Book of Mormon Musical

So I read an article on Mormon Times called "Is the 'Book of Mormon' musical accurate satire?" found here. Never mind the irony in the title of the article, I'll discuss that further in a minute. The article starts out by quoting a former missionary, who has since left the church, who says that his children (who he has kept information about his past life growing up in the church a secret from) learned more from the Book of Mormon musical about the LDS church than he has ever told them. It uses this introduction to go into answering the question of how accurate the musical is. As if they think that if the musical is more sympathetic to the teachings of the church it would be a better missionary tool, apparently.

I am continually amazed at how people in the church are capable of either ignoring, or missing, the point of the musical or attempting to downplay its effect or accuracy. I wonder why members of the church have such a hard time looking at the Book of Mormon musical in a positive light and a way that says that "any exposure is good exposure"? Instead it seems that members of the church want to start out ignoring that the play is indeed out there and, if they acknowledge it and decide to actually discuss it, they immediately move to some attempt to discredit it. Needless to say, this article is definitely in the camp of trying to point out inaccuracies in the play - which I would say is another attempt to discredit it. The article does point out that the play is meant to be satire, which means that you can expect that the purpose of the play is to entertain and not to make sure that all the facts are conveyed in as accurate a way as possible. That is more than can be said for this article.

The definition of satire is; "The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." (Like, say, religion for example) Regardless of this point, the article then attempts to hold the play up as being full of inconsistencies and untruths. However, this should not even be newsworthy because you would expect satire to be full of exaggeration or ridicule and not attempt to hold it out as something that is full of inaccuracies. This is akin to pointing out that a political cartoon depicting a democrat as a donkey is not accurate because there are no donkeys that have ever registered to vote as a democrat! Nevertheless, after pointing out that the play is intended to be satire, the article then goes on to try to point out all of its inaccuracies.

The article quotes critics of the play who say that "The Book of Mormon" musical is nothing to worry about because; it is a New York thing, made by media elites for people who go to Broadway musicals. I wonder who these people are exactly that go to Broadway musicals? Is there a line we draw somewhere among the population between those who enjoy Broadway musicals and those who don't? I guess as long as we can identify a segment of the population to fit into a certain category that makes us feel better about ourselves? The funny thing is, if you were to ask anybody around the country if they would go see a Broadway musical if it were given to them free of charge or all expenses paid, how many would decline that offer? I dare say the number is extremely small. Apparently, the critic quoted believes that the number of people who would decline such an offer would be very large. This kind of reference to social segregation, I believe, is a very large contributing factor to the problem of creating social minorities. This is very unfortunate, indeed.

The article goes on to quote Michael Otterson, an LDS church spokesperson who wrote a piece in the Washington Post, who says that when used for entertainment purposes, it is fine but the danger is when people take the content too seriously. Apparently, the author of the Mormon Times article can't see that they are treading on this dangerous ground of taking the content too seriously. Nevertheless, the author treads on.

The article accuses the play of "misrepresenting Joseph Smith's history, distorting Mormon epistemology and misconstruing the church's teachings about the afterlife." The author says that having the angel Moroni tell Joseph not to show the plates to anyone is inaccurate. Even though Joseph Smith's own history in the Pearl of Great Price says in verse 42, "Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed..." Being told that you will be destroyed is apparently a favorite way of getting Joseph to do stuff. There are 36 references to people being destroyed by God in the Doctrine and Covenants and 10 in the Pearl of Great Price.

Even though the article goes on to point out that 11 witnesses testified that they saw the plates, what the article neglects to mention, is that several of the witnesses later complained because they felt the testimony being printed did not accurately reflect their experience with what happened. The article also conveniently omits that at least two of the witnesses (Martin Harris and David Whitmer) later said that the visitation was a purely spiritual "vision" and was not a real life experience. The author also does not mention that these witnesses were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself. (A summary of issues with the witnesses to the gold plates can be found here.) This is just one more example of a limited amount of information being conveyed to an LDS audience, without disclosing anything controversial that might possibly undermine the official LDS history narrative.

