Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I know folks (LDS) who attended BOM: The Musical and loved it. There is no accounting for taste.

I haven't seen it yet. The thing that turns me off is if it makes fun of something sacred. 

[JVW]

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

Especially when you had no knowledge of exactly what you were covenanting until 1 second before taking it while surrounded by friends and family wanting you to do so.

Yeah, that was kind of my experience too. And there is a push to get it for going on a mission or when you get married. And the push is big enough to definitely err on the side of "they're ready" even if they aren't, in part because of the social pressure and cultural dynamic. This may be mostly a Utah thing though, idk. I do think the church has taken a lot of steps lately to properly prepare people for the temple, but from where I'm at I don't think people give enough gravity to covenants when trying to make a determination on whether or not someone is ready to make them.

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm not sure we are supposed to learn moral lessons from a psychopath and serial killer?

You don't think, apart from the psycho killing, the film makers, of Hollywood, don't otherwise completely agree with him about organized religion and Mormonism? I think they made use of their very own morals and gave their most compelling arguments to the villain, to make the most compelling villain they could; so, they share many his frustrations, but obviously not his conclusion and/or resolve. Even if one could say faith "won" at the end, the faith of Christianity and Mormonism got dumped on and still lost, as the butterfly reincarnation scene maybe spiritual and pro-faith, its contrary to Christian and LDS faith. There is a moral lesson, but maybe it's the morality of someone spiritual but not religious.

Edited November 16, 2024 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok I can see the nuances here. Maybe control is to strong. Influenced or strongly influenced? 

Okay.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

On that other hand if one desires to be in good standing one must submit to the rules and commandments the church lays out.

Yes.  "If."  One's relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Of course other organizations have similar expectations, like you have noted about the military.  I guess the question is where does the influence become excessive or unhealthy. 

I suspect our critics will say the Church's influence is already "excessive or unhealthy."  Oddly enough, though, many of these critics - such as yourself - are saying such things having left the Church, having severed the relationship, having cut off either influence or control, having set aside any notion or need to keep the commandments as taught by the Church. 

And the Church's ability to compel these critics to return to activity and obedience is . . . nonexistent.  You are free to say and do whatever you like, and the Church can't do diddly except to restrict what you have already rejected anyway.  This, in my view, cannot be reasonably characterized as "control."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Temple recommend and youth interview as well as tithing settlement seem to go beyond influence. A member who desires to be in good standing must submit on a regular basis to probing personal questions. That seems to me to be more than influence.  In addition a member who wants to be in good standing is going to have a whole bunch of their time taken by the church which is to some extend controlling IMO.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Then there are temple covenants. I recall my very strict mission president frequently reminding us that we better be out working very hard and to not forget the covenant of consecration we had all made in the temple. That seems controlling to me.

And yet there are all sorts of people who do not keep some/most/all of those covenants, and the Church can't do diddly about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

While you voluntarily choose to submit your life to the expectations, commandments and rules of Mormonism it still has a level of control over your life. 

I respectfully disagree.  If I - as you put it - "voluntarily choose to submit," I am not being "controlled."  I can withdraw that submission at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, and the Church can't do anything to override that choice.

In contrast, the State can do all sorts of things to override a choice to disobey secular law.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And even more so since you were born into it.

Meh.  The "you only stay in the Church because you were born into it" schtick is, in my view, no more legitimate than the "you only left the Church because you were offended and/or wanted to sin" schtick.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Leaving one's religion that one is birthed into and that one has been thoroughly indoctrinated with is not an easy task. 

And yet huge numbers of Latter-day Saints do exactly that.  And the Church can't do diddly to override their decision to walk away. 

And for many, leaving not very hard at all.  I have many family members and friends who have walked away and don't give the Church a second thought.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You may not have as much choice in the matter as you think.

Says the guy who has left the Church and seems to be doing just fine.  You haven't had to evade Danites stalking you with knives drawn, or fight against the Church Police, or break out of Church Jail, or try to get back the property/money the Church forcibly took away from you when you stopped attending, or file a lawsuit to end your membership in the Church, etc.  None of these things happened to you because the Church has no control over you.  You chose to leave, and the Church has no power or authority or ability to override that choice.    

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I know you bristle when I have suggested this in the past, but my guess is had you been born into another religion and been actively indoctrinated into it, you likely would not be LDS.

