Risky topic?

[Guest]

I haven't seen the production and likely will not but I am betting there'll be more than a few converts deriving from this, from those thinkers who say "What really is this all about?"

And to be fair, there will also be those thinkers who say, "What? Mormons believe they are going to have their own planet? There's no way I'm talking to missionaries!".

This is a musical on Broadway. Nothing more. It's not going to be a missionary tool.

[pam]

This is a musical on Broadway. Nothing more. It's not going to be a missionary tool.

Totally disagree. My friends son was down in the MTC in Provo. He got to work on the chat for mormon.org. He mentioned to his mom that many of the people that he talked to wanted to know more because of the musical. Probably more out of curiosity than anything. But there was an interest.

Edited December 4, 2011 by pam

[JudoMinja]

So, what's your take on Catholics watching The Godfather?

What's your take on Christians watching Jesus Christ Superstar?

What's your take on Muslims watching The Passion of the Christ?

And if your answer is not the idiotic Vort statement... then tell me... how is Mormons watching the Book of Mormon Musical any different?

I know your asking pam here, but I'd like to answer since I kinda agree with Vort on this one too...

Personally, I have not seen any of those films, nor do I want to, nor would I suggest them to anyone to see. Now, where my opinion on the films differs from Vort's statement is that I can "respect" the films for their creative qualities. That doesn't mean I don't think the world would be better off if they were never made, or at least made in a less offensive manner.

I think the reason Vort's answer bothers you is because it makes it sound like you don't respect your religion if you watch them. Instead of accepting it as an individual's critical take on the film, you are seeing it as a critical take on your character.

If you watched it and enjoyed it, fine. You have a strong skin and an ability to appreciate artistry even if you don't agree with everything in it. But that does not mean that those who consider it "garbage" of sorts are wrong in their opinion of it either. Does it make you less spiritual that you don't agree? I don't think so. But it also doesn't mean that finding it a terrible thing to watch is idiotic.

[Dravin]

I haven't seen it, but I've heard it was hilarious. Not entirely accurate, but hilarious.

My one problem with it is that there's a song dedicated exclusively to cursing God. I figure God can take care of himself, but it does make me uncomfortable and I'm not sure I'd be able to watch it.

Yep, as soon as I read about that particular song it killed any desire to ever see it for me. Before that point I probably would have gone if I'd been given free tickets, but now I'd turn them down.

Instead of accepting it as an individual's critical take on the film, you are seeing it as a critical take on your character.

Vort attributed disloyalty to certain individuals (which ones are outlined in his post), that's not a critique of the production, that's a critique of individuals, and if one feels loyalty/disloyalty is a character trait, their character.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Dravin

[JudoMinja]

Vort attributed disloyalty to certain individuals (which ones are outlined in his post), that's not a critique of the production, that's a critique of individuals, and if one feels loyalty/disloyalty is a character trait, their character.

You're right. Went back and reread his post after I'd posted, and I can see why it would sound offensive to someone who's enjoyed the film. But... I also have a tendancy to take anything Vort says that sounds like a personal attack with a grain of salt. It's become a reflex, I think.

The point I meant to make though is that we can bash each other for our opinions of the film or recognize that some won't have a problem with it and others will. How that affects their spirituality or loyalty to their religion I don't think is for me to say.

[Backroads]

I doubt I'll ever watch it--mainly because of the aforementioned cursing God song (I did hear another song from it that I thought was awesome, but that's pretty much where my song knowledge ends). I understand that as a production it was extremely well-done, which I respect.

I also figure I'm not in a place to judge what others thought/felt about it.

But it's not for me. I've never been comfortable with anything mocking any religion.

[Guest]

Totally disagree. My friends son was down in the MTC in Provo. He got to work on the chat for mormon.org. He mentioned to his mom that many of the people that he talked to wanted to know more because of the musical. Probably more out of curiosity than anything. But there was an interest.

You are only seeing one side of the coin. Because your friends in the MTC in Provo didn't get to count how many who were curious before watching the musical didn't call their local missionaries and never will... after seeing the musical.

What gets me is - you agree with Vort that those Mormons who enjoyed the show is nothing more than people who want to show everybody they're not uptight to the point of disloyalty and then turn around and say it's a missionary tool. Flabergasted. That's me. Yep!

Edited December 4, 2011 by anatess

[Mamas_Girl]

I will not support a musical like the Book of Mormon. If you look at the lyrics it's far worse than one can imagine. I found them by simply Googling "Book of Mormon" musical lyrics and they are extremely offensive.

The Deseret News ran an article about the movie which told of the profanity:

According to the musical's complete book and lyrics, those Ugandan characters utter plenty of swear words. The production contains at least 49 instances of the "f-word," and approximately 26 additional expletives.