The article gives an example of incorrect Mormon theology by saying that a missionary in the play sings about obtaining his own planet in the hereafter. Amazingly, the article admits that this particular teaching can be found in the theology but apparently is taken out of context. I would be very interested to know in what context being able to be in control of your own planet would not be considered a peculiar teaching that some might find entertaining? The problem is, nowadays the church leadership is silent on these sorts of teachings whereas, in the past, these kinds of teachings (that are speculative in nature) were rampant. I kind of miss those days, if for no other reason, for the sheer entertainment value. Maybe if the church would go back to saying this kind of stuff on a regular basis, people would show up in greater numbers to general conference to see what those wacky leaders will say this time. I think this may have been a possible reason for devotion in those early days of the church. Speculation is fun. It arouses our imaginations about the possibilities for what lies ahead. The problem is, we live in a world where not too much about our universe is unknown. The unknown in the universe is what fostered the imaginative teachings and allowed leaders to pronounce with certainty what we would, today, label as kooky and largely unsupportable (the famous teaching of Brigham Young about Quakers living on the moon is what comes to mind here).

The article quotes New York Times columnist David Brooks, who actually says something to this affect. He said, "The only problem with 'The Book of Mormon' (musical), is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn't actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False." It seems that creative and imaginative doctrines that are rigorously held to be true by its adherents are what motivate us to be more selfless and caring for others. Based on that argument, it sounds like the LDS church may not last if it continues to be vague and obscure, even though it may be considered uplifting, in the specifics of its doctrines and teachings. The point about it being not quite true, while I think very poignant because the same could be said of the LDS church, is lost on many who believe everything the church says about its history without bothering to question or examine it.

While trying to point out how the play continues to be inaccurate by depicting a dream that a missionary has about a hell of fire and brimstone, the author goes on to say that such a perception of LDS theology is not supported. The author should try reading LDS scripture at some point. The Book of Mormon itself has 9 references to a "lake of fire and brimstone" while speaking of the hereafter and the Doctrine and Covenants has 2 references. How is a believer in the Book of Mormon supposed to have any other view of what happens to the disobedient in the hereafter? Especially when the Book of Mormon makes no mention at all of the "multi-tiered" degrees of heaven the author is trying to point out is the correct version of LDS belief about the afterlife. Where exactly, then, do the references to the lake of fire and brimstone fit into LDS theology, if not in a young person's dream that is experienced after reading and pondering the teachings in the Book of Mormon?

The author then goes on to tell us how the musical is also racist in its references to, and portrayal of, the people in Uganda. Depicting them as "angry, aggressive, sexually charged, physically ill, naive and vulgar", the author tries to point out that this is racist and not satire. I hate to tell you this, but I see the people of Uganda in the play as being representative of people the world over who happen to fall into those categories. I don't think the point of the play is to emphasize that these people in this specific country have a monopoly on all of those characteristics or problems. I agree the play is probably over generalizing to some degree in its depiction of a specific group of people, in a specific country. However, it is not about the people of Uganda specifically. It is about the contrast between two worlds. The world that the LDS live in where all of these things are rare or cured because of a belief in God and a world where God has apparently forsaken a people. A world that is lawless and doesn't concern itself with what is appropriate according to one set of beliefs. Rather, the beliefs are different because of a different set of circumstances. I don't think the point is about the people of Uganda and what they believe about God, but it is about the contrast between those that believe God can, or will, solve all their problems and those that don't. This contrast is especially pronounced in our own backyard when looking at the issue of homosexuality or the role of women.

I had to laugh when the article pointed out that female genital mutilation is against the law in Uganda. Um, smoking crack cocaine is illegal in this country, so that must mean that it never happens here too. I think exceeding the speed limit is against the law too, but I rarely see people actually go the speed limit on highways. I must just be mistaken. Hello! If people pass a law regarding some practice, it must mean there is some concern about it happening too much. A law on the books regarding female genital mutilation in Uganda is probably a sign that it either has been, or is, an issue of such significance that it needed to be outlawed to attempt to stem the practice. How silly can we be?

As a sort of frosting on the cake, I was also amused by the fact that this article, like so many other controversial articles published by LDS church owned media, do not allow comments to be made (or shown) in response to the article. This speaks volumes about how confident they are that their opinions represent the overwhelming majority of the opinions of the readers of the article - Not! Why not allow comments? Anyway, this is something I see consistently found in organizations that cannot withstand scrutiny of their opinions. Since I couldn't leave a comment on the article directly, I have written a blog piece to express my reactions to it. At least I can rest confident that I have written with integrity and not attempted to point out the inaccuracies of a satirical play in an attempt to discredit it in the mind of my readers. If you are one of "those people" that like Broadway plays, I think it would be very enjoyable.

By the way, I haven't seen the play yet, but I have listened to the soundtrack and found it extremely entertaining because of its accuracy in depicting the LDS lifestyle and mindset. I especially liked the song entitled, "You and Me (but mostly me)". That one really resonated with me since that seemed to be the mindset on my mission. Love it!

Update: I guess I need to access the article via Deseret News to be able to make comments. That one can be found here.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

What color are you?