Had I not had the spiritual experiences I have had, and developed the spiritual convictions I have, I think I would not be a member of the Church.  Too much time and effort.  Too much commitment.  

Most Latter-day Saints have many walking, talking rebuttals of the notion that being born in the Church somehow translates into being compelled to stay within it.  That's just not so.  Again, I have many family members and friends who have walked away and don't give the Church a second thought, and the Church has no ability to override their choices.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is a simple fact that most people stay with whatever religion they are born into.  And yes, religion does and is designed to control behavior and religions use control techniques to one degree or another. And yes is is relatively easy to leave a religion these days if one so desires but that was not always the case.

"{Y}es i{t} is relatively easy to leave a religion."

I agree. 

One's relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary, and can be severed at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all.

And the Church has no ability to override that decision.

And the only thing the Church can do it restrict or terminate the relationship (which the individual has already abandoned/severed).

This, in your view, amounts to "control"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I haven't seen it yet. The thing that turns me off is if it makes fun of something sacred. 

For me it’s the racism.  I found that so bad (read the script) I just stopped thinking about it so I never decided whether it crossed the lines of mocking sacred things or not.  Probably did given how far they went down the racism path….probably unintentionally.  However, the sacred mocking was intentional from what I read and therefore they might have been more careful about it.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

This may be mostly an Utah thing though, idk.

It was the same in California in the 70s and early 80s.  It is the same typical approach to baptism and priesthood ordination where one looks at the age as the sign of readiness rather than comprehension except perhaps on a very basic level.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One's relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.

One’s membership relationship certainly.  One’s emotional relationship not so much.

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/13/2024 at 11:47 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Bluebell - 

The movie is NOT a torture-porn gore fest, but I’m so jaded, calloused, and desensitized that I’m a little wary of trying to gauge the intensity for anyone else. 😅

I didn’t think it was extreme at all — a good 2/3? 3/4? of the movie is literally just dialogue. It’s more about mood, psychological tension, and existential anxiety than jump scares. All the violence comes in the last act, and it’s brief and cathartic, not the focus of the story. 

(Also, while the villain starts off making more-or-less fair points, he gradually gets crazier and crazier with the “Zeitgeist” Reddit-tier atheist debate club stuff, and I don’t think we’re supposed to take him as a real authority on religion.)

If I remember correctly (spoiler warning), there is one brief throat slash (I think intended to be reminiscent of one of the old penalties in the Temple), two or three stabbings, one loss of a finger, one blood-covered character who is … gooey? Kinda gross. Probably the worse scene for me was when one character slices into another character’s arm. And then a final death that is a little intense, with a blow to the head. There is also somewhat disturbing imagery of people kept in cages. 

Overall, if you are extremely squeamish, I’d steer clear, but otherwise, I’ve seen worse on broadcast TV. (I don’t want to recommend something that’s going to cause someone nightmares, though, so use your best judgment!) 

Sounds like a great movie.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I imagine the film is conveying a shallow message like "belief doesn't matter", especially if the movie's tone and overall narrative don't delve too deeply into philosophy or existential questions.

If both doors, regardless of the label, ultimately lead to the same place (the basement), it could be a commentary on how our beliefs are just different paths to the same uncomfortable or undesirable outcome, the basement. In this reading, the basement could represent a kind of existential dead-end or a place of reckoning.

On the other hand, it's possible that the "belief" door leading to the basement is just a red herring, or the "disbelief" door might offer a different perspective or even something better. If the film doesn’t provide enough clarity, it’s likely that the message is indeed a simple one: it doesn’t matter which door you choose; the end result is the same - they are both ultimately traps and all belief systems are arbitrary, and the labels we give them don't alter your experience.

Modern filmmaking, particularly in the Hollywood system, there’s often a tension between trying to appear “deep” and appealing to a wide audience. It sounds like Heretic might be leveraging the illusion of depth - putting in moments that appear thought-provoking or philosophical, designed to provoke an emotional or intellectual reaction without providing substantial intellectual payoff. The illusion of choice, fits right into that theme.

The door scene is a great example of how filmmakers can create the appearance of a deeper message without fully committing to it. By presenting two doors labeled "Belief" and "Disbelief," the filmmakers set up the expectation that this choice is significant and will lead to a meaningful conclusion, but if both doors ultimately lead to the same place (the basement), there is no meaning to the choice itself, instead gives the appearance of a profound commentary on the futility or illusion of our decisions.

