BoM The Musical in SLC

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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

The takeaway, bottom-line, ending paragraph of your prior post was this:

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.

Not just "I believe the play is uplifiting," or "secularists think the play is uplifting," but, "the play is uplifting" and that's why the Church bought the ads.

No acknowledgment here that maybe the Church is shrewdly capitalizing on the free publicity or the natural curiosity that might arise in the minds of viewers who have just spent 2 1/2 hours watching a religious faith demeaned, blasphemed and reviled?

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/5/2017 at 4:40 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

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

 

 

Too bad it was deleted. I hadn't heard that Hillary Clinton praised the show as "toe-tapping."

Gives me another reason (as though I needed one) to be very glad she lost the election.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour 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.

I stated earlier that because of my experience as a Mormon and a musician who has directed and performed in musicals, having read the script, watched the video, YouTube the songs, and read dozens of reviews and synopses, I do not for one New York minute believe the hype the NYT and other reviewers have put out about the show. 

Quote

And it uses this vocabulary with a mixture of reverence and ridicule in which, I would say, reverence has the upper hand.

The BS meter is pegged on this one. It's laughable. The vocabulary of Hasa Diga Eebowai and Joseph Smith American Moses reverent? Excuse me while I go outside to guffaw my guts out.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours 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.

 

 

I find it interesting that so many in this thread (I'm not picking on Scott, it was just convenient to quote him) who are critical of the musical having never even seen the musical.  Might I suggest, instead of criticizing the play...take a moment and actually listen to 2 or 3 of the songs from the show which are readily available on YouTube for free.  I would suggest ...I believe, sal ta laka siti, hello, I am Africa or two by two.  Then after you've listened, return and report. Stay away from  hasa dega eboway. It's offensive even to me and I'm agnostic 😜  I would really like to get your impression after you've actually listened to some of the music...

Edited August 7, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The takeaway, bottom-line, ending paragraph of your prior post was this:

Not just "I believe the play is uplifiting," or "secularists think the play is uplifting," but, "the play is uplifting" and that's why the Church bought the ads.

No acknowledgment here that maybe the Church is shrewdly capitalizing on the free publicity or the natural curiosity that might arise in the minds of viewers who have just spent 2 1/2 hours watching a religious faith demeaned, blasphemed and reviled?

 

Yes, in my opinion that was my last paragraph. In my opinion, I would have thought that if the post were read in context, the reader would understand that I was talking about my opinion and how audiences generally receive the play. In my opinion I now know I was wrong about that, but at the time I sincerely believed if someone read the post in context, they would have known I was talking about my opinion. So my apologies for the confusion my lack repetitive qualifications obviously caused. 

In my opinion, the Church was in fact shrewdly capitalizing on the play. In my opinion, part of being shrewd is understanding how non-Mormons generally react to the play. I'm giving the P.R. guys credit for having studied how audiences react and incorporating that understanding into the ad campaign. The-book-is-always-better approach works because the audience is left with positive feelings about Mormons. I'm giving them credit for understanding that.

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I stated earlier that because of my experience as a Mormon and a musician who has directed and performed in musicals, having read the script, watched the video, YouTube the songs, and read dozens of reviews and synopses, I do not for one New York minute believe the hype the NYT and other reviewers have put out about the show. 

The BS meter is pegged on this one. It's laughable. The vocabulary of Hasa Diga Eebowai and Joseph Smith American Moses reverent? Excuse me while I go outside to guffaw my guts out.

Whose opinion should I care more about? The NYT reviewer that actually saw the show, or the guy on a message board who has not?

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Whose opinion should I care more about? The NYT reviewer that actually saw the show, or the guy on a message board who has not?

Um, given that the New York Times, like most of the elite Eastern mainstream media, is generally antipathetic to organized religion -- especially one that is generally conservative on social values like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- I'm going with Bernard Gui on this one. No contest.

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Too bad it was deleted. I hadn't heard that Hillary Clinton praised the show as "toe-tapping."

