that we don't need to rely on such sources as Shutterstock to provide art for things such as this.  

True enough. I've been a little cynical about such things since I was in the MTC in 1989 and a general authority told us about the 1987 movie "Together Forever" that we showed investigators. He said that even though the movie was in the format of a documentary, the characters were actors--not real people. He said that the black woman in the film that was struggling with her marriage until she found Mormonism wasn't even a member of the church. He said that after the movie, the actress wrote to him and said that making the movie changed her life. She didn't join the church, but still found playing this role was a great experience. That is why the G.A. shared the story with us--he thought that was a faith-promoting story because of that. We all found it quite disturbing that we were showing people a documentary with actors instead of real people.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, I stand by my word choice on the issue.

I'm not claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ thinks that being entertained and being uplifted are the same thing, nor am I claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ thinks this play is uplifting. I am claiming that the advertising agency of Jesus Christ did research on how non-Mormons react to the play, and found that the majority of non-members who watch it think that the play is uplifting.

For reference, here is an excerpt from the original review in The New York Times:

[emphasis added]

So really, there are only two issues here. Whether non-Mormons generally agree with the Times review and find the show uplifting, and whether the advertising agency of Jesus Christ was able to figure that out.

You are changing your tune. You initially asserted that the Church of Jesus Christ took out ads in Playbill because the play is so "uplifting," as though it were axiomatic that the play is uplifting. The notion struck me as odd -- and still does -- that the Church would regard a play that profanely and obscenely ridicules the Mormon faith as "uplifting."

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I confess I Googled him and clicked on the "Images" tab to make certain (the tooth gap was one of the characteristics I looked for).

But I'm pretty good at recognizing him, having traveled with him during the Mormon Tabernacle Choir tour of New York, Maryland and Boston two years ago.

 

That wouldn't work for me.  Six months away due to teaching in Russia and I was spacing on my home ward family faces save my close friends.  Major embarrassment.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

True enough. I've been a little cynical about such things since I was in the MTC in 1989 and a general authority told us about the 1987 movie "Together Forever" that we showed investigators. He said that even though the movie was in the format of a documentary, the characters were actors--not real people. He said that the black woman in the film that was struggling with her marriage until she found Mormonism wasn't even a member of the church. He said that after the movie, the actress wrote to him and said that making the movie changed her life. She didn't join the church, but still found playing this role was a great experience. That is why the G.A. shared the story with us--he thought that was a faith-promoting story because of that. We all found it quite disturbing that we were showing people a documentary with actors instead of real people.

 

 

For the record, I disapproved, and still do, of the Church making a faux documentary and hiring actors and what not to convey its missionary message. I believe it was a misstep, that people in the Missionary Department were ill-advised by individuals who did not understand journalistic ethics. I would have felt better about it had the producers included a disclaimer to the effect that it contained scripted dialogue and paid actors, though such a thing might not have suited their aims.

I'm not aware of the Church having done anything of that nature since then, which was nearly three decades ago. And I don't believe "Together Forever" is shown very much anymore.

The recent "Meet the Mormons" movies have shown that Church documentary motion pictures can be produced with honesty and still accomplish what "Together Forever" was intended to do.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Calm said:

That wouldn't work for me.  Six months away due to teaching in Russia and I was spacing on my home ward family faces save my close friends.  Major embarrassment.

Well its not like my memory of his face hasn't been reinforced on several occasions before and since that tour.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Spammer said:

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.

https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/summerautumn2012/cringe-worthy-depiction-africa

"Certainly, Uganda's troubles are many, but the Uganda presented here looks nothing like the "real Uganda."[2] The Book of Mormon producers worked so hard to get the "Mormon thing" right, while completely ignoring the Ugandan culture, a struggling democracy and economy ravaged by years of war and disease. While Mormons may recognize themselves in The Book of Mormon (even if in a sort of "fun house mirror" reflection), Ugandans would not. Ugandans are not as buffoonish or as inhumane as those presented in The Book of Mormon. Stone, Parker, and Lopez's lack of interest in trying to present anything beyond stereotypes of East Africa is embodied in the song "Hasa Diga Eebowai." Say what you will about the accuracy of the "Africans" depicted in The Lion King musical, at least "Hakuna Matata" actually meanssomething in Swahili. "Hasa Diga Eebowai" is gibberish. If The Book of Mormon is blasphemous, as some have claimed, what bothers me more than any blasphemy (which I actually don't see) is this linguistic imprecision. This suggests to me that while Stone, Parker, and Lopez are willing to dedicate themselves to careful study of Mormon soteriology, they cannot be bothered to go out into the middle of Forty-Second Street and find a Ugandan passing by to help them with some basic Luganda.