However, if there’s no follow-through to clarify the implications of that idea—if the basement is just a symbol of bad things happening regardless of faith—then you’re left with a feeling that the film is playing with ideas without truly exploring them. The "truth" of the situation is that it doesn't matter, and we’re all headed to the same ambiguous outcome. That doesn't necessarily mean the filmmakers are presenting a deeply philosophical idea; rather, it might be a convenient way to make the film feel more intellectual than it actually is.

Filmmakers aim for a certain level of depth tailored to an "average" audience. Hollywood often walks a fine line between making something that seems profound and accessible, but not too challenging. 

In a way, the door scene may be serving as a metaphor for the whole movie itself—it gives the audience the illusion of choice or meaning (belief vs. disbelief), but ultimately both choices lead to the same place. It's not a new or radical insight, but it gives the impression of having something to say about life, choice, and belief—without actually saying much of anything at all.

If Hugh Grant’s character is proving his point about faith, and there’s ambiguity about whether faith or disbelief "prevailed," then it sounds like the film in its entirety might be playing with that same tension between appearances and reality. The missionary’s seemingly miraculous escape, for example, could be a classic "miracle" moment designed to make the audience question whether faith is truly the key to survival or if it’s just a convenient narrative device to create emotional resonance.

The ambiguity - was the escape truly miraculous, or was there some rational explanation we didn't see - is very much in line with that "illusion of depth". The filmmakers may be presenting these events in such a way that we’re left with the feeling that the world is mysterious but without giving us any clear answers. We’re left to interpret it however we want, which can make the film feel more open-ended and "thoughtful" (at least on the surface), but the lack of closure or clarity might leave viewers with a sense of emptiness, as if they’re being asked to fill in the gaps themselves without a strong foundation for those interpretations. It’s a bit like dangling a carrot in front of the audience’s face: "Here’s a question, but we’re not going to answer it for you." It’s a strategy that allows for different interpretations, but when those interpretations are based on shallow narrative choices, it often feels more like a storytelling cop-out than a real exploration of complex themes.

In terms of whether Hugh Grant’s character "proved his point," or the fact that the missionary escapes could serve as a symbolic win for faith - the audience isn’t given enough information to know if that’s truly the case. It could be that the escape was purely coincidence, or perhaps there’s something more mundane happening behind the scenes that the film doesn't reveal.

This kind of "half-answer" approach can leave audiences with a sense that the film wants to seem profound, but ultimately doesn’t have much to say. It’s like creating a puzzle that’s never meant to be solved, just to keep people guessing. So while some viewers might walk away thinking, "Oh, maybe faith really does work in mysterious ways," others might be left thinking like Hugh Grant, they are just being manipulated into thinking there’s more to it than there really is.

I enjoyed reading your comments.  If I put on my philosophical hat one, I might guess that whether you choose the believe door or the disbelieve door, you still are in the dark as you journey (going down the dark steps in both cases) through life is the same.  Neither one can give you solid answers as to what is really at the end.  It is both just a belief in what happens after we die.  Once we end this journey through life, (end of the tunnel) we all end up in the same place and have to deal with what is there.  Grant specifically sets it up so that there is a false "miracle" of this idea of a resurrection.  Maybe it just ends in death, (two people die) maybe eternal suffering (cages) and maybe an escape to a better place. (heaven). Does how you arrive after this journey through earth really change any of those consequences?  We all end up in the same place.

I do have a little different view on life since I once walked through the belief door and thought it lead somewhere special.  I am now walking through he disbelieve door. In either choice, I have no real truth as to what really happens after we die.  I look at afterlife as just as big of mystery. and the three options that are presented are still all possible.  Maybe I will just die.  Maybe I will have to suffer until someone lets me out.  Maybe there is an escape from death.  I guess I will see.  Death is life's greatest experience.

This is a little deeper that those who have seen the film will understand.  I am trying to walk a balance between saying too much about the plot.  But I will say this, in the resurrection trick, if you look closely at that idea, one can see flaws in the idea of a resurrection being real.  (her head placed wrong). 

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One's relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary, and can be severed at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all.

And the Church has no ability to override that decision.

Then there is that page in the Book of Life which is maintained elsewhere. 