It also includes sexual innuendos, references to HIV, rape, genital mutilation and homosexuality.

Newsweek, in a cover story on Mormons last week, wrote that "...the Book of Mormon may be the most obscene show ever brought to a Broadway stage."

The New York Times review of the play made a similar statement, calling it "more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak."

Just looking at the lyrics -- a WOW yeah. It's bad!

[pam]

You are only seeing one side of the coin. Because your friends in the MTC in Provo didn't get to count how many who were curious before watching the musical didn't call their local missionaries and never will... after seeing the musical.

What gets me is - you agree with Vort that those Mormons who enjoyed the show is nothing more than people who want to show everybody they're not uptight to the point of disloyalty and then turn around and say it's a missionary tool. Flabergasted. That's me. Yep!

Yet you can't see how it would be a missionary tool. People see the musical. And yes the musical brings out what some would think are pretty bizarre things about Mormons. So they want to find out if these things are true or not. So curiosity gets them to do a little search and they come up with sites like mormon.org and lds.org.

Are we as a church using it as a missionary tool? No. But sometimes tools to spark interest come from the strangest of sources.

It's sad that some would turn away. But it's awesome, even for the one, that might convert because the musical sparked an interest.

Edited December 4, 2011 by pam

[Leah]

There's a roast and there's disrespect. One can say some really uncomfortable things as part of a roast and still mean no disrespect. Of course, the person getting roasted gets to decide when it crosses over the disrespectful line. And yes, the person doing the roasting gets to say the person getting roasted is being too serious. Anybody else are just spectators whose opinions don't matter.

Any fool can have an opinion. That doesn't mean they get to decide another person's feelings. That is also disrespect.

[NeuroTypical]

Brigham Young has something to say about the musical. He was talking about the backlash from various Christians, but his words apply equally to Parker and Stone:

Every time you kick 'Mormonism,' you kick it up stairs: you never kick it down stairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it. And let me tell you that what our Christian friends are now doing for us makes more for the kingdom of heaven than the Elders could in many years preaching.

The wicked kick at "Mormonism," but they will find it somewhat like the old man's stone wall that he built five feet high and six feet thick, to prevent the boys from stealing his apples; and when the boys in their anger tipped it over, behold it was higher than it was before. So with "Mormonism:" every time they give it a kick, it rises in the scale of power and influence in the world.

Let us alone, and we will send Elders to the uttermost parts of the earth, and gather out Israel, wherever they are; and if you persecute us, we will do it the quicker, because we are naturally dull when let alone, and are disposed to take a little sleep, a little slumber, and a little rest. If you let us alone, we will do it a little more leisurely; but if you persecute us, we will sit up nights to preach the Gospel.

[Guest]

Yet you can't see how it would be a missionary tool. People see the musical. And yes the musical brings out what some would think are pretty bizarre things about Mormons. So they want to find out if these things are true or not. So curiosity gets them to do a little search and they come up with sites like mormon.org and lds.org.

Are we as a church using it as a missionary tool? No. But sometimes tools to spark interest come from the strangest of sources.

It's sad that some would turn away. But it's awesome, even for the one, that might convert because the musical sparked an interest.

Missionary Tool: Something that brings one person to the church regardless of turning 200 people away from the Church.

Got it.

[Vort]

anatess appears to have taken my words very personally, and not in a way I intended them. The fault is to a large degree my own; I did not write as clearly as I might have. Though of course anatess is perfectly welcome to continue hating me and saying nasty things, as others have done and will continue to do, I want to clarify my meaning. Better to be despised for what I actually meant than for something I didn't mean.

Few of us will have seen it, for the reasons LM gives.

Those Latter-day Saints who have seen it will almost uniformly say what a great musical it is, how entertaining and clever, and so forth. If they are willing to financially support a production that openly mocks and makes sport of things they claim to hold sacred, it goes without saying that they want to see it as positive, and want to let everyone else know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating such a great artistic endeavor.

My opinion of such people is little different from my opinion of the musical itself. I think the two are a matched set and were made for each other. I can sympathize with many a weakness, but I have almost no tolerance for disloyalty.

In my quote above, the bolded words ("such people") appear to refer to those referenced at the beginning of the preceding paragraph, namely, "Those Latter-day Saints who have seen [the musical under discussion]." This is the natural interpretation, especially since I essentially made an equivalence between those Latter-day Saints who watched (and, implicitly, enjoyed) the musical and those who "want to see it as positive, and want to let everyone else know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating such a great artistic endeavor."

