The Folk Prophet

Ah...Wicked. Yes. Well..... not a fan. I was just joking about prejudice...and..... I think I have prejudice there. So take the following in the joking way it's meant: This will sound totally funny, seeing as we're talking about musicals, and a lot of people would claim this of all of them.... but... There are certain musicals that just feel..... gay. Yes....I know.... TOTALLY not PC to say that. But it's just like....you know.... people who love Liza Minelli and Barbara Streisand and..... Wicked. Just not to my taste, artistically speaking. Well...to be fair, Barbara Streisand's sheer, amazing, talent kind of transcends any of that. It's hard to not like something of hers somewhere. But maybe you get my point. Or maybe you don't.

It's not prejudice to dislike something that actually sucks.

Yes. BYU is a result, not a cause. The cause is a combination of things. The root of it, of course, is Satan's winning for the time, as we know he will for a time as the end comes. But next level up is probably family and parenting failures. And society's standards and views that naturally bleed into BYU. Mirkwood, I believe, said something about a cancer at BYU. The cancer is much broader than that. The whole world has cancer. Naturally it's filtered into BYU too. The solution is the gospel. The gospel is sufficient. The gospel teaches men to be as Christ. There is no better role model for men.

That’s a very interesting description, and one I can totally accept. It's pretty low level poetry though. A bunch of "fancy" rhymes. Well...okay...there's more to it than that I guess. He does, after all, sing about his "One shot" -- and then he actually gets, you know....shot in the end. So that's poetic. A bit on the nose, of course. But...

Give it a watch. It's definitely worth a watch -- especially if you're a fan already. I'm probably too harsh on it. There are some real genius things in the show.

I love Lea Salonga. But in this case...I honestly prefer the other versions better. Original Cast recording, Broadway, 10th anniversary (Ruthie Henshall -- probably my favorite). I love Lea Salonga in Miss Saigon and Aladdin and Mulan and the like. But her voice works better as a young love interest type character than it does as a tortured starving mother. Her voice is too sweet. Don't get me wrong. She's great. Just not my, personal, favorite.

So I was watching a youtube thing on the movie. So even Hugh Jackman, who is, reasonably speaking, a good singer who's done broadway type shows a lot, etc. was absolutely terrible as a singer in it. Apparently, in order to get the realistic starved look, he went through the same sort of crazy ordeal to get lean for it that body builders use, which is brutal to energy levels. And then because of the decision to film all the singing live on camera instead of pre-recording or something, they're singing for 8 hours a day, doing different takes...but you can't cut takes the same way you can in a normal movie because of the singing...so whole songs over and over again. And then the choices to really prioritize the "acting" instead of singing. And he's just terrible. He speak sings half of it. He's pitchy. His voice is unpleasant. And his rendition of Bring Him Home was the worst version I've ever heard of it. Anne Hathoway -- same sort of thing. She starved herself to look starved. Then cried for real through her singing. And whereas it was, in her case, some pretty moving acting, as a listening experience it's not very nice. Her I dreamed a dream was, at least, very powerful as an acting experience. So I'll give her that. Russell Crowe was, indeed, woefully miscast though. I don't think even pre-recording things would have helped there.

I haven't seen it live either. But I did see the filmed stage version on Disney+. I cannot understand why people like it. I REALLY don't understand why it's SO popular. I think it's awful. Yes, I accept there are some well crafted things therein. Yes, there are even a few musical moments that are great. For the most part it's not great music (when it has actual music), and I don't understand why anyone likes hip hop at all. I don't mean that as a one off here or there, like whenever I hear rap I immediately throw up or something. A rap song can work. A rap breakdown in a song can work. But a whole show of it? TOO MUCH. But even putting aside those distastes (because they are, after all, taste, which is going to differ for different people), I felt like the character arch of the main character (Hamilton, of course) was very flat. His character arch was that he was a bit of an ambitious jerk who committed adultery and then got himself killed because he was an ambitious jerk. That's not a compelling story arch to me.

Side note that's not musical related...I was a huge Pierce Brosnan fan from Remington Steele in high-school. To the point where I started wearing suits to school. Yep...I was that guy. As a suave James Bond-y type detective-y ladies' man, Pierce rocked. As a singer..... Here's my favorite thing he ever did:

@LDSGator I can't remember if we've discussed this one before, but what's your take on Hamilton?

With Pierce Brosnan singing?

