BoM The Musical in SLC

[Gray]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You left out "moron".

This and so much more.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Gray

[Analytics]

12 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.

 

Strange that working for a newspaper that is "generally antipathetic to organized religion" makes you less qualified to review a play than somebody who hasn't even seen it. But for clarity, that's just my opinion, of course. I won't comment about whether or not it is strange in the axiomatic sense.

[Analytics]

13 hours 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.

It's interesting how you insist on fixing on two songs you don't like rather than looking at the play as a whole. When trying to understand why so many people like the play and find it sweet and uplifting, context matters.

Regarding Joseph Smith American Moses, the context is that after the other missionaries gave up trying to convert people, Elder Cunningham stuck to it and kept teaching. Because he took some creative licenses with the orthodox stories to make them more relevant to the people there, which then got mixed it up with some "telephone-game" morphing of everything, a new religion emerged in the village that had meaning and vitality for the people. Seeing Elder Cunningham's success, the mission president decided to come out and see what they were doing right. The people of the town put on a play for the mission president called, "Joseph Smith American Moses." That play-in-a-play is what this song is about. In the context of the whole play, it is funny and heart warming. Some of the content is about actions, diseases, and bodily functions that you'd never hear mentioned in a proper Mormon ward, and of course it was in the language of the local people which could seem crude to outsiders. But those elements made it real and seem relevant to the people there. Those elements are definitely on par with the pages upon pages of crazy things in the Old Testament that we now politely ignore. There was some subtle disagreement among the believers about how much of the new stories were literally true and how much of it were metaphors. It isn't that unlike "the missionary speech of all time" that contained a story that was about 95% made up, but still provided a powerful message to the listeners. How much of religion is about adapting stories so that they are more meaningful and powerful?

The mission president liked Joseph Smith American Moses about as much as Bernard Gui would. He was infuriated and decided to pull the missionaries out of that village. The character of the mission president was the only Mormon in the play who wasn't presented sympathetically.

The song isn't about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or Mormonism. Rather, it's about a story that was created that provides meaning and guidance to the lives to the people in Uganda.

I suppose people who take a literal orthodox belief about their religion have a tendency to take great offense when others feel inspired to make adaptations to make it relevant and inspiring in new times and places. Mormonism is such an adaptation and has caused that offense to others. And the cycle continues.

[Kenngo1969]

"I've seen the whole thing on Youtube."

"That doesn't count.  You have to see it live.  The only way we won't dismiss your opinion is if you plunk down a couple hundred bucks to see (and to support ) something which mocks everything you hold sacred will we not discount your opinion."

And something tells me that those goalposts will simply keep a right on a movin'!

"OK, against my better judgment, I plunked down a couple hundred bucks to see it live in Salt Lake City."

"Well, to get the full experience, you have to plunk down five times that (not counting travel, lodging, meals, et cetera) to see it on Broadway ..."

And 'round and 'round she goes!   

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

... I suppose people who take a literal orthodox belief about their religion have a tendency to take great offense when others feel inspired to make adaptations to make it relevant and inspiring in new times and places. Mormonism is such an adaptation and has caused that offense to others. And the cycle continues.

It's not only "orthodox literalists" who find the musical offensive.  Even people who aren't particularly sympathetic to religion have found the play offensive.  And whatever else may have "inspired" Parker, Stone, and Lopez, I think you can rest assured that, for them and at bottom, it's "all about the Benjamins."  And your attempt to draw any kind of an equivalency between people's reactions to the play and people's reactions to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is scurrilous.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"I've seen the whole thing on Youtube."

"That doesn't count.  You have to see it live.  The only way we won't dismiss your opinion is if you plunk down a couple hundred bucks to see (and to support ) something which mocks everything you hold sacred will we not discount your opinion."

And something tells me that those goalposts will simply keep a right on a movin'!

"OK, against my better judgment, I plunked down a couple hundred bucks to see it live in Salt Lake City."