It is the latter group -- those who insist on letting everyone know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating the musical under discussion because they want to be viewed that way -- whom I perceive as being disloyal. Merely enjoying the musical under discussion does not, in my estimation, necessarily make one a member of the disloyal group, notwithstanding the fact that I made the equivalency. I might question the taste of any Latter-day Saint who allows himself or herself to enjoy a mocking diatribe against the restored gospel, but I do not question their loyalty based on that point alone.

Okay, anatess, go ahead and continue your blast of hatred. I'm sorry for it, because I haven't known you to be like that, but I accept it. Please just make sure it's because of what I actually believe rather than because of what you think I believe based on my poorly worded previous post.

[sister_in_faith]

I don't know how much this adds to the discussion, but I know that South Park was a BIG reason I ended up joining the church. I liked the show, and it kind of peaked my interest in the church, so when I had the occasion to check it out, I did, and I ended up joining. Might sound funny, but it's true! I kind of doubt that there will be very many people who were seriously investigating the church who will be turned away by it, but I bet there will be a lot of people who are curious about it, and will look into the church because of it. I don't know that for a fact, but based on my personal experience I wouldn't be surprised.

I hope that it will be a vehicle to help some people, even if it wasn't intended that way.

If I had the opportunity to watch it, I probably would, because I like to know as much as I can about what other people think of my church. When I first joined I read all the anti material I could get my hands on, because I didn't want to ever be surprised by something someone said to me. That said, I don't know that I would spend money to support it, but if I was handed tickets and had the time, I would probably go.

[pam]

Missionary Tool: Something that brings one person to the church regardless of turning 200 people away from the Church.

Got it.

You can't seem to get past the idea or the thought of those that might have walked away. With or without the musical, there will always be people who will turn away from wanting to know more about the Church. But if the musical brings one person to investigate and join..how great is the joy of bringing that one soul unto Christ? Did not the shepherd leave the 99 sheep and go looking for the one that was lost? While this might not be the best example, I used it because even one soul is important. Even finding one person is important. We have no idea the effect of bringing that one person into the church might have on others and future generations.

There is a story that President Faust one told:

“Those of us who have served missions have seen the miracle in the lives of some we have taught as they have come to realize that they are sons and daughters of God. Many years ago an elder who served a mission in the British Isles said at the end of his labors, ‘I think my mission has been a failure. I have labored all my days as a missionary here and I have only baptized one dirty little Irish kid. That is all I baptized.’

“Years later, after his return to his home in Montana, he had a visitor come to his home who asked, ‘Are you the elder who served a mission in the British Isles in 1873?’

” ‘Yes.’

“Then the man went on, ‘And do you remember having said that you thought your mission was a failure because you had only baptized one dirty little Irish kid?’

“He said, ‘Yes.’

“The visitor put out his hand and said, ‘I would like to shake hands with you. My name is Charles A. Callis, of the Council of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am that dirty little Irish kid that you baptized on your mission’ (see The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 602–3).

“That little Irish boy came to a knowledge of his potential as a son of God. Elder Callis left a lasting legacy for his large family. Serving as a mission president for 25 years and in his apostolic ministry for 13 years, he blessed the lives of literally thousands. I feel privileged to have known this great Apostle of the Lord when I was a young man.”

That's the point I'm trying to make. I think sometimes we get so caught up with numbers that were lost, we forget about the importance of the one that was saved.

Edited December 5, 2011 by pam

[Guest]

anatess appears to have taken my words very personally, and not in a way I intended them. The fault is to a large degree my own; I did not write as clearly as I might have. Though of course anatess is perfectly welcome to continue hating me and saying nasty things, as others have done and will continue to do, I want to clarify my meaning. Better to be despised for what I actually meant than for something I didn't mean.

In my quote above, the bolded words ("such people") appear to refer to those referenced at the beginning of the preceding paragraph, namely, "Those Latter-day Saints who have seen [the musical under discussion]." This is the natural interpretation, especially since I essentially made an equivalence between those Latter-day Saints who watched (and, implicitly, enjoyed) the musical and those who "want to see it as positive, and want to let everyone else know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating such a great artistic endeavor."

It is the latter group -- those who insist on letting everyone know how open-minded and non-uptight they are in appreciating the musical under discussion because they want to be viewed that way -- whom I perceive as being disloyal. Merely enjoying the musical under discussion does not, in my estimation, necessarily make one a member of the disloyal group, notwithstanding the fact that I made the equivalency. I might question the taste of any Latter-day Saint who allows himself or herself to enjoy a mocking diatribe against the restored gospel, but I do not question their loyalty based on that point alone.

Okay, anatess, go ahead and continue your blast of hatred. I'm sorry for it, because I haven't known you to be like that, but I accept it. Please just make sure it's because of what I actually believe rather than because of what you think I believe based on my poorly worded previous post.