Gives me another reason (as though I needed one) to be very glad she lost the election.

To be fair, that was Mr. Steyn's characterization, not something Secretary Clinton said.  Perhaps I will incur less of the moderators' wrath if I simply link to Mr. Steyn's piece?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/328163/bowing-mob-mark-steyn

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To be fair, that was Mr. Steyn's characterization, not something Secretary Clinton said.  Perhaps I will incur less of the moderators' wrath if I simply link to Mr. Steyn's piece?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/328163/bowing-mob-mark-steyn

Thanks for the clarification.

Sounds like she really enjoyed the show, though.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, in my opinion that was my last paragraph. In my opinion, I would have thought that if the post were read in context, the reader would understand that I was talking about my opinion and how audiences generally receive the play. In my opinion I now know I was wrong about that, but at the time I sincerely believed if someone read the post in context, they would have known I was talking about my opinion. So my apologies for the confusion my lack repetitive qualifications obviously caused. 

In my opinion, the Church was in fact shrewdly capitalizing on the play. In my opinion, part of being shrewd is understanding how non-Mormons generally react to the play. I'm giving the P.R. guys credit for having studied how audiences react and incorporating that understanding into the ad campaign. The-book-is-always-better approach works because the audience is left with positive feelings about Mormons. I'm giving them credit for understanding that.

We all understood that you were giving your opinion. I certainly wasn't confused.  Scott is just picking a fight.  You can always tell when he dissects each sentence and then states what you actually met.  When you restate what you were trying to say, he insists that he is right and your clarification is not really what you met to say.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, given that the New York Times, like most of the elite Eastern mainstream media, is generally antipathetic to organized religion -- especially one that is generally conservative on social values like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- I'm going with Bernard Gui on this one. No contest.

 

You do realize that the New York Times review is about the play, not an article about Mormon doctrine.  

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Whose opinion should I care more about? The NYT reviewer that actually saw the show, or the guy on a message board who has not?

Depends on you. I've read the script, listened to the soundtrack several times, read dozens of reviews and synopses, and watched a YouTube video of the complete show. I have a masters degree in music and have directed several musical orchestras (Music Man, South Pacific, Of Thee I Sing, Oklahoma, Li'l Abner, Once Upon a Mattress) and played in musical and opera orchestras for 40 years. If that isn't enough for me to be able to form a valid opinion, then we don't have much to discuss.  I believe it is a mediocre endeavor and will not stand the test of time. 

What do you know about the NYT reviewer?

From his review....

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.

Somehow the word "Sweet" has been stuck to it and is found in every review I have read, including the one in the OP from the Deseret News. They are not Rodgers and Hammerstein, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. So much absurd baloney and unmerited hype!

Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I find it interesting that so many in this thread (I'm not picking on Scott, it was just convenient to quote him) who are critical of the musical having never even seen the musical.  Might I suggest, instead of criticizing the play...take a moment and actually listen to 2 or 3 of the songs from the show which are readily available on YouTube for free.  I would suggest ...I believe, sal ta laka siti, hello, I am Africa or two by two.  Then after you've listened, return and report. Stay away from  hasa dega eboway. It's offensive even to me and I'm agnostic 😜  I would really like to get your impression after you've actually listened to some of the music...

As I have repeatedly said, I have done all the above. It still is mediocre stuff. I see you didn't mention Joseph Smith American Moses. That's a real winner, wouldn't you agree? My impression after listening? It's awful.

[Bernard Gui]

16 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. 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

Thanks for your comments. The vulgarity is precisely the point, especially when it is used to mock and vilify a religion that eschews vulgarity. Do you think they could have gotten their message across (if indeed it is what they intended...interviews I have read don't support that) without the obscenities, blasphemy, scatologies, filth, mockery, and purposely insulting and shocking words? Many great writers have dealt with these issues without the potty mouth. If not, the poverty of their talent and intellect becomes obvious. If your interpretation is correct, that it is the visceral cry of atheism against religion and an evil god, then how can it also be a sweet love-letter to Mormons?

Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Depends on you. I've read the script, listened to the soundtrack several times, read dozens of reviews and synopses, and watched a YouTube video of the complete show. I have a masters degree in music and have directed several musical orchestras (Music Man, South Pacific, Of Thee I Sing, Oklahoma, Li'l Abner, Once Upon a Mattress) and played in musical and opera orchestras for 40 years. If that isn't enough for me to be able to form a valid opinion, then we don't have much to discuss.  I believe it is a mediocre endeavor and will not stand the test of time. 

What do you know about the NYT reviewer?

From his review....

 

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.

 

Somehow the word "Sweet" has been stuck to it and is found in every review I have read, including the one in the OP from the Deseret News. They are not Rodgers and Hammerstein, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. So much absurd baloney and unmerited hype!

Sounds like a pretty accurate review to me.  I did find that the musical had a sweetness to it and a lot of heart.  You seem to only see one side of the coin, which is completely understandable, but not an accurate review of the play.  Perhaps just reading about it doesn't really let that heart come out.

 If you want a completely clinical review of the play from someone who has not seen it, but has read about it, then someone should read your review of the play.  If you want a review of the play that is a more accurate account of what the play is all about by someone who has seen it, then I would recommend the NYT.  Either way, I think people will get what they expect.  

You seem pretty intent in trying to understand what this play is all about short of actually seeing it performed.  And I understand your reluctance to see the play.  But you can't really expect people to take your review of a play you have't seen as being completely accurate.  Perhaps one further step you could do is go to the play and talk to actual people who have seen it to get a feel if they are coming out of the play completely appalled by how the Mormon church is portrayed.  Of course that is with the assumption that you are really trying to understand why this musical has been so wildly successful.  So far, the only reason you give for it's success is because you feel it mocks the Mormon church.  You might be wrong you know.

[Calm]

Trey and Stone certainly didn't appear care about the reality of pain and suffering that might lead one to that level of despair...just comes across as a tool for entertainment.

The words of the centerpiece song, the Atheists' mantra, are made up, they couldn't be bother to look online for a translation service or part with a couple of bucks in their hurry to get their massivecmoney maker on stage.  why not if they care so much about people and not just see them as their puppets who they get to pose and play and say anything they want...why not ask a Ugandan what they should say. Nope, couldn't sspare five minutes to find out.

 How truly uncaring and arrogant. No respect for the real people, the real culture, the real sources of the tragedies...but that would take actual thought to come up with jokes about that.  The FGM and AIDS running gags  are not used as ways to elicite the least bit honest understanding and compassion, but stupid plot points and shock treatment.  The superficial sympathy that might be raised by viewing once they ignored how limited the view of the Ugandans was would then be useless because they have been taught none of the actual context surrounding the tragedies and instead are now filled with misinformation about their problems and the kind of people Ugandans are.

It is an empty gauntlet thrown  down at God without the least intent to pick it up again.  It served its purpose, not to bring attention to the real problems Uganda suffers or the deep spiritual quality of its people and cultures as well as some massively troubling problems that won't be solved by some white man playing savior with a handful of lies.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/6/2017 at 11:58 AM, 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.

Thank you for sharing your view of the show.

In my opinion, if those were their intentions (which I doubt based on interviews I have read), they could have gotten the same message across without the shocking obscenity and mockery. After all, many of the great musicals have dealt with issues such as war, racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, abuse, misogyny, murder, hatred, and poverty without resorting to vilifying and mocking a minority religion, defaming its leaders, and using the foulest imaginable language and images. Having to resort to such cheap shock-value tricks reveals the mediocrity of their writing and imagination.

Anyone can throw together a bunch of four letter words, dress them in some snappy dialogue and pop music tracks, and run them up the flag pole to see who salutes. That's neither talent nor genius. It's hardly worthy of awards. For a Mormon, it's not virtuous or praiseworthy. I see nothing uplifting in what they did to Jesus, God,  Mormons, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Do you not find that song shockingly beyond vulgar, insulting, and unnecessarily over the top? A love-letter to Mormons? In what way is this good uplifting entertainment?

Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Trey and Stone certainly didn't appear care about the reality of pain and suffering that might lead one to that level of despair...just comes across as a tool for entertainment.

The words of the centerpiece song, the Atheists' mantra, are made up, they couldn't be bother to look online for a translation service or part with a couple of bucks in their hurry to get their massivecmoney maker on stage.  why not if they care so much about people and not just see them as their puppets who they get to pose and play and say anything they want...why not ask a Ugandan what they should say. Nope, couldn't sspare five minutes to find out.

 How truly uncaring and arrogant. No respect for the real people, the real culture, the real sources of the tragedies...but that would take actual thought to come up with jokes about that.  The FGM and AIDS running gags  are not used as ways to elicite the least bit honest understanding and compassion, but stupid plot points and shock treatment.  The superficial sympathy that might be raised by viewing once they ignored how limited the view of the Ugandans was would then be useless because they have been taught none of the actual context surrounding the tragedies and instead are now filled with misinformation about their problems and the kind of people Ugandans are.

It is an empty gauntlet thrown  down at God without the least intent to pick it up again.  It served its purpose, not to bring attention to the real problems Uganda suffers or the deep spiritual quality of its people and cultures as well as some massively troubling problems that won't be solved by some white man playing savior with a handful of lies.

Calm, it is a musical, not a documentary.  I think you are judging a theatrical entertainment rather harshly.  I personally think musicals are not historically accurate in the least. If this was a documentary, you  would have a point.  Are we suppose to believe that "Chicago" is an accurate social comment on what was going on in Chicago at that time?  Is "Bye Bye Birdie" an accurate portrayal of Elvis  Presley's induction into the army?  Is "Pirates of Penzence" an accurate portrayal of a seaman's life?  I can't even think of a musical that portrays actual events in a factual way.  It is theater.

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sounds like a pretty accurate review to me.  I did find that the musical had a sweetness to it and a lot of heart.  You seem to only see one side of the coin, which is completely understandable, but not an accurate review of the play.  Perhaps just reading about it doesn't really let that heart come out.

 If you want a completely clinical review of the play from someone who has not seen it, but has read about it, then someone should read your review of the play.  If you want a review of the play that is a more accurate account of what the play is all about by someone who has seen it, then I would recommend the NYT.  Either way, I think people will get what they expect.  

You seem pretty intent in trying to understand what this play is all about short of actually seeing it performed.  And I understand your reluctance to see the play.  But you can't really expect people to take your review of a play you have't seen as being completely accurate.  Perhaps one further step you could do is go to the play and talk to actual people who have seen it to get a feel if they are coming out of the play completely appalled by how the Mormon church is portrayed.  Of course that is with the assumption that you are really trying to understand why this musical has been so wildly successful.  So far, the only reason you give for it's success is because you feel it mocks the Mormon church.  You might be wrong you know.

This is the fourth time now that I have said that in addition to reading the script, listening to the soundtrack, and reading multiple synopses and reviews, I have watched a YouTube video of a live performance of the show. And heard the audience's approving comments of the anti-Mormon mockery as it occurs on stage. Pay a hundred bucks to see it live on stage? Nope. That's twenty servings of Charm Thai restaurant's mango mousse!

I will respond to you the same way I did with Spammer and Analytics. You can read those directly above this.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Trey and Stone certainly didn't appear care about the reality of pain and suffering that might lead one to that level of despair...just comes across as a tool for entertainment.

The words of the centerpiece song, the Atheists' mantra, are made up, they couldn't be bother to look online for a translation service or part with a couple of bucks in their hurry to get their massivecmoney maker on stage.  why not if they care so much about people and not just see them as their puppets who they get to pose and play and say anything they want...why not ask a Ugandan what they should say. Nope, couldn't sspare five minutes to find out.

