Top 10 Reasons Why This Mormon is Excited About the South Park “Book of Mormon” Broadway Musical

We’ll see how long it lasts. People get tired of us pretty quick. Might actually be worth a trip to NYC!

Of course, given how upset many many members were about “The Mormons,” which was mostly positive, they really will get worked up about this!

I’m a big fan of South Park, and I can’t wait for this.

This is just more proof that Broadway is part of the liberal anti-Mormon agenda.

I am starting a Boycott of all of Broadway. You can read more about it here: http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2010/04/mormons-against-broadway-south-park-duo.html

If you are like me and many Mormons, and are quick to judge anything that isn’t by us to obviously be anti-Mormon trash, I suggest you join the boycott. There is a link to the facebook group I set up on my blog post.

Boycott Broadway! We have had enough!

Sooooo want to go, doubt I will be able to, but I can dream right?

I like the point about actually owning our history. It reminds me of the classic scene at the end of 8 Mile where Eminem basically comes out and doesn’t thump his chest with bravado but points out all the warts and flaws in his own life. It completely deflates his opponent and leaves him nothing to rag on. If we did the same, I think a lot of the church’s critics would lose their traction.

I will think of your logic of #9 when I speak to my child who is being bullied.
“Sorry son, you earned being bullied by standing up for what you THOUGHT was right?”

I’ve never actually enjoyed South Park. It’s one of those shows that my brothers would sit around laughing about. Like Beavis and Butthead….where I actually felt “dumber” after watching it. Maybe I just haven’t seen their best episodes.

#15 — Oh, I dunno. I thought “Believe it or not, these guys really are thoughtful. Fart jokes aside….” was the best line.

Celebrating mockery, ehh? It really undermines the accomplishments of other LDS to say that its all “thanks to Matt and Trey”. BTW, how did you like Orgazmo, John?

I too was surprised about the accuracy maintained in the “All About the Mormons” episode. There were some technical facts that could be sqauabbled over, but what I think really turned some people off (and I assume what will turn people of about the Broadway production) is not the accuracy, just the fact that the caricature’s were intended to be a “mockery” in and of themselves. I think the greatest misrepresentation was the exaggerated family trying to sell Mormonism to their neighbors, being represented as a “typical” Mormon family.

the narrator – i just had to say…lol. I say next we boycott that darn anti-mormon DNA…

23 – I have been asked no less than 15 times throughout my life to write down the names of friend or neighbors who would be interested in the LDS church and come up with a plan of action to introduce them to mormonism. I have been forced to write my testimony in the front of several BOMs and give them out within a certain time-period and i have been challenged on numerous occasions to provide a list of non-member friends that the missionaries could visit…I would say its not too far off as my family wasnt even crazy active…

Wow TKS! You were “forced” to do those things huh? I have been a member of the Church my entire life, and I can’t say that I have been “forced” to do much of anything in the Church. And bear in mind, my parents had strict rules about Church/YM attendance, etc.

For clarifications sake, what was exaggerated about the family was not their missionary zeal, but rather their Ned Flanders style “Gee Golly” we’re the happiest family on earth, caricature of Mormon families. Overall I have found Mormon families to be about on par with many others.

The line “The Jews got theirs back in the day” makes me quite uncomfortable.

Other than that, this was an interesting read.

Hey, great job, John. I’m a devout Mormon mother who’s raised her children to be South Park addicts. I hope the Broadway musical version includes the “Ode to Lucy Harris–’smart smart smart smart smart.’”
“The Jews got theirs back in the day” refers to Matt and Trey’s mocking the Jews, not the Holocaust or Inquisition.
And sure, there are plenty of cringe-worthy moments in the Mo-related SP episodes, but they nearly always conclude by showing Mormons to be good, sincere and kind. The irony is delicious to the taste….

John,

You supplied 10 reasons why you’re looking forward to the Book of Mormon, the church, and its members being on the receiving end of, “Those wacky, irreverent South Park guys…bringing down the irreverence anvil once again with a mighty blow to the head of organized religion — and (yet again) Mormons are the target”.

Please forgive my lack of enthusiasm.

If “Those wacky, irreverent South Park guys (Trey Parker and Matt Stone)” leveled their wacky whit…say at your family, would you be as excited?

I can say for sure, I wouldn’t be excited.

I look at the church and its members like family.

Yes, there are many things that Trey and Matt can hold up to ridicule about the church (and our families) that may be true, but that’s not the point–is it?