I just got to wondering something; why does the church in its editings of the Book of Mormon feel the need to change white and delightsome to pure and delightsome, with regard to a change in skin color of the Lamanites, but has no problem leaving in the bit about being cursed by God with black skin for being wicked? Apparently the change from dark to white skin is setting an unrealistic expectation and is problematic, but to have people go from white to dark skin is OK and the church can get behind that all day long without a problem?

In thinking about this, I think it might have to do with legal liability. The church may want to protect itself against a lawsuit from a dark skinned person who reads in the BoM that they can become light/white skinned by doing what the church asks, but the church must not have any fear that a white person who leaves the church might actually become darker skinned (due to the increased time spent outdoors enjoying life and going tanning or whatever with all the money they save from not paying tithing!) I guess there is really no fear of backlash from the wicked dark skinned people (who only appear to get darker the farther away from the church they get) as much as there is from the righteous dark skinned people who never become white. I guess I can understand that. Could there be any other reason for the change to the words in the BoM? I mean, it's not like there was an announcement over the pulpit in general conference where it was announced that the words in the Book of Mormon were going to be changed (unless I missed that particular announcement?).

I also think it must be confusing for young people in the church to learn that white people, who turn bad, end up with dark skin (as a curse as taught in the BoM), but when those dark skinned folks join the church and do everything they are told that they are supposed to do, they aren't expected to see any kind of reversal in skin color. Rather, those that are righteous with dark skin are considered "pure" instead of "white". So the obvious question from children would be "Why wouldn't God make the darkie light again, since he made the whitie dark?" Apparently it is only a one way street when it comes to skin color. We can only get darker, but never whiter. That, my young reader, is the lesson here. Don't ever do anything bad, because once you go down that Pinocchio path and start doing bad stuff, just like Pinocchio almost ended up as a donkey forever, you may end up as a black person forever. And, if you ever decide to come back, too bad, the dark skin stays and you can never have white skin again. So guard your white skin children, because once it is lost, it is gone forever! And, just look at how tough it is for the blacks! They have been fighting for equal rights for years now and they still don't have real equality in so many ways.

To me that says that having black skin is a sign of wickedness and having white skin means you are fortunate to have never been cursed, so you should protect that status in everything you do. How could I not be expected to think less of people with black skin being taught such things?

I imagine the primary lesson I might have had went something like this: A child raises his hand (after reading Alma 3:6) to ask, "So why aren't all wicked people black then?" (This is a question I guess I never really thought about until now that I am actually thinking about this stuff. Yeah, why is that anyway?) The dutiful primary teacher responds with something like, "Of course, young child, the reason is simple. Because God picks and chooses whom he will actually curse with the skin of blackness, you silly goose."

The teacher continues:

"Just you nevermind that it really has to do with the regional climate your ancestors are from, 'those' people have always been looked down upon by society and obviously God looks down on them as well (after all, to curse means to give something rotten to someone - or their kids - who have done something bad). People who are white that are doing bad stuff better watch out because, any day now, the white God will curse the bad white people with skins of blackness. In fact you may not recognize some of your friends in the next life because they might have black skin there, even though they are really white and delightsome now. In fact, come to think about it, you won't recognize a lot of people up in heaven when it is all said and done, just like members of the church don't recognize each other when they run into each other at the grocery store in Sunday." I imagine an awkward pause would follow such a statement like the one's that Johnny Depp delivers in his version of Willy Wonka.

By the way, if anyone has an explanation for why the curse/mark of Cain/Ham/Egyptus persisted for more than a few generations, I would love to hear it because from what I have read God only curses those that he really despises for only 3 or 4 generations at most, not for well over 160 generations! (See Deuteronomy 5:9, Numbers 14:18, Exodus 34:7 & Exodus 20:5)

I can think of a few explanations for the phenomena that I have outlined above;

1) Whatever the first person to be cursed with black skin did to God was pretty bad (we're talking utterly and completely severe) so that the curse was so long lasting (and the scriptures I outlined do not fit that category of uber badness). However, there is really not any indication that this was the case...unless the first murder had to be forever remembered as a really bad choice among the children of men and black people are supposed to remind everybody of that. But why would a God, who doesn't want us to have crucifixes displayed - to remember the death of His Only Begotten Son, want to have constant reminders persist among humanity of the first murder (or whatever that unspeakable act was)?

2) God doesn't have the power to lift the curse once it is given (which, I guess, could be a possibility) but that kind of throws out the idea of an omnipotent God doesn't it?