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me it’s the racism.  I found that so bad (read the script) I just stopped thinking about it so I never decided whether it crossed the lines of mocking sacred things or not.  Probably did given how far they went down the racism path….probably unintentionally.  However, the sacred mocking was intentional from what I read and therefore they might have been more careful about it.

Oh I had no idea. Whoa, it's a no from me on seeing it. How was it racist, I'm a little shocked.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

One's relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.

One’s membership relationship certainly.  One’s emotional relationship not so much.

I don't think we have a compulsory "emotional relationship" with the Church.  We can choose to leave it and give it no further thought or attention or effort.  I know many people who have done just this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Yes.  "If."  One's relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.

It was not voluntary for you or me initially.  I had no choice as to the religion I was born into.  I was blessed, I was expected to be baptized and advance in the priesthood. I was indoctrinated that it was my priesthood duty to serve a mission and extreme pressure was put on me to comply.  So while nobody put a gun to my head there was a lot of pressure and indoctrination which is a form of control.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suspect our critics will say the Church's influence is already "excessive or unhealthy."  Oddly enough, though, many of these critics - such as yourself - are saying such things having left the Church, having severed the relationship, having cut off either influence or control, having set aside any notion or need to keep the commandments as taught by the Church. 

This is an overly simplification of a complex journey. There was great cost in leaving the church. It was not simply "Oh I just woke up this AM and since the church has no control over me I am outta here. There was great emotional duress, fear of loss of family and cost in the eternity. It took me a long time to move beyond Mormonism and its control of me. And there are still remnants and scars.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And the Church's ability to compel these critics to return to activity and obedience is . . . nonexistent.  You are free to say and do whatever you like, and the Church can't do diddly except to restrict what you have already rejected anyway.  This, in my view, cannot be reasonably characterized as "control."

So then the church really has no impact on my eternal well being then?  Its position on temple covenants and eternal marriage and a family unit is meaningless?  So tell me, what is my state in the eternities having rejected Mormonism, its priesthood and its temple covenants.  Does that have any impact on my eternal well being? Control by religion and the mental games it plays with people are not restricted to this life.  You know this and your over simplification of this is silly. But no surprise there.

So if you do not pay tithing can you attend the temple? Can and un-endowed member enter the temple if they do not pay tithing?   If no then the church has control over a person and the church teaches the consequences reach beyond this life. That is control.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

And yet there are all sorts of people who do not keep some/most/all of those covenants, and the Church can't do diddly about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

The church teaches that action not only impact us in this life but after this life as well.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  The "you only stay in the Church because you were born into it" schtick is, in my view, no more legitimate than the "you only left the Church because you were offended and/or wanted to sin" schtick.

Straw man I never said that is the ONLY REASONT YOU or anyone else stays.  But it certainly has tremendous influence on one's religious beliefs. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It was not voluntary for you or me initially. 

Nor was going to bed at a given hour, or finishing my veggies at dinner, or going to school, or finishing my chores.

Children lack the capacity to wisely exercise personal autonomy, so parents run their lives and then incrementally cede authority and self-determination to the child until he reaches adulthood.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I had no choice as to the religion I was born into.  I was blessed, I was expected to be baptized and advance in the priesthood. I was indoctrinated that it was my priesthood duty to serve a mission and extreme pressure was put on me to comply.  So while nobody put a gun to my head there was a lot of pressure and indoctrination which is a form of control.

By your parents, yes.  

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I suspect our critics will say the Church's influence is already "excessive or unhealthy."  Oddly enough, though, many of these critics - such as yourself - are saying such things having left the Church, having severed the relationship, having cut off either influence or control, having set aside any notion or need to keep the commandments as taught by the Church. 

This is an overly simplification of a complex journey. There was great cost in leaving the church.

For some, yes.  For others, no.

By way of analogy: In our day and society, some people who go through a divorce find it very difficult, while others find it liberating.  In either instance, they have the ability to sever the relationship.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It was not simply "Oh I just woke up this AM and since the church has no control over me I am outta here. There was great emotional duress, fear of loss of family and cost in the eternity. It took me a long time to move beyond Mormonism and its control of me. And there are still remnants and scars.

Respectfully, I disagree.  I don't think the Church ever had the ability to override your free will, to "control" you.  Influence, yes.  "Control," no.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And the Church's ability to compel these critics to return to activity and obedience is . . . nonexistent.  You are free to say and do whatever you like, and the Church can't do diddly except to restrict what you have already rejected anyway.  This, in my view, cannot be reasonably characterized as "control."