Re #35 Jared

I agree with this general statement. I think constructive criticism and a healthy sense of humor is wholesome. However, degrading and ridiculing a tradition that enriches the lives of it followers is not useful.

Jared, having admitted this, all we can conclude is that your definition of what is “degrading and ridiculing” vs. “constructive criticism and a healthy sense of humor” is different than others. And this is not surprising since we all obviously have different thresholds.

Additionally, it is a fact of life that we are going to be more sensitive about that which we hold dear. This is good reason for us to avoid belittling others’ political ideologies, moral ideologies, religions, etc.

But this is the very gist of the post – that we might consider changing our threshold and not take offense at what is portrayed – no matter what is portrayed.

Besides Jared, you haven’t even seen the show yet and you’ve already set yourself up to take offense. In the words of Elder Bednar

However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

#36 jmb275–

My problem is that when I was young I had a tenancy for rank humor. It took me years to bring that into line. I’m not interesting in revisiting that part of my fallen nature. In the language of the scripture: “like a dog to his vomit”.

I have just recently watched the “all About the Mormons” episode again, along with the episode about Scientology. What is interesting about these episodes, and what they are really mocking is not the generally accepted beliefs of these groups, but rather they expose those elements of each faiths history and theology that institutionally have been swept under the rug. It is not common knowledge that Joseph Smith, for example, translated the plates by looking at his seer stones within his hat. Yet, by our best understanding this is how it happened. Regarding the Scientology episode, I thought the writers were just embellishing when portrayed the Intergalactic Confederation as using aeroplanes like the DC-8, but was absolutely surprised when I found out that this was an actual part of the narrative per L. Ron Hubbard. So, perhaps it is mockery, but is it really wrong morally and ethically to point out embarrassing but obligatory elements of our religious narratives? Bear in mind, the South Park episode about the Mormons would have of necessity been much different had our corporate telling of The Book of Mormon translation been more forthright.

jks:

You might recall that when Lucy Harris hid the original manuscript (116 pages of “Lehi”) in order to see if Joseph Smith could re-translate the same thing, they sang “smart, smart, smart”.

Regarding the tastelessness of many of South Parks jokes, I agree with you. A great deal of what they pass off as humor is absolutely disgusting. I think I would be a regular viewer if it wasn’t for the extremely crude and graphic instances frequently depicted on the show. That would include any attempt to make comedy of rape or child molestation.

By your standards, I guess God needs to lighten up and get a sense of humor…

2 Chr. 36: 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Gal. 6: 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked…

Alma 5
30 And again I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions?
31 Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!

Ether 12:26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn;

Hel 4
11 Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea, and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church of God.
12 And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred

In reply to each of your points:

1. So what if the song is ‘funny’. Just because the natural man finds something enjoyable doesn’t make it right or good.

2. If by ‘thoughful’ you mean they put a great deal of effort and creative talent into their efforts to mock Mormonism, yeah, but that hardly makes what they produce of any redeeming value. Also, I fail to see how portraying Mormons as a bunch of nice people who stick their head in the sand and ignore the ‘proof’ that their religions is childish fraud counts as a postive ending for the church or it’s members.

3. The church is not hear to gain worldly status, it is here to establish Zion in preparation for the second coming.

4. You find the prospect of anti-Mormon accusation made in the form of satire and ‘humor’ being validated and spread through the national media that way entertaining? That is what I would expect an anti-mormon to say.

5. I don’t accept that as accurate, but even if it was, it is irrelevent. You made covenants, if you put on a play like that I think it would be a violation of those covenants. How is applauding, encouraging, or funding (by ticket purchase) the same thing any different?

6. Treating the sacred with reverence and respect is not insecurity or devensiveness. Making a mock of the sacred is lightmindedness, or worse. I’ve already posted some of the scriptures where God expresses his disaproval of mocking the sacred.

7. You think Larry King Live, 60 minutes, and the Daily Show are feeding you an accurate view of LDS history? The topics you list, while they may be interesting to the natural man, are not that relevant to one’s salvation. If you really want to know about them, there are plenty of scholarly works look into those things and you might want to look to those sources. For example: Joseph Smith used a seer stone, not ‘peep stone’ and he only used it for part of the time in the translation. As he translated he came to know the language enough and develop his spiritual talents enough that it was not requried. You’ll find references to seer stones in BRM’s book Mormon Doctrine and other places. If you search lds.org, you’ll find mulitple refference to it. Also, they were not striving for historical accuracy on that South Park episode, they were only setting up an insulting joke.