"Well, to get the full experience, you have to plunk down five times that (not counting travel, lodging, meals, et cetera) to see it on Broadway ..."

And 'round and 'round she goes!   

 

I'm surprised anyone would claim that watching a video of a Broadway play is the same as being there and experiencing it in person.  There's no comparison (and I doubt that's what they're saying).

However, I do understand that watching a video, at least gives an overview or some information about what the play contains and what the storyline is.

I've seen the play and I loved it for the most part (the one musical number didn't really offend me, but I didn't enjoy it either).  

I actually saw the play with a group of active members (one who was in the bishopric and another one in stake leadership).  It came to town and many wanted to go see it, so a group went together.   I found that those who had served a mission (my husband included) loved the inside jokes and humor involving the missionaries in the play (much of it is really very funny).  I loved the music and the lyrics are very clever and funny (for the most part).

Is it for everyone?  Of course not!  Many members won't ever even view a movie that isn't G or PG. It's not for them.  But those who have gone and enjoyed the experience shouldn't be judged by someone who hasn't even seen it in person, IMO.  

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's interesting how you insist on fixing on two songs you don't like rather than looking at the play as a whole. When trying to understand why so many people like the play and find it sweet and uplifting, context matters.

Regarding Joseph Smith American Moses, the context is that after the other missionaries gave up trying to convert people, Elder Cunningham stuck to it and kept teaching. Because he took some creative licenses with the orthodox stories to make them more relevant to the people there, which then got mixed it up with some "telephone-game" morphing of everything, a new religion emerged in the village that had meaning and vitality for the people. Seeing Elder Cunningham's success, the mission president decided to come out and see what they were doing right. The people of the town put on a play for the mission president called, "Joseph Smith American Moses." That play-in-a-play is what this song is about. In the context of the whole play, it is funny and heart warming. Some of the content is about actions, diseases, and bodily functions that you'd never hear mentioned in a proper Mormon ward, and of course it was in the language of the local people which could seem crude to outsiders. But those elements made it real and seem relevant to the people there. Those elements are definitely on par with the pages upon pages of crazy things in the Old Testament that we now politely ignore. There was some subtle disagreement among the believers about how much of the new stories were literally true and how much of it were metaphors. It isn't that unlike "the missionary speech of all time" that contained a story that was about 95% made up, but still provided a powerful message to the listeners. How much of religion is about adapting stories so that they are more meaningful and powerful?

The mission president liked Joseph Smith American Moses about as much as Bernard Gui would. He was infuriated and decided to pull the missionaries out of that village. The character of the mission president was the only Mormon in the play who wasn't presented sympathetically.

The song isn't about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or Mormonism. Rather, it's about a story that was created that provides meaning and guidance to the lives to the people in Uganda.

I suppose people who take a literal orthodox belief about their religion have a tendency to take great offense when others feel inspired to make adaptations to make it relevant and inspiring in new times and places. Mormonism is such an adaptation and has caused that offense to others. And the cycle continues.So much baloney and unmerited hype

 

Yes, that's seriously hilarious. Haha.  I know the story. I've watched the show and read the script. The two egregious songs are a major part of the plot and demand scrutiny. I'm amazed you defend them so doggedly. The audience's reaction to them in the video I saw was telling. It was made surreptitiously by an audience member and had pretty decent audio that included verbal comments and cheers from people around them.

Hilarity reigns throughout, but it's sad to blame it on the credulity and foolishness of the Africans who require incredible obscenity to make things understandable, relevant, and meaningful. I don't know any Ugandans personally, but the Nigerians I know are nothing like this. Did you find that insulting to them? Brigham Young's face turning into a female body part, Joseph having sex with frogs at God's command, Jesus's double entendres about Mormon reproduction...all that is inspiring, funny, hip? A love letter to Mormons?

Regarding my orthodoxy, I would have the same opinion if the subject of such foul ridicule were Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, or whatever. A mediocre vulgar musical is a mediocre vulgar musical regardless the subject. Humor at the expense of others isn't funny. It's exploitative and cynical. 