I agree with John Mark Reynolds, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, who called The Book of Mormon "a minstrel show for our present age" in The Washington Post. But I disagree that Mormons are the main minstrels. More on point is Jared Farmer, who wrote in Religion Dispatches:

I cringed in my seat at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre as I watched talented African American actors hamming up "African-ness" for cheap laughs. It brought to mind the long, shameful history of Americans—black and white—performing blackness (often in blackface) on stage for white audiences. The Book of Mormon wants to have it both ways. It wants to make fun of The Lion King and its African stereotypes by substituting more authentic stereotypes.[3]

As someone who is personally sensitized to the The Lion King connections here, I agree that the "Hakuna Matata" of The Lion King deserves to be taken to task for ignoring Africa as a site of real suffering. But, by presenting Africans as beyond redemption, so devastated by war, AIDS, and depravation, The Book of Mormon strips these Africans of any real agency, any real humanity. Even when the musical seems poised to end on a happy note, with warlords, villagers, and Mormon missionaries all joining hands to sing, "I am a Latter-day Saint / I help all those I can / The only latter day that matters is tomorrow!" the actual last line of the musical is the doctor's now (too)-oft-repeated announcement, "I still have maggots in my scrotum!" Hope, religion, and community cannot repair the nihilism inherent in this depiction of Africa.

In The Lion King, Africans are literally animals. But with fathers caring for their sons, with vengeful uncles attempting to kill off potential rivals to leadership, with a young lion unsure that he can be the Lion King—to my mind these animals are more fully realized humans than the Africans presented in The Book of Mormon."

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are changing your tune. You initially asserted that the Church of Jesus Christ took out ads in Playbill because the play is so "uplifting," as though it were axiomatic that the play is uplifting. The notion struck me as odd -- and still does -- that the Church would regard a play that profanely and obscenely ridicules the Mormon faith as "uplifting."

My original post was qualified with,  "Personally, I thought the play was..." In my opinion, I wasn't saying anything axiomatically and haven't changed my tune. While it's true that I didn't qualify every sentence of that post this way, it seems to me at least that doing so would be redundant. In my opinion, everybody should know that what I'm saying is just my opinion. But maybe I'm wrong about that, and should qualify every sentence with an affirmative declaration that my views are just my own and don't represent the Church. But of course that's just my opinion, and the Church may or may not agree with me about my belief that my opinion are my own and may or may not coincide with the Church's official position.

[Calm]

Also:

http://religiondispatches.org/why-ithe-book-of-mormoni-the-musical-is-awesomely-lame/

"The musical gives Africans far more offense than Mormons. By virtue of being from the American West, the South Park creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have an intuitive feel for heartland Mormons. The main character, Elder Price—though a caricature—felt real to me (I was born and raised in Utah). All of the Ugandans felt fake.

To be fair, The Book of Mormon intends to lampoon neo-colonial cultural products like The Lion King and celebrity do-gooders like Bono who proclaim “We’re all Africans.” And to the extent that the musical forces its audience to think about Africa in the present rather than a nostalgic past, it might be considered well-intentioned. (Likewise, mercifully, the musical passes over the tired topic of polygamy.) However, the pathologizing of modern Africa is too much. The Book of Mormon’s black people are rural, backwards, poor, violent, uneducated, illiterate, superstitious, gullible, hopeless, diseased. They have maggots. Warlords mutilate female genitalia and rape babies to cure their AIDS (a now outdated reference to a folk-belief about “virgin-cleansing” that began in South Africa).

One of the musical’s running gags—a young female convert believes she can use a typewriter to send text-messages—is simply groundless. East Africans are among the most adept users of cell phones in the world.

The plot twists at the end raise questions about the racial politics of the show. Only a threat of American violence saves the villagers from the tyranny of the local warlord. Only the ingenuity of the white men provides Africans a useful religion. The dewy-eyed boys from Utah share the genius of Joseph Smith: the Yankee spirit of invention. The musical’s happy ending, complete with black missionaries in neo-Mormon garb, contains a strong note of American chauvinism."

Edited August 6, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My original post was qualified with,  "Personally, I thought the play was..." In my opinion, I wasn't saying anything axiomatically and haven't changed my tune. While it's true that I didn't qualify every sentence of that post this way, it seems to me at least that doing so would be redundant. In my opinion, everybody should know that what I'm saying is just my opinion. But maybe I'm wrong about that, and should qualify every sentence with an affirmative declaration that my views are just my own and don't represent the Church. But of course that's just my opinion, and the Church may or may not agree with me about my belief that my opinion are my own and may or may not coincide with the Church's official position.

The clear message from your post was that the play is uplifting and that's why the Church bought the ads in Playbill.

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The clear message from your post was that the play is uplifting and that's why the Church bought the ads in Playbill.

As I originally said, "The message that secularists get from the play is that..." I'm glad you understand my point now.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

... So really, there are only two issues here. Whether non-Mormons generally agree with the Times review and find the show uplifting, and whether the advertising agency of Jesus Christ was able to figure that out.

Jesus Christ has an ad agency?  Who knew?