DiscussMormonism.com

Great article on the Book of Mormon Musical from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/why-i-wont-be-seeing-the-book-of-mormon-musical/2011/04/14/AFiEn1fD_blog.html

Enuma Elish wrote:Great article on the Book of Mormon Musical from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/why-i-wont-be-seeing-the-book-of-mormon-musical/2011/04/14/AFiEn1fD_blog.html

I like the personal voice that comes out in the beginning of this. It is far more appealing than the official statement boilerplate that one usually sees. Furthermore, I have to say that I completely agree that the Church has done many good things in the Third World. One of my LDS students happens to be very committed to human rights and poverty issues in Africa, something for which I commend and support him. I say kudos to him and every other LDS person who expends hard and noble effort to alleviate the suffering of others.

At the same time, granting that Otterson is speaking on behalf of the Church and therefore bound to offer a corrective, I say, "get a sense of humor." When I left for my mission, I was clueless and naïve. I had no idea about the very difficult problems I would be encountering in a place as cushy as southern California, and I was taught a great deal by the experience. I was in no way truly prepared to deal with these things, to which my first response was understandably to try to address them with my earnestness and within the context of my missionary calling. Not a few times was this inadequate.

That is OK. I don't blame the Church, and I would hope that others can look past the fact that the characters in this musical are Mormon missionaries to see that they represent much about our very real naïve good intentions as Christian Americans as we attempt to make the world a better place, and often fall short, sometimes with disastrous results. In a way I am sad that this response lacks an expression of a nuanced perspective that can show appreciation for these real problems, which are in no way restricted to Mormons, and look beyond the narrow defensiveness that feels put upon by Parker and Stone for being interested in satirizing through Mormonism.

I didn't find Otterson's article to be very good. For example, he states:

"But I’m not buying what I’m reading in the reviews. Specifically, I’m not willing to spend $200 for a ticket to be sold the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naiveté."

Granted, I haven't seen the show, but from what I learned by listening to the Mormon Expression podcast, I don't think the show sells the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naïvété. I think the show sells the idea that religion makes up answers to real-world problems in a potentially helpful way. But then, I bet Otterson wouldn't be too happy with that either.

Fifth Columnist wrote:I didn't find Otterson's article to be very good. For example, he states:

"But I’m not buying what I’m reading in the reviews. Specifically, I’m not willing to spend $200 for a ticket to be sold the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naiveté."

Granted, I haven't seen the show, but from what I learned by listening to the Mormon Expression podcast, I don't think the show sells the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naïveté. I think the show sells the idea that religion makes up answers to real-world problems in a potentially helpful way. But then, I bet Otterson wouldn't be too happy with that either.

Yeah, I guess it is difficult to critique, praise, or defend a show you haven't seen. You would think we could have all learned that lesson by now. LOL.

I definitely agreed with the author on one point - $200 is way too much to spend to go see a musical - ANY musical.

Kishkumen wrote:Yeah, I guess it is difficult to critique, praise, or defend a show you haven't seen. You would think we could have all learned that lesson by now. LOL.

LOL. Well, you know "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." It is wrong for Otterson, but not for me.

Buffalo wrote:I definitely agreed with the author on one point - $200 is way too much to spend to go see a musical - ANY musical.

I'd spend $200 to see the orig London cast in London do Les Miserables. JMO

You know it does make sense that an LDS person would do a review on a play he has not seen. It seems we do that alot with history books also.

Otterson is wrong about the message of the musical. It's actually very William Jamesian.

Fifth Columnist wrote:LOL. Well, you know "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." It is wrong for Otterson, but not for me.

I just felt embarrassed that I was misled by Otterson's misrepresentation of a musical neither he nor I had seen.