Surely they could have made their point without the extreme vulgarity. Or maybe that's all they are capable of.   Comparing them with Rodgers and Hammerstein is ludicrous. They don't have the chops and haven't done anything to earn that honor.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

I don't find object rape with any object, let alone a Book of Mormon, ongoning and apparently endless baby rape, or FGM as all that humorous.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I'm surprised anyone would claim that watching a video of a Broadway play is the same as being there and experiencing it in person.  ...

... And, as if on cue ...  

Again, you're suggesting that I support something that mocks things that I (that both of us are supposed to) consider sacred.

No thanks.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, that's seriously hilarious. Haha.  I know the story. I've watched the show and read the script. The two egregious songs are a major part of the plot and demand scrutiny. I'm amazed you defend them so doggedly. The audience's reaction to them in the video I saw was telling. It was made surreptitiously by an audience member and had pretty decent audio that included verbal comments and cheers from people around them.

Hilarity reigns throughout, but it's sad to blame it on the credulity and foolishness of the Africans who require incredible obscenity to make things understandable, relevant, and meaningful. I don't know any Ugandans personally, but the Nigerians I know are nothing like this. Did you find that insulting to them?

Regarding my orthodoxy, I would have the same opinion if the subject of such foul ridicule were Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, or whatever. A mediocre vulgar musical is a mediocre vulgar musical regardless the subject.

Surely they could have made their point without the extreme vulgarity. Or maybe that's all they are capable of.   Comparing them with Rodgers and Hammerstein is ludicrous. They don't have the chops and haven't done anything to earn that honor.

Rest assured that I am giving your opinion on the matter all of the weight it deserves.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Fair enough...BTW the scene of "Joseph Smith American Moses" was one of my favorite  While the play does take some small historical license, it does provide the uninformed a fun quick catch up of Mormon foundational claims.  As I said earlier...who doesn't enjoy watching Joseph Smith singing and dancing

 

Edit to add: I was mistaken...I confused "Joseph Smith American Moses" with another song and dance routine "All American Prophet"  I enjoyed All American Prophet, where as "Joseph Smith American Moses" is rather crude...even the mission president in the show is offended. This particular scene is not among my favorite.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Fair enough...BTW the scene of "Joseph Smith American Moses" was one of my favorite  While the play does take some small historical license, it does provide the uninformed a fun quick catch up of Mormon foundational claims.  As I said earlier...who doesn't enjoy watching Joseph Smith singing and dancing

I preferred Hitler dancing in "The Producers".

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You left out "moron".

Yo so no "moron"ero, Soy Capitan, Soy Capitan!!!!!!!

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't find object rape with any object, let alone a Book of Mormon, ongoning and apparently endless baby rape, or FGM as all that humorous.

I agree on the first one and both my husband and I found that part disturbing and unnecessary.  But you're not correct on the other two (iirc), those topics weren't joked about and especially the FGM was handled with outrage and horror (as it should be).

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yo so no "moron"ero, Soy Capitan, Soy Capitan!!!!!!!

O Captain, My Captain!

[Johnnie Cake]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I preferred Hitler dancing in "The Producers".

Classic scene....I absolutely loved that scene...hilarious.  My wife and I were fortunate enough to see The Producers with the original cast in NYC, which included Nathan Lane and Mathew Brodrick.  I also saw it when it came to SLC.  Both shows do a great job of lampooning Hitler and Smith

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Classic scene....I absolutely loved that scene...hilarious.  My wife and I were fortunate enough to see The Producers with the original cast in NYC, which included Nathan Lane and Mathew Brodrick.  I also saw it when it came to SLC.  Both shows do a great job of lampooning Hitler and Smith

Neat, except for the last line which I vociferously disagree with and suspect you will burn in hell for typing.