 How truly uncaring and arrogant. No respect for the real people, the real culture, the real sources of the tragedies...but that would take actual thought to come up with jokes about that.  The FGM and AIDS running gags  are not used as ways to elicite the least bit honest understanding and compassion, but stupid plot points and shock treatment.  The superficial sympathy that might be raised by viewing once they ignored how limited the view of the Ugandans was would then be useless because they have been taught none of the actual context surrounding the tragedies and instead are now filled with misinformation about their problems and the kind of people Ugandans are.

It is an empty gauntlet thrown  down at God without the least intent to pick it up again.  It served its purpose, not to bring attention to the real problems Uganda suffers or the deep spiritual quality of its people and cultures as well as some massively troubling problems that won't be solved by some white man playing savior with a handful of lies.

I am not worthy.

Neither the Africans nor the Mormons are treated with any kind of understanding or respect. That was clearly not their intent. If it was, they failed. They even have the mission president saying, "Praise Christ" and completely misrepresent the Mormon concept of Hell. The show is about as deep as the Rio Grande in El Paso.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is the fourth time now that I have said that in addition to reading the script, listening to the soundtrack, and reading multiple synopses and reviews, I have watched a YouTube video of a live performance of the show. Paying a hundred bucks to see it live on stage? Nope.

I will respond to you the same way I did with Spammer and Analytics. You can read those directly above this.

You have made your opinion known for the past 6 pages.  Is all I and others are saying is that perhaps your opinion is not the only opinion.  Yet when others, including the NYT gives their review of the play, you dismiss it as being unimportant.  What do they know about musical theater.  I guess it is that kind of attitude that I find disingenuous.  And quite frankly you loose just as much credibility with me when you say that you are basing your strong opinion about a play you have not seen because you have seen a production on it on YouTube.  Can you give other examples of YouTube musical productions that you found just as good as attending the theater yourself?  There is a reason people are willing to pay a couple of hundred dollars to see a performance that they could see on YouTube for free.

I am just trying to put your opinion in perspective here.  You certainly are entitled to think what you want about the play.  But I think it would be more fair if you acknowledged that you are at a bit of a disadvantage for not actually seeing the performance.    

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Too bad it was deleted. I hadn't heard that Hillary Clinton praised the show as "toe-tapping."

Gives me another reason (as though I needed one) to be very glad she lost the election.

Yes, thank goodness we got a traitor/mob boss/money launderer/human trafficker as president instead of someone who likes a musical you don't like.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am not worthy.

Neither the Africans nor the Mormons are treated with any kind of understanding or respect. That was clearly not their intent. If it was, they failed. They even have the mission president saying, "Praise Christ" and completely misrepresent the Mormon concept of Hell. The show is about as deep as the Rio Grande in El Paso.

Then don't go see it.  But others have seen it and loved it (and the show continues to attract huge crowds so a great many don't agree with you or at least are entertained and don't care about how "deep" it is).  

You've made your point (many times here without having even seen it in person). You have a right to your opinion, but others are entitled to their opinion as well. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by JulieM

[Atheist Mormon]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I find it interesting that so many in this thread (I'm not picking on Scott, it was just convenient to quote him) who are critical of the musical having never even seen the musical.  Might I suggest, instead of criticizing the play...take a moment and actually listen to 2 or 3 of the songs from the show which are readily available on YouTube for free.  I would suggest ...I believe, sal ta laka siti, hello, I am Africa or two by two.  Then after you've listened, return and report. Stay away from  hasa dega eboway. It's offensive even to me and I'm agnostic 😜  I would really like to get your impression after you've actually listened to some of the music...

 I saw the play in Broadway (doesn't get better than that), it was a superb production & writing. Being an atheist I did enjoy the show, but It would bother me if I were TBM. But again this is one of the direct responses of Secular World's LDS proselytizing efforts. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, thank goodness we got a traitor/mob boss/money launderer/human trafficker as president instead of someone who likes a musical you don't like.

You left out "moron".