Sometimes it's difficult to separate sentiment from things. I grew up watching Annie with my family. So I may enjoy it for that reason as much as anything. That being said, I still think it's objectively better than the other movie adaptations

Well I grew up on musicals. I always "liked" musicals. When I say got me into them I mean REALLY got me into them. I started writing them myself, etc., took the path of becoming a music and composition major in college to that end, etc. Edit: Keep in mind....I was in high school when Phantom came out. When my sister brought it home it was brand new.

Phantom is the musical the really got me into musicals. But it was the soundtrack. I distinctly remember my sister coming home from school one day with a cassette tape, saying, "Listen to this!" And pressed play on our family stereo system. BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM BUM BUM BUM BUM BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM!!!!!!!!!!!! And I was hooked. Wide eyed and overwhelmed by it. And amazed at how familiar it all seemed and felt despite the fact it was the first time I'd heard it. Andrew Lloyd Webber is no Mozart. But he is oft times amazingly amazing at melody writing. Speaking of Lloyd Webber -- one of my other favorite stage musicals (I know only from the soundtrack too), is Sunset Boulevard.

Oh...speaking of ones that have been adapted several times.... Annie. The 1982 one is great. Silly, of course. Some flaws. But overall pretty good. Newer adaptations (of which there have been several) don't live up.

Agreed.

Les Miz failed because Tom Hooper and the actors thought it would be a good idea to prioritize acting over singing. And casting stars (pun not intended here...I mean movie stars)...was higher in priority that people who could do justice to the roles that require brilliant singers. Phantom failed kind of for the same thing. Casting an attractive movie star instead of someone who could sing. Really dumb. The phantom isn't supposed to be attractive. Sheesh. That's his whole schtick. He's hideous. So I almost think it's the opposite of what you're saying. They're trying too hard to do it different, applying "movie" skill sets, and accordingly gutting the musical parts of the musicals. Maybe. I hate Rent. Haha. I'm not familiar with Title of Show. I'll have to check it out.

I forgot about one of the other great movie musicals. The Music Man!

I watched West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof back to back last week. I can't decide which is the better movie musical. But this much I can say. They are, without a doubt, top 2 in my opinion. Objectively The Sound of Music is as good a movie musical...but less my cup o' tea....er....cocoa...I mean cup o' cocoa. If I had to choose though, I think I'd have to put West Side Story as my #1. Fiddler is phenomenal. Maybe even objectively better. It's deeper in meaning. It's filmed better (for the most part). More grounded. Less...gang-members-doing-ballet-y (which I don't hate...but....objectively....I get the critique....). But I just like West Side Story. I'm really interested in what Stephen Spielberg does with his upcoming remake. I'm talking movie musicals. Stage musicals I'm more of a Les Miz, Miss Saigon fan. But the movie of Les Miz was, perhaps, the biggest piece of junk movie musical ever made. When it comes to Sondheim, I also quite love Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods, but really only know them from the recordings, having never seen them on stage. I've seen the movies, and although Sweeney Todd is one of the better recent movie musicals, it pales compared to stage versions where the singers can actually sing. (Speaking of which, I recently came across the version with Michael Ball and Imelda Staunton. Wow! But I've been thinking and wondering... Up and into the 70s movie musicals were, in my opinion, oft times stronger than the stage versions. Now I can't directly compare to the stage versions of yesteryear, having not been alive then, but I can to the stage versions of them I've seen. And even if they didn't completely out class the stage versions, they were still really well made, good renditions of musicals. Oklahoma, South Pacific, The Sound of Music, Man of La Mancha, the afore mentioned West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof. These are solid interpretations of musical adapted to a movie. Since the 1980s movie musicals STINK. There are rare entries that are okay-ish. But way inferior to their stage counterparts. The most egregious of these being the Tom Hooper versions of Les Miz and CATS and the awful version of Phantom. To be fair, CATS is a garbage musical anyway, in my opinion. But the movie is even worse, removing the primary meaning and plot of the stage show.* Phantom is also a terrible musical but with some wonderful, wonderful music that almost saves it. As a soundtrack it does save it. So what do they do for the movie version... ruin the ONE thing it has going for it by casting a lead that can't sing or perform the part correctly! Seriously!? There are exceptions. As I said, Sweeney Todd was well adapted. Chicago was great (though not to my personal tastes). Into the Woods was okay-ish (some disagree...it was, in some ways, pretty gutted... but that's a longer conversation that I won't go into.) But why? Why can't they adapt musicals to movies any more with any level of proficiency? It's frustrating to me. What changed? Or do I simply see the "olden day" movie musicals through rose colored glasses? * Edit: The CATS movie, however, for some reason is a bit of a guilty pleasure. Something about it was actually enjoyable. Not enough that I'd own it or watch it regularly...but....