[Daniel2]

On ‎08‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 3:25 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

One of the points I make in the link I posted earlier is that good satire makes at least a minimal effort to understand its subject as insiders understand it.  I haven't seen the show (not because I'm thin-skinned, but it's the kind of thing about which I would say to myself, "Well, there go 2 1/2 hours of my life I'll never get back" ), but it doesn't seem as though its creators made much of an effort to understand their subject as insiders understand it.

Funny how different people's perspective can be....

I have seen the play twice in NYC, and have tickets to see it again in SL this Saturday eve.

Many of my formerly-LDS friends have likewise seen the play, and virtually everyone I've talked to that has seen the play and is a former member of the church is amazed at just how well the creators of the play absolutely nailed sooooooo much of the church, it's culture, beliefs, and policies.... I believe they've said they consulted with several members of the church and/or former members to try to make sure they got things right.

There are so many details that stood out to me that I was astonished at how well they did their research.  And not only from the vantage of Orthodox LDS beliefs--but also with regards to cultural beliefs and attitudes.  The first time I saw it alone with a NYC audience, I caught so many "in jokes" that the audience around me didn't understand my laughter and delight at all the small stuff about Mormonism they crammed into the play.

Of all the things I can think of, there's only three minor mistakes that really stood about in making mistakes about church policy--1) missionaries don't wait until the MTC to find out who their companion will be and where they'll be serving, and 2) missionaries don't serve with one panion for their whole mission, and 3) a mission president at one point uncharacteristically says, "Praise Christ!" (an evangelical expression and hardly Mormon).  However, it's seems likely to me that the creators understood those points and chose to alter those two relatively minor points due to narrative/storytelling choices for artistic purposes.

With all of the above being said, I don't believe this play is ultimately geared towards devout Latter-day Saints as it's target audience.  I certainly don't think the creators would object to devout Mormons seeing it, but my impression is that they're aware that Mormons probably aren't a huge percent of their fan base (I don't know of many that are South Park fans, for example).  But the story REALLY resonates with former Latter-day Saints, and at it's heart, is what unfolds at the end of the play itself.  At the end of the play, both the audience AND the characters within the play are aware that they've parted ways from the official beliefs, policies, and practices of the institutional LDS church, and although there is commentary about the church itself which others have noticed is ultimately positive for the church, it's not done in a way that is likely to appeal to or resonate with conservative, Orthodox members--it's far more likely to undermine and challenge their Faiths.  I would NOT recommend that most devout members go see this play for the same reason I don't recommend R-rated or X-rated or XXX-rated movies to members of the church... They're likely to find little value and most would get up and leave (I know my family certainly wouldn't last more than a few minutes into this play).

With all of the above said, it's still very clear to me that the creators put forth a LOT of effort to understand their subject matter, so I just wanted to be sure to comment on that, at least.

And I can't wait to go see the film again.  Especially as a gay RM myself, there were parts that truly resonated with me (I find "Turn It Off" to be brilliant and it resonated with value because of my own life struggles and experiences).

D

EDITED to ADD:  Btw, I'm not sure it will make a difference to those that are more Orthodox members, but for the record, I enjoy a wide variety of LDS entertainment, ranging from that made by devout Latter-day Saints to those that satirize it, including: "Saturday's Warrior" (both the original and the new), "The Best Two Years," "Charly," "The Testaments: Of One Fold and One Shepherd," "God's Army" (1 and 2), The Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas Devotionals (which my husband and I continue to attend, every year), annual local ward Christmas choir performances, Michael McLean performances, to the gay-themed "Latter Days," to South Park and the creator's other LDS-themed, irreverent (many would say blasphemous) creations.  As cultural Mormons who still appreciate many things Mormon (both the uplifting and inspiring, the humorous, and those which many might view to be profane) we appreciate and find value in a variety of performances that can hold cultural mirrors up to our own faces and help us reflect on the values that we hold and want to promote, retain, and/or abandon.  I recognize that others have different selection criteria, and support them in their choices to pursue entertainment and art which reflects their chosen values, even if/when they differ from mine.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for the clarification.