So then the church really has no impact on my eternal well being then? 

I believe it does.  Very much so.  On the other had, you apparently do not believe this.  And the Church can't do diddly about any decision flowing from your belief or lack thereof.

In contrast, the State has "control" over you whether you "believe" or acknowledge that power.  Just take a look at YouTube videos of SovCit idiots who get pulled over and refuse to acknowledge the authority of the police officer.  What happens when the SovCit refuses to provide his license, registration, and proof of insurance?  Can he just go on his merry way?  Or can the officer, as an agent of the State, use force or the threat of force to compel the driver to submit to his authority?  The police officer can "control" the individual, and we all know it.

Not so with the Church.  Even though I strongly believe that membership and discipleship are of vital importance, those are matters of faith.  

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Its position on temple covenants and eternal marriage and a family unit is meaningless? 

No, I think the Church's doctrines as to these matters have tremendous meaning and significance.

My point, though, is that the Church cannot override our ability to choose to accept or reject these principles, or to act or not act in accordance with these principles.  The Church only has as much authority over us as we choose to allow.

Not so with the State.  A SovCit can't ignore a lawful order from a police officer by saying "I do not recognize your authoritah!"  The police officer has authority regardless of the subjective belief of the individual.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So tell me, what is my state in the eternities having rejected Mormonism, its priesthood and its temple covenants. 

I will leave such things to you and God.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Does that have any impact on my eternal well being?

I believe so.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Control by religion and the mental games it plays with people are not restricted to this life.  You know this and your over simplification of this is silly. But no surprise there.

I am trying to explain my position, that's all.  I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So if you do not pay tithing can you attend the temple? Can and un-endowed member enter the temple if they do not pay tithing?   If no then the church has control over a person and the church teaches the consequences reach beyond this life. That is control.

Respectfully, I disagree.  

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church teaches that action not only impact us in this life but after this life as well.

The Church cannot override free will.  Hence in my view, it cannot "control" us.

The State can override free will.  Hence, in my view, it can "control" us.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh I had no idea. Whoa, it's a no from me on seeing it. How was it racist, I'm a little shocked.

The musical shows American missionaries in Uganda…the Ugandans are backwards, superstitious, don’t recognize cell phones or even typewriters apparently as they think a typewriter is a cell phone, gullible, violent, sexually abusive to children, etc.  The missionaries are disappointed they are going there rather than some place more advanced.  Uganda is a pit, generic African, one place I read said there was nothing uniquely Ugandan about it and not much true African either.  As soon as they arrive they get assaulted and belongings stolen.  There is no law and order.  Mud huts, dead animals around as if Ugandans are clueless about public hygiene.  The Ugandan homes are drab, the missionaries being white Americans and therefore superior have a bright and cheerful place.  All the possible ills that get reported about Africa in general were dumped on this Ugandan village and then some and of course no one there has a clue how to deal with the problems outside of superstition iirc.  The white guys are the saviors….by tricking the Ugandans into sort of believing in a religion based  on a ridiculous mix of the Restored Church, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings…

The writers didn’t do any research for sure.  Iirc, at least 60% of the population of Uganda owned cellphones at the time.***   I do not understand how anyone managed to laugh at many of the racist jokes.  It was reported audiences were mostly white, but I just don’t get it.

I don’t understand how the musical is still going.

This is not one of the reviews I read back then, but it covers most of the criticisms I have seen.  I can’t explain a lot of the criticisms as to do so would require posting vulgarities.

https://medium.com/the-carrier-pigeon/the-book-of-mormon-musical-is-extremely-racist-9940419f11ae

Quote

Because I’ve never watched the TV show, I don’t know what so-called “equal opportunity offensiveness” looks like. However, I have been appalled by people who consider themselves progressive and yet are defending jokes about Africans (because Uganda is interchangeable with anywhere else) being rapists, AIDS-ridden, savage, simple, and in need of saving by white Americans.

***Looks like my memory is off, among adults currently it’s close to 64% own cell phones, so maybe it was just a majority back then.  I am pretty sure I summarized or quoted this info on a thread here 10+ years ago, but can’t find it.