8. After more than 100 years we still get polygamy jokes aimed at us, and you expect one Broadway play
(short lived I expcet) to put a bunch of smiliar things to rest forever? Dream on, it just pours gass on the fire.

9. Shenanegans? You think somehow that we deserve to treated like that for standing up at God’s command for what is true and right and good?

10. The ‘it could be worse’ argument is irrelevenat. It admits it is bad, and if it’s bad, why be glad about it?

“For example: Joseph Smith used a seer stone, not ‘peep stone’ and he only used it for part of the time in the translation. As he translated he came to know the language enough and develop his spiritual talents enough that it was not requried. You’ll find references to seer stones in BRM’s book Mormon Doctrine and other places. If you search lds.org, you’ll find mulitple refference to it.”

P.A. – a “peep” stone is a seer stone, in that it was an spiritual medium for divining the dead in order to search for treasures. Joseph Smith used his to hire out as a gold digger prior to using it for translating The Book of Mormon. Your story about Joseph Smith spiritually maturing to a point where he no longer required the use of an instrument for revelation did not occur while translating The Book of Mormon, but was an alleged experience while he was working on his translation of the Bible. As for Mormon Doctrine and LDS.org, find me an example from any of those sources where it is acknowledged that Joseph Smith found the Seer Stone while digging a well for his neighbor – which he then used to look for treasure while collecting a wage by running small groups around the woods conjuring spirits, and then which he used to locate and translate the Gold Plates.

I watched the “All about the Mormons” episode and thought it was funny. It is the first and only South Park episode I’ve watched. I thought the language was unnecessary but overall funny. But it is typical in its portrayal of truth and stereotype as parody and resembled the Godmakers in that department.

I suppose the dum, dum part was the writer’s editorial comment. And the facts were not 100% accurate. I can take that kind of stuff without a problem.

Others have gotten it much worse than that.

Bravo, John!

PA – As I understand it in Joseph Smith’s time in the New York region, the term “gold/money digger” specifically referred to a person who would employ divination/spirit conjuring to locate treasures. That requires some distinction from just a ‘miner’.

My point about how the stone was found is to point out that the instrument most closely associated with the Book of Mormon translation, per the witnesses, was a common scrying device used to carry out superstitious endeavors. In short, I don’t believe that Joseph Smith could actually summon dead spirits or in any way interact with the supernatural to locate treasure. I might have been able to stomach this past behavior by writing it off as one of his alleged “foibles”, except that same seer stone then managed to translate The Book of Mormon. That’s why I find the discovery of the seer stone in a well problematic – after all it’s not the same as God preparing the breast plate of the Urimm and Thummim which were supposedly deposited with the plates.

Don’t worry, I know getting upset with Parker and Stone for mocking the sacred is as pointless as getting upset at a bird for flying. My only beef is with Mormons who think it something to be happy or excited about. It’s like somebody seeing his wife get groped and going ‘See, that proves I have a very attractive wife!’

A guy checked out my wife when she walked by in a restaurant once. We still tease her about it – and I was more gratified than offended. Now if he’s groped her, that would be different. Which leads me to:

P.A. – I think you are missing John’s point in the post. He never said he is happy or excited about having sacred things mocked. Re-read the post: That simply isn’t in it anywhere – not once.

Cowboy, #59

“(New Testament | Revelation 2:17)
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

I say, leave no stone unturned….

“If God truly provided the seer stone as you say, why doesn’t the Church support that.”

Elder Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, 61

It’s in a Church magazine.

“Elder Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, 61″

I’ve read the talk before, and will concede that, yes, Elder Nelson does mention without subtlety the rock in the hat. Though I would still debate that this is a serious exception to the rule, particularly seeing as how this talk is nearly 17 years old (early 90′s too, the period academic criticism). I stand by the argument that the subject is currently, and historically been carefully avoided more consistently.

“Any objective measure of his whole life shows a man who was not obsessed with riches, not afraid of hard work, pain or suffering, and who was very willing to sacrifice for others and for his church, even to the ending of his life for it.”

I can accept that some will hold this view of Joseph Smith’s life, but let’s not get carried away by saying objective analysis behooves concensus on your opinion.

“I think there is a world of difference between seeking personal revelation to assist in providing for your needs and the needs of those who rely on you, and trying to make a lot of easy money so you can avoid work. Joseph did the former, not the latter.”