Sounds like she really enjoyed the show, though.

There's no accounting for taste.  

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Funny how different people's perspective can be....

I have seen the play twice in NYC, and have tickets to see it again in SL this Saturday eve.

Many of my formerly-LDS friends have likewise seen the play, and virtually everyone I've talked to that has seen the play and is a former member of the church is amazed at just how well the creators of the play absolutely nailed sooooooo much of the church, it's culture, beliefs, and policies.... I believe they've said they consulted with several members of the church and/or former members to try to make sure they got things right.

There are so many details that stood out to me that I was astonished at how well they did their research.  And not only from the vantage of Orthodox LDS beliefs--but also with regards to cultural beliefs and attitudes.  The first time I saw it alone with a NYC audience, I caught so many "in jokes" that the audience around me didn't understand my laughter and delight at all the small stuff about Mormonism they crammed into the play.

Of all the things I can think of, there's only three minor mistakes that really stood about in making mistakes about church policy--1) missionaries don't wait until the MTC to find out who their companion will be and where they'll be serving, and 2) missionaries don't serve with one panion for their whole mission, and 3) a mission president at one point uncharacteristically says, "Praise Christ!" (an evangelical expression and hardly Mormon).  However, it's seems likely to me that the creators understood those points and chose to alter those two relatively minor points due to narrative/storytelling choices for artistic purposes.

With all of the above being said, I don't believe this play is ultimately geared towards devout Latter-day Saints as it's target audience.  I certainly don't think the creators would object to devout Mormons seeing it, but my impression is that they're aware that Mormons probably aren't a huge percent of their fan base (I don't know of many that are South Park fans, for example).  But the story REALLY resonates with former Latter-day Saints, and at it's heart, is what unfolds at the end of the play itself.  At the end of the play, both the audience AND the characters within the play are aware that they've parted ways from the official beliefs, policies, and practices of the institutional LDS church, and although there is commentary about the church itself which others have noticed is ultimately positive for the church, it's not done in a way that is likely to appeal to or resonate with conservative, Orthodox members--it's far more likely to undermine and challenge their Faiths.  I would NOT recommend that most devout members go see this play for the same reason I don't recommend R-rated or X-rated or XXX-rated movies to members of the church... They're likely to find little value and most would get up and leave (I know my family certainly wouldn't last more than a few minutes into this play).

With all of the above said, it's still very clear to me that the creators put forth a LOT of effort to understand their subject matter, so I just wanted to be sure to comment on that, at least.

And I can't wait to go see the film again.  Especially as a gay RM myself, there were parts that truly resonated with me (I find "Turn It Off" to be brilliant!)

D

This is all well and good, but it's also filtered through an "ex-LDS" lens.  Of course ex-LDS aren't necessarily going to be offended by something which mocks things which observant and/or striving Latter-day Saints consider sacred.

Like, Duh!

I do appreciate your perspective, though.

Quote

I believe they've said they consulted with several members of the church and/or former members to try to make sure they got things right.

Then, with all due respect, any of the people they talked to were complete Morons.  Report to the Missionary Training Center and then find out where your field of labor is?  Under such a regime, language training would be complete chaos.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Rest assured that I am giving your opinion on the matter all of the weight it deserves.

And observant and/or striving Latter-day Saints are doing the exact same to yours.  That ain't just a one-way street.  Just sayin'!

[Daniel2]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This is all well and good, but it's also filtered through an "ex-LDS" lens.  Of course ex-LDS aren't necessarily going to be offended by something which mocks things which observant and/or striving Latter-day Saints consider sacred.

Like, Duh!

I do appreciate your perspective, though.