Starting a new thread.....

I remember when the idea of being a "rich lawyer" was a thing. There's a guy in our ward who was a lawyer. He quit to become a school teacher because he could make better money. A SCHOOL TEACHER TO MAKE BETTER MONEY! To quote a Sondheim lyric: Smoke on your pipe and put that in.

I did not say, "God would never do that." I said, very plainly, he did do that. And I said why. So the communication failure doesn't seem to be on my end.

This statement is incorrect.

Thank you. I'm going to leave off the conversation anyhow though (after this post) primarily because I've said what I believe and think. I think I've even said it clearly (though who knows). Either way, I don't see much value in continuing to debate it back and forth. But I'll restate for clarity one more time: I fully reject the concept that God cannot be taken at His word or that His words mean something other than what they mean -- unless He explicitly says otherwise in a timely manner. I will add, since I now sense it was the root of your offense taken, that my used car salesman analogy was meant to convey an idea, not insult. I am trying to make the point that if God doesn't immediately and quickly clarify a word he uses that He's using to mean something entirely different than what that word actually means then it would be a dishonest. One of the most important ideas that we have of God is that he can be utterly, completely, and unreservedly trusted. The concept that his words might not mean what he said destroys that trust -- completely. It puts us all into a realm of having no idea what His doctrine and precepts actually are. It allows anyone at any time to put His commands or doctrine as suspect and questionable. Whereas I recognize that interpretation is always going to be a bit of a problem with understanding the meaning of any words, that's a good part of why we have living prophets. Of course many just cast off the living prophets too. Which is moderately justifiable if God has said a bunch of stuff to them as well that He meant something else entirely by. But as a general rule, if one is walking away from the words of God thinking, "Hmm....I wonder if that meant what it said...or the opposite? Hmm." it's a potentially serious problem. A problem that we're seeing a lot of in today's world. I don't agree with the philosophy. That's my third expression of the same idea. If I haven't made it clear yet, I'm unlikely to. If anyone else agrees with me and wants to take up the discussion, great. Otherwise I'll let you have your final say and be done. Thanks again for the acceptance of my clarification.