I just read a comment that after the BLM movement started some of the worse racism was removed.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we have a compulsory "emotional relationship" with the Church.  We can choose to leave it and give it no further thought or attention or effort.  I know many people who have done just this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Compulsory is not a correct term for what I was referring to.

Different members with different experiences in the Church will be impacted by church culture, including those arising from doctrine, in a variety of ways, including impacts that they are unaware of.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The musical shows American missionaries in Uganda…the Ugandans are backwards, superstitious, don’t recognize cell phones or even typewriters apparently as they think a typewriter is a cell phone, gullible, violent, sexually abusive to children, etc.  The missionaries are disappointed they are going there rather than some place more advanced.  Uganda is a pit, generic African, one place I read said there was nothing uniquely Ugandan about it and not much true African either.  As soon as they arrive they get assaulted and belongings stolen.  There is no law and order.  Mud huts, dead animals around as if Ugandans are clueless about public hygiene.  The Ugandan homes are drab, the missionaries being white Americans and therefore superior have a bright and cheerful place.  All the possible ills that get reported about Africa in general were dumped on this Ugandan village and then some and of course no one there has a clue how to deal with the problems outside of superstition iirc.  The white guys are the saviors….by tricking the Ugandans into sort of believing in a religion based  on a ridiculous mix of the Restored Church, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings…

The writers didn’t do any research for sure.  Iirc, at least 60% of the population of Uganda owned cellphones at the time.***   I do not understand how anyone managed to laugh at many of the racist jokes.  It was reported audiences were mostly white, but I just don’t get it.

I don’t understand how the musical is still going.

This is not one of the reviews I read back then, but it covers most of the criticisms I have seen.  I can’t explain a lot of the criticisms as to do so would require posting vulgarities.

https://medium.com/the-carrier-pigeon/the-book-of-mormon-musical-is-extremely-racist-9940419f11ae

***Looks like my memory is off, among adults currently it’s close to 64% own cell phones, so maybe it was just a majority back then.  I am pretty sure I summarized or quoted this info on a thread here 10+ years ago, but can’t find it.

I just read a comment that after the BLM movement started some of the worse racism was removed.

That's awful, I wish it wasn't such a popular play for more reasons than one. Thanks for the info Calm!

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

“We were raised Christian,” Woods said, “and then you make friends, and you get married and your wives and friends and family have different beliefs than what you grew up with and you kind of expand your mind.

Yep!  You "expand your mind" so far that your brain falls out!  

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's awful, I wish it wasn't such a popular play for more reasons than one. Thanks for the info Calm!

There are those who say the writers are lampooning racism along with religious belief, but the choice of how they do it is just too lazy and imo encourages racist humor rather discourages…when people are laughing uproariously at juvenile vulgarities, I highly doubt they are thinking to themselves “this highly inappropriate humor is causing me to examine my own tendencies towards racist humor and other behaviour”.

[Pyreaux]

On 11/15/2024 at 2:14 PM, california boy said:

I enjoyed reading your comments.  If I put on my philosophical hat one, I might guess that whether you choose the believe door or the disbelieve door, you still are in the dark as you journey (going down the dark steps in both cases) through life is the same.  Neither one can give you solid answers as to what is really at the end.  It is both just a belief in what happens after we die.  Once we end this journey through life, (end of the tunnel) we all end up in the same place and have to deal with what is there.  Grant specifically sets it up so that there is a false "miracle" of this idea of a resurrection.  Maybe it just ends in death, (two people die) maybe eternal suffering (cages) and maybe an escape to a better place. (heaven). Does how you arrive after this journey through earth really change any of those consequences?  We all end up in the same place.

I do have a little different view on life since I once walked through the belief door and thought it lead somewhere special.  I am now walking through he disbelieve door. In either choice, I have no real truth as to what really happens after we die.  I look at afterlife as just as big of mystery. and the three options that are presented are still all possible.  Maybe I will just die.  Maybe I will have to suffer until someone lets me out.  Maybe there is an escape from death.  I guess I will see.  Death is life's greatest experience.

This is a little deeper that those who have seen the film will understand.  I am trying to walk a balance between saying too much about the plot.  But I will say this, in the resurrection trick, if you look closely at that idea, one can see flaws in the idea of a resurrection being real.  (her head placed wrong). 

Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful take of the two doors as representing the ambiguity and uncertainty of death itself. It resonates with me how belief and disbelief as doors that ultimately lead into the same great unknown, doors to what end is still (at that point of the film) a mystery, where no one truly knows what lies at the end of the journey. It's as if the film reflects life itself - full of uncertainties and mysteries.