You misunderstand my objection. I couldn’t care less about whether Joseph Smith was digging for Gold for quick money, or just as a humble means of employment. The desire for riches isn’t the problem, it’s the employment of superstition and occultic devices. Let us be clear, we have no basis to assume that Joseph was seeking personal revelation, as you say, in a Christian context. He was scrying! Google it, this not debatable. He was employing a divination technique not far off from palm reading or astrology. I don’t believe in that garbage, so I can’t swallow this reinvention of seer stones into some quasi judeo-christian extrapolation about the Urimm and Thummim, particularly with the cross-culture overlapp, ie, scrying. You are taking unwarranted liberties in suggesting that he was seeking Christian ‘revelation’ in his treasure seeking. You should also note that one of the prevailing justifications as per pro-Mormon scholars such as Bushman is that scrying was just a common practice. So most apologists don’t even debate this point, they just play it down by saying it was no big deal.

“The ancient Joseph (coat of many colors Joseph) also had a tool of divination, his silver cup (see Gen 44:5) and he rose to be the virtual Pharaoh of all Egypt specifically because of his revelatory abilities. God didn’t seem to have a problem with that.”

Do you really believe this is how the world works – appealing to ancient cultures isn’t exactly a compelling case. I don’t think we have any unaminimity on what God thinks about any of this. Suffice it to say, I don’t it very seriously, and neither does the modern Church.

As for your cherry picking argument, you might explain where I have done this. I have referred to the first hand witnesses of those who are universally known to have participated in the translation process, a documented court case, and the alleged Prophets mother. What have I missed?

“By the time he got the golden plates, he had earned God’s trust that he would receive them with no other desire than to bring forth the Book of Mormon, and if he had to do some growing and repenting to reach that point, so what, and why any of that be your business?”

The answer should be self-evident, but the simple answer is because he founded the Church which makes exclusive claims to authority and the key’s of Salvation. So matters which challenge his credibility are paramount.

You may have the last word if you wish, we clearly have a difference of opinion. I would caution you to reconsider your historical liberties however – you are free to believe what you want, but much of what you state as matter of fact requires a leap of faith to break convention, ie, scrying = seeking revelation.

“it’s the employment of superstition and occultic devices … you are taking unwarranted liberties in suggesting that he was seeking Christian ‘revelation’ in his treasure seeking…Do you really believe this is how the world works – appealing to ancient cultures isn’t exactly a compelling case”

The point is that the Bible shows a handful of examples of physical objects (such as Joseph’s cup) being used as a means of divination for legitimate revelation, with no rebuke from God for doing so. And has been pointed out, the statements in Revelation about all the exalted ones getting a seer stone of their own. The fact that orthodox Christianity denounces all such things as all being occult only shows another effect of the apostacy. The use of seer stones is not contrary to God, and Joseph actions do not fall outside the boundaries of what Biblical prophets have done. Yes, Satan has his oculist counterfeits, and in fact the D&C records how Satan attempted to mislead members by such means, but that doesn’t remove the existence or legitimacy of there being physical objects capable of providing or assisting in revelation.

“As for your cherry picking argument, you might explain where I have done this.”

As I understand it, there are multiple conflicting accounts of what took place at the hearing (not trial) regarding Joseph’s employer. How can you tell what account(s) to put your trust in?

“The answer should be self-evident, but the simple answer is because he founded the Church which makes exclusive claims to authority and the key’s of Salvation. So matters which challenge his credibility are paramount. ”

And at long last we get to the real kernel of the matter; How do you know if Joseph Smith really was a prophet. You are choosing to rely on your own intelligence to make the call, but how do you know for sure what statements in the historical record are true and accurate, which ones are unintentionally misleading, said in sarcasm or in jest, half-truths, second hand information stated as if it was first hand, incorrectly recorded, resulting for a poor memory, half, true, deliberate lies etc. etc. How do you really know that your analysis is valid, that your assumptions about the heart and mind of God and who he would and would not call as a prophet is accurate? How do you know there isn’t addition information critical to making a correct evaluation, but unavailable to anybody at this time? You can try to navigate all those challenges and hope you get to the right answer, but I suggest you find out directly from God. God will tell you that you are making a mountain our of molehill, being distracted from the truths you need to embrace for the sake of your own exaltation, and that even though Joseph Smith was an imperfect mortal like the rest of us, that he was called of God to restore the fullness of the Gospel and God is well pleased with the work he has done.

When God tells you that, the only way you fall away from the church is to fall into sin to the extent that you lose the spirit of the Lord in your life, or choose to rebel against God.

It’s been fun, but I have many other things to attend to.

Bye, all.

Can we agree to just do what Jesus said and Love One Another, even those who attack, who thrust a spear into your side, who place a crown of thorns on your head, or throw you up on a cross? I do believe that was the example.