I disagree it's left unsaid. I hope this doesn't come across harshly. I'm maybe sensitive because of my other run-in in the thread. So take it with a grain of sand, etc. I'm legitimately jaw agape at the word wrangling that goes on in this sort of discussion. I really can't understand how anyone can read D&C 132 and walk away thinking gay sexual interests is possibly somehow included in the mix. It's so utterly confusing an idea. Not to mention that the idea that man and woman are to be joined together is explicitly defined repeatedly in the scriptures, even by Jesus himself. And homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in the scriptures. That being said, you read it the way you read it. And I don't think more explaining or debating on my part is going to really change the way you see it. That being said....consider... Does D&C 132 talk about or refer to a man's sexual interest or even love for women (or...as is being implied...love for other men)? No. That has nothing to do with the covenant. Nor should it. It doesn't say, if a man is sexually attracted to and has romantic love for his wife then... That has nothing to do with it. It says if a man is sealed to a wife by the new and everlasting covenant then they may be exalted together. And why? So they can have a continuation of seeds forever and ever. How homosexual interests or even the nonsense "love" lie being perpetrated in the world has anything to do with covenants made between a man and a woman to seal them up to eternal baby making is so beyond me that it's hard to even discuss. That being said, I'm trying to not condescend entirely (as I plainly get myself into trouble in that regard all the time.) But I really cannot understand the line of thought at all. Appease them how? What do you think eternally being sealed to someone means? There's this over arching conflation of things that I think you've bought into here. Part of it's the nonsense "Disney fairy-tale endings = true love and happiness" garbage that Hollywood's been selling for so long. Arranged marriages worked for millennia and are perfectly in line with God's eternal law. And part of it's the idea that somehow being interested in gay sex, or even straight sex, is related to love. And finally that romantic love has anything to do with the covenant of being sealed together. Consider: God's love for everyone is perfect. He loves Jesus just the same as He loves Heavenly Mother, just the same as He loves me and you. Perfectly and absolutely, without reservation. Does He have some sort of special romantic relationship with our Heavenly Mother? Maybe. But how does that even work and what does it mean? And why would being romantic towards another be restricted unless you're sealed? And does romance and sex even really exist in the eternities? Seems doubtful to me when an exalted beings experiences all things before them at all times, past present and future. ALL things. Including all the sex going on. The idea of God bringing home flowers to his wife who has a candle lit dinner on the table doesn't exactly fit into the incomprehensible reality of Their EVERYTHING seen, experienced, and known timeless existence. The only difference we know of in the sealing power is related to the continuation of seeds. On top of that...what, exactly is your view of "together" in the eternities? Have you given it any thought? You suggest gay marriage might be a thing in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms...but I ask again...why? So they can have sex with each other? Why, in the name of all that's good and holy, would they need marriage for that?!?!?! Why do you even think marriage is eternal? So we can sit around in easy chairs for all time together on the front porch watching the fireflies at dusk making goo-goo eyes at each other? So we can collect government benefits? So we can visit each other in the heavenly hospitals? And even if sex is a thing, and even if those in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom accordingly wanted to spend their eternities doing the gay horizontal mambo with each other, then how does proclaiming themselves married change anything? And why couldn't they just proclaim themselves married? Anyone can. It's not like the US government's going to restrict Terrestrial beings from having a "marriage license". And if God does but they say otherwise...so it's not "legitimate". So what though? As long as they're "appeased" by the idea of it, what difference does it make? Why is some paper license or whatever the telestial equivalent is necessary for them to consider themselves "married". They can't have a continuation of seeds, so otherwise, they can call their relationships whatever they like. But it's not eternal marriage, because eternal marriage is about the continuation of seeds. I'm not trying to berate your or just bludgeon you with things here. I'm just taking you through some things to consider, because it strikes me that maybe you haven't really thought these propositions through. Clearly you don't mean slavery and polygamy were sins and are now are not? So I suppose you mean the opposite. Slavery and polygamy used to not be sins and now are. Putting aside the fact that that is literally the opposite of what I'm asking....but sort of accepting, for the sake of argument, that reversing the idea doesn't inject any sort of logical fallacy... Who says slavery is a de facto eternal sin? I'm saying this as an intellectual (and semantic) exercise, not as an argument that we ought to bring back slavery, just so we're clear. But, consider... if one were to follow the council of the Lord completely, and follow the second greatest commandment completely, but had technical "slaves" like a king or something, is the technical having slaves really a sin, eternally speaking, in the eyes of God? And what makes them slaves? Are the provided places to live? Are they fed well? Are they given clothes? Do they get a wage? Is the wage sufficient? Do they get time off? Where is the line where someone literally becomes a semantic "slave". Is it according to the individuals want? Is someone who has all these things but doesn't get paid as well as they like a slave? Like, say, Filipino children sewing Nike sneakers for thirty cents a day? Or is it only no wage at all? Does food and shelter count as a wage? Or is it only the inability to quit? But what if all the above are given at a high level? What if one lives in a lavish castle, has all the food they want of whatever kind they want, can wear nice clothes, get lots of time off, get a six figure salary, are treated with love and respect, but simply don't have the choice to quit because they're "enslaved" by the king? Technically slavery. Right? But sinful? Is that king, who treats his "slaves" that well more or less sinful than the crappy employer who underpays and abuses his employees when the job market sucks, but they can "technically" quit? I think there's no doubt that slavery was a great evil. But why? Wasn't it the inhumane treatment, the abuse, the chains, the whips, the evil that was evil. Is the simple idea that someone is beholden to another at some level (slavery) evil in and of itself? Are we not all beholden to others at some level? Do we not all work for the government at some level? To be, truly, totally free there can be no law. There is. So where does that law (restriction of freedom) become evil by God's law? I mean, clearly, at some level it does. But where? Whereas the idea of what constitutes the level where restriction of freedom crosses into "slavery" then we're into semantics. And if one defines that line by the cruelty and inhumanity then, sure...okay...by that then yes, slavery is evil. But...and this is the point... do you believe for one second that the official church thinking on slavery EVER justified inhumanity, chains, whippings, killing, and the like as "not sin"? I think not. Therefore...I say that's a stretch. As to polygamy -- I've said this before but perhaps you missed it. We still practice it. It's eternal law. It's canonized scripture. It is not, in and of itself, remotely a sin. But, like with anything, there are rules surrounding it, and the breaking of those rules, as with all church rules, constitutes sin. And that was always the case. The rules changed as to the when and where of polygamy. Currently it is only authorized if one's prior wife is deceased. But the idea that authorized plural marriage was considered righteous and is now considered a sin is simply false.