That said, I wonder if there's any way to interpret the story where their choice to go through "belief" was best, even if both doors lead to the same uncertain place, there's still something powerful about choosing belief, whether it's never giving up, holding into hope or something greater than ourselves, can give us a sense of purpose and direction, a drive survive, even when the end remains a mystery. Even if belief doesn’t give us all the answers, believing in something gives us a framework for navigating that very uncertainty with a sense of peace or meaning that disbelief might not.

I guess I see belief as something that can offer us a kind of anchor through ambiguity, more than hope that there might be something to life and the afterlife than just an end. Knowing all the answers for certain would be great, but at least having something to hold onto when you face the unknown seems meaningful. Finding life to be worth living, the will to carry on, finding joy when times are hard, sacrificing for another. Sometime those are powerful beliefs we have that are holding us together. I’m fascinated how even in your unbelieving path, you look at the afterlife as an unsolved mystery you're very intrigued by. Still a spark of hopeful optimism about what to what possibly could be found there?

 

Edited November 18, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Maestrophil]

On 11/15/2024 at 1:56 PM, Teancum said:

Straw man I never said that is the ONLY REASONT YOU or anyone else stays.  But it certainly has tremendous influence on one's religious beliefs. 

I think that this is a problem with the value we assign to the word 'control'.  Does the church have 'control' over my life?  If I define control as having no autonomy and I make all my decisions with very little or none of my free will due to the influence of the church - like having a loaded gun to my head - then no - I don't think the church has control over me.  Even my loved ones who have left the faith (and struggled mightily to do so), didn't feel controlled to stay as much as they simply feared and mourned the loss of the 'dream' they had for the eternities and the social price they might pay.  But the church didn't create that anymore than me not wanting to quit a job out of fear for lack of income or because I love my benefits and co workers etc.  That's not what I would call 'control', but some people might.

Now if I define 'control' as influence, then there is no denying the church strongly influences my decisions.  When I was playing football as a kid, that influenced my decisions - If I wanted to be on the team, I had to do three a days until I puked sometimes (and no-one had informed me I would be required to do either of those extreme things), I had to lift and work out, I had to eat right, study plays, etc.  I risked being kicked off the team if I didn't.  So some could say that was control.  My grandad and uncle also were retired pro players and I really wanted to look good to them as well.  But guess what - there came I time when I was sick of it all, and wanted to move on - so I told the coach I quit.  He reacted by calling me names and telling me I would never amount to much because I didn't keep my commitment to the team.  And guess what again - I ignored all those things and walked away to do what I wanted.  I never call myself an 'ex' football player, it was just something I did once, that I don't do now. And I don't resent that there were expectations for me to be part of the team, or that people were disappointed in me.  I moved on and found extreme happiness in the positive things I quit to do.

Now I know the level of dedication to football for me was not the level of dedication one feels usually in the Gospel, but to me, the same principle applies.  And if there was a positive reason I saw a better life away from the church in another lifestyle, I would do that. 

On 11/15/2024 at 11:29 AM, Calm said:

This is where my mind went when I read it.

Does Grant’s character expand on the benefits of religious disbelief much?  Or just the negatives of religious belief.

Sound analysis, imo.  Enjoyed reading it.

Nope - as is my experiences with most detractors of faith - it's about tearing down, not offering a positive alternative.  The most positive spin I ever hear is "well at least I am living the truth and not a fantasy".  If that's the biggest plus you've got for me, especially when you seem angry and hurt all the time, I'm not convinced I wanna do that.  Now if you can match my LOOOONG list of benefits I have from being raised in the LDS faith and even beat it, especially all in one organization - I will leave tomorrow for that organization or way of life.  I haven't found it in my lifetime yet.  

 

EDIT for poor spelling and typos

Edited November 20, 2024 by Maestrophil

[Calm]

An interesting recap/review of the movie on Russell Stevenson’s FB. Some comments are highly interesting as well.

Don’t look if you don’t want spoilers.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10169671090355523&id=734515522

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

An interesting recap/review of the movie on Russell Stevenson’s FB. Some comments are highly interesting as well.

Don’t look if you don’t want spoilers.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10169671090355523&id=734515522

Dang, it says the content isn't available right now.