Too often, people get caught up in serving as the implement of God’s wrath. Not our job. Love your neighbor for their strengths, love them for their weaknesses, and if they are wayward remember that all children are wayward in some way or another.

For now, I am in agreement with the original post, for the most part. A lot of LDS members really…should…lighten up. The high presidency almost always deals gracefully with problems, but it’s the uproar of those following that makes their position harder to deal with in the first place.

I’m looking forward to the show! I heard, anecdotally, that wherever “The Godmakers” was shown baptisms went up.

However the show goes, positive or negative, it reminds me of a great saying of Brigham Young. He explained that when anyone tries to attack us, you can only kick Mormonism upstairs; you can never kick it downstairs.

“I remain baffled as to why using two stones to produce the Book of Mormon is the faith-promoting version of the story, but using just one stone is a horrible embarrassment that must be covered up.”

This comment perhaps illustrates why and how so many of us can approach the same issue so differently. I have little doubt that LeftField understands that the number of stones used for revelation/divining (to please both crowds) is not the issue, but rather what these various instruments represent. To those like LeftField or P.A. the seer stone is just another medium, used perhaps in the vein of Bushman, to acclimate Joseph Smith to the Urimm & Thummim. For those who find objection to the different terms used in reference to the stones, the overlap between Urimm & Thummim and Seer Stone is bit oversimplified. P.A. for example had the following to say:

” I seek divine help in providing for my family when I pray that my work will be noticed and valued by my employer, that I’ll get the promotion or raise I seek. I likewise seek divine help in performing my daily job activities.”

He used this comment to draw a parallel between his prayers that God will sustain him, and the treasure seeking enterprise of Stowell and company. In other words, in the case of the money digging venture, the use of the seer stone was on par with a family prayer or fast that Dad will get the promotion, etc. Because of some apologetics which challenge the consistency of some of the witnesses testimonies at the 1826 hearing, he is willing to dismiss arguments which throw a stick into the spokes of what I would call, for the sake of drawing a dichotomy, “Christian prayer”. The eyewitness accounts, along with a culture of scrying or “glass-looking” paint another picture, one steeped in the occult superstition and alchemy of John Dee and Edward Kelley. There is of course more to this argument on both sides, but the implications of these competing beliefs is what influences our choice of expression when we refer to either the “peep stone” or “seer stone”. On the one hand, it may seem disrespectful to the believers ears to hear others refer to the rocks (that is about is neutral as it can get) this way, but on the other hand this is a highly controversial subject with little defense outside of personal spiritual claims, as per P.A. Bushman, in his Mormon Stories interview with John Dehlin, was even inclined to say that in spite of all the area’s where history struggles to recreate Joseph Smith’s life, regarding his use of folk magic/peep stones, this is one area where “the facts are the facts”.

A second point which should be noted I think, is that most of the controversy of seer/peep stones is directly related to the treasure digging activities, and not the notion of spiritual mediums for revelation. For lifelong members such as myself, we all grew up hearing the story of how The Brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord touch the stones to generate light. We sat and stared at the primary art of Lehi and company arriving to find the Liahona mysteriously delivered to their door, and how it functioned based on their worthiness. We learned how God, mindful of his promises and aware of the forthcoming restoration, prepared Moroni by placing the Gold Plates in his charge along with the Urimm & Thummim, to be buried and consecrated for the restoration some 1400 years later. Finally, in the 1800′s Joseph Smith was given access to the Sacred instruments and record, where at candlelight and immense personal sacrifice he brings about God’s purposes through the translation and distribution of The Book of Mormon. The point is, most of us believed and accepted that premise just fine for a good part of our lives. Then of course, out of a desire to be committed to a cause as important as the Restored Church, we dedicated ourselves to the study of these circumstances in order to understand better and to teach, and serve. Of course, in this process we find out – “well, that super inspiring narrative isn’t exactly 100% correct. Oh and before the Urimm & Thummim there was this other stone…and before we were receiving revelation about Christianity, we were trying to find out where the Indian ghosts hid the loot before they spirit away with it.” Finally at this point, many of us end up with a satirical view not all that dissimilar from South Park. So was South Park more historical, vs. the Church? Again, we could argue for technicalities, but it probably has more to do with our perspectives in this light, than purely objective analysis. After all, we have make inferences about where God stands with all of this, so there will never be consensus. Even so the issue has more to do with the notion of folk magic and superstition, than it does with the notion of looking aids for revelation.

Does the musical contain the language and sexual content of South Park?