3) God doesn't ever remove the curse of the skin of blackness because it really isn't that big of a deal. I guess this is also a possibility, but if that is the case, why not just cause any teaching or reminder about the curse of black skin to be removed from scripture? If it is really not a big deal to God, why is it needed at all in the doctrinal canon? Not only that, but if it is not a big deal to God, why allow blacks to be owned as slaves? After all, I'm pretty sure this teaching was at least partly used as the justification for the whites being able to own black people as slaves (because the blacks were cursed by God and therefore not eligible for equal rights to own property and vote). I wonder what God thinks of slavery, anyway? He sure did have a lot of rules about how to treat slaves in the Old Testament (See Exodus 21, 22 & 23).

4) Those that profess that having a skin of blackness is a curse from God are full of it. This is where I am at. Since all the other reasons don't seem to hold water for me, this is my conclusion. Of course, I am open to any other reasons that may exist out there so please enlighten me. While I am waiting to hear back I'll be outside working on my skin of blackness ;-)

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Confessions of a stupid Mormon kid

So I read an excellent blog post here that reminded me of some stupid stuff I did as a kid in the name of my religion. I feel so bad that I felt such terrible behavior was justified, but I think it is also helpful to share some of my experiences if, for no other reason, it helps me understand better how some of my beliefs were actually harmful to others, even though I could not see it at the time.

When I was in 7th grade I did something that I am not proud of at all. I was raised in an active LDS home and was taught all about how bad coffee was. My 7th grade math teacher had a fresh cup of coffee sitting on his desk when he would start class pretty much every day. I could not believe that a teacher would do such a thing, so I decided I needed to teach him a lesson about how bad it was to drink such a vile substance.

One day, I came into class and my teacher’s hot cup of joe was sitting on the desk, but my teacher was not around. I quickly scanned the room for something I could put in his coffee that would teach him a lesson. The only thing I could find was a can of Boraxo cleaner. I am so ashamed that I actually dumped some in his coffee.

There was only one other student that saw what I did and I told him to not say anything. The teacher came into the room and I could barely contain myself as he would pick up his coffee to take a drink during class. The more he drank the worse I felt. Then I began to wonder if he would even notice. Finally, as we were quietly working on an assignment, he stopped drinking his coffee and said, “What?! What is this?!” He then asked if anyone in the class knew about this crud in his coffee.

I didn’t say a word. I was prepared to go to my grave keeping my secret, but the student who saw me do it obviously wasn’t so loyal. When the teacher threatened to not let anyone leave class until someone fessed up, my witness caved and ratted me out.

For my punishment, the teacher said that it would only be fitting if I drank some of the coffee myself. The funny thing was, I tried to use the excuse that it was against my religion to drink the stuff. It didn’t work. He said I could go spit it out right after, but I had to drink some if I didn’t want detention (or get expelled or whatever). I remember quickly taking a swig and running out into the hall and spitting it into the drinking fountain.

I felt so bad, but I also felt justified because he was the one breaking the word of wisdom. So sad, how my behavior was so hurtful and I had no idea. If only I could have been taught tolerance and love for others instead of the importance of avoiding taboo substances or prohibited behaviors.

I also remember when I was younger, that I felt justified for throwing rocks at a colored girl in my neighborhood. I’m pretty sure that feeling came from my upbringing and teachings about the inferiority of blacks from their less valiant behavior in the pre-existence. At least my mother said what I did was wrong and made me deliver cookies to their family to try and make up for my behavior. Even so, the racism was still there…I just learned I wasn’t supposed to act on it. So sad indeed.

I think now about how messed up sometimes the teachings of the church are when it comes to being in line with the golden rule. If treating others the way I want to be treated would have been more emphasized in my religious upbringing, I probably wouldn't have done some of the stupid stuff I did and even felt justified for. I think that the golden rule has been somewhat forgotten in LDS circles because some are so busy working their way to heaven that they don't have time to stop and actually live the golden rule. Many fail to think of how others might feel about what LDS members teach or how their behavior ends up treating others with judgment as a result of those teachings. What makes me even more sad is that it took losing my belief in the LDS church to help me realize this.

What is even more unfortunate is when I think about the recent talk by Boyd K. Packer and how I might be inclined to treat young people who may have homosexual feelings were I a young person today. If I ever had any idea that my behavior led to a young person committing suicide, I would feel completely awful. The sad thing is that the church is blind to what its teachings are doing to so many in the church. I sure hope the church realizes soon the pain and heartache these teachings are causing so many or I might have to grab my rocks and Boraxo and start taking matters into my own hands! I am just kidding of course...I hope I have grown out of that...