Feel free to cut and paste anything I said that shows hatred towards anybody. Calling your statement idiotic does not equal hatred. If I would have called you an idiot, then yes, you may call that a blast of hatred.

But thanks for the explanation. I'm Filipino. English is only my 3rd language so a slight deviation of a sentence structure from it's meaning throws me off.

[Guest]

Any fool can have an opinion. That doesn't mean they get to decide another person's feelings. That is also disrespect.

Okay Leah, explain to me exactly how saying "you're taking it too seriously" equates to "deciding another person's feelings".

Because, I can pull hundreds of posts on the advice section alone where members of lds.net tell a person something like, "you're being too sensitive over what the bishop said", etc...

I mean, they even made a science out of that. It's called Psychology...

Wife: I am so upset that my husband called me sweetums! He knows how I hate sugar!

Psychologist: Did he mean it as an insult or an endearment?

Wife: Endearment, I suppose, but he should know better!

Psychologist: You're being too sensitive.

Wife: What??? You don't get to decide how I feel!

Uhm, okay...

[RMGuy]

It is interesting to me that we as members of the church have a difficult time understanding why people would be critical of the Book of Mormon if they have never actually read it, but only listened to what others have said about it.

Yet we seem to have no qualms about making judgements about something tha we have neither read or watched outselves.

I'm sure there's a word for that somewhere......

-RM

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'm interested in the Vortian definition of the term loyal since it has come up more than once in his posts. I think we know the dictionary definition, but as it relates to Mormons and their membership in the Church, I'd be interested in understanding it more fully.

[Dravin]

It is interesting to me that we as members of the church have a difficult time understanding why people would be critical of the Book of Mormon if they have never actually read it, but only listened to what others have said about it.

Yet we seem to have no qualms about making judgements about something tha we have neither read or watched outselves.

I'm sure there's a word for that somewhere......

-RM

Reading reviews? Actually I suspect you're going for hypocrisy but the problem is your chalking up the difference to a lack of understanding not a dual standard which kinda kicks the legs out from the comparison. To be pertinent you'd need to change it to members reserving the right to rely on the judgements and reviews of others while disallowing others to do the same.

The interesting thing is nobody relies on a strict "trusting reviews in everything is acceptable" versus "can't trust the reviews in anything" dichotomy (I'm not saying you are saying they do), we tend to categorize what belongs in each heading. For instance, we'll accept the history text you are reading (you weren't present for the history, ultimately everything is trusting a review or a report, of course for that matter so is the news if you weren't there for it) but we'll demand you listen to our favorite band instead of relying on a review of their music as 'whiny'. What goes into each slot tends to very quite a bit. Seems to be the better we like something the more we'll insist you give it a go yourself instead of go with the review. Movies are another example of this, like a movie and it got bad reviews? Can't trust the reviews. Hate a movie and it got horrible reviews? The reviews are spot on and reliable.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

Poop brownies.

[Guest gopecon]

I'm with Vort on the loyalty issue. When people are baptized they make a public statement that they are on the Lord's team. As long as they stay active, it can be assumed that they are still on that team. When another team produces something antithetical to the Lord's team, that has content that could be considered blasphemous, if you are loyal to the Lord's team you will not encourage others to see this production, or downplay the negative parts of it.

As to Anatess' list of movies that might offend other groups...

Godfather - haven't seen it, but while a Catholic might not like some portrayals in it, I don't think the movie is meant as a shot against Catholicism.

Jesus Christ Superstar - I hope that Christians (Mormons obviously included) would not see a movie/play that disrespects their Savior.

The Passion of the Christ - Muslim's offended by this. Not sure how that could happen, Islam was not founded by Mohammed for a couple hundred years after Christ. If you mean Jews...I'm not a Jew, but I didn't see it as a shot at them. If memory serves neither did Michael Medved - a prominent Jew and movie critic.

I think the issue is targeting, and the malice it feels like this is done with. We are the clear target of the Book of Mormon musical, and given our history it's hard to look at something like this as friendly ribbing.

[Traveler]

Okay, so I know this might cause some friction, but what did everyone think of 'Book of Mormon: The Musical'?

I'll be honest, I thought it was pretty funny in parts.

To be honest I have not considered accepting “book of Mormon: The Musical” into my life. During the Vietnam era I served in the military and was assigned to a “Military Intelligence” unit where I gained some firsthand experience with interrogation and “brain washing” techniques.

In short I learned that Joseph Goebbels (Hitler’s propaganda minister) is an expert in mass brain washing techniques. He indicated that entertainment is the best and most effective way to change public opinion – and the most effective entertainment is comedy. In essence he claimed that anything a person will laugh at they will eventually fully embrace.

Thus I attempt to employ the 13th Article of Faith – even and especially in my spare time entertainment.

The Traveler