I'm fine if the clarification that "it's also filtered through an 'ex-LDS' lens" gives you added context which makes sense to you... especially since the play ultimately is the journey of (what devout members of the church would characterize as) missionaries (and an entire town) who ultimately 'apostatize' from the LDS church.  Namely, in the end of the play, it's clear that the creators are not trying to conceal from the audience the fact that the form of Mormonism which is adopted by the main characters is inherently and vastly different than those teachings and beliefs emanating from the institutional church in Salt Lake City, and a case could easily be made that the play's entire narrative point is that religion is often adopted only when it's been adapted to become relevant to the circumstances of those that are listening, and that religion becomes strongest when it offers value and improvement to the lives of the people who take upon themselves the name of the religion which guides them.

Stone and Parker make a living by creating satire mocking things which many peoples of all religions, genders, sexual orientations, races, colors, and political affiliations find deeply offensive because they consider them sacred.  That's the territory here... Hence my comment earlier that this isn't anything new for these authors, nor is this particular play likely directed at the Orthodox-LDS audience. 

Additionally, from my perspective, the creators are making the point that many of the deplorable conditions that the Africans have to live with day by day ARE inherently offensive to audience members (rampant violence, immorality, raping babies, female genital mutilation, etc) and they SHOULD be inherently offensive, but that sometimes, it's necessary to confront offensive topics in an effort to find ways to alleviate suffering, abuse, injustice, and the horrors that face inhabitants in some third-world countries, and in the face of the failure of political movements, religion has an inherent strength to help in such circumstances, and that no religious ideal is or should be so sacred or untouchable or non-adaptable that it can't or shouldn't be employed in an innovative, useful way to save human lives and/or end human suffering.

I think many of us are often sensitive when we see commentaries with which we disagree which offends our sensibilities about our most cherished beliefs or self-defining traits.  The good news is that we can choose to avoid those commentaries, if we so wish, and can continue to engage in an attempt to turn those events into productive and healthy dialogue, as you've done here, and as the church has likewise done, in it's choice to advertise in the playbill with the hope that people will continue to discover and ask questions for themselves.  Kudos to you and the church... and, for my part, kudos to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, as well.

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

Daniel,

Again, I appreciate your perspective, but the telling fact remains (as I pointed out earlier in the thread and which no one has yet dealt with substantively) that growth and health of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually are challenged most where Parker, Stone, and Lopez would have us believe that its teachings are supposed to be most relevant, such as, perhaps, in English-speaking nations such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and other such locales, or in Europe, where most of the forefathers and foremothers in the Church of Jesus Christ can trace their ancestry.  Contrary to Parker, Stone, and Lopez's favored narrative, the Church of Jesus Christ actually is thriving in Africa, while it is facing greater challenges where these gentlemen would have us believe that it actually is supposed to be more relevant.

My $0.02, actual value, as always, much less.

-Ken

Edited August 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Fair enough...BTW the scene of "Joseph Smith American Moses" was one of my favorite  While the play does take some small historical license, it does provide the uninformed a fun quick catch up of Mormon foundational claims.  As I said earlier...who doesn't enjoy watching Joseph Smith singing and dancing

The Book of Mormon: The Musical an authoritative, reliable source relative to the foundational claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  (That might actually be funny, if it weren't so sad.)  Parker, Stone, and/or Lopez: "Well, yes.  We have to set them up so we can mock them."   I would suggest Jerald and Sandra Freaking Tanner as reliable sources on the foundational claims of Mormonism before I would suggest that anyone turn to these guys.  

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Stone and Parker make a living by creating satire mocking things which many peoples of all religions, genders, sexual orientations, races, colors, and political affiliations find deeply offensive because they consider them sacred.  That's the territory here... Hence my comment earlier that this isn't anything new for these authors, nor is this particular play likely directed at the Orthodox-LDS audience...

...kudos to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, as well.

Kudos for what? Causing others to laugh at the opprobrious and insolent mocking of divinity and the sacred beliefs of a minority religion?  I think it is a sad commentary on society that this type of play, which sole purpose is to mock the sacred beliefs of others, receives any acclaim.  

Yes, this isn't "anything new" for these authors, should that somehow excuse any of it?

If this play is not directed at the Orthodox-LDS audience, then its purpose is to mock and laugh at them behind their back.