# The Book of Mormon in classical music



## Perotin

I'm just reading The book of Mormon and I was wondering whether it had served as a source of inspiration for classical musicians and composers. I found one such example:






Do you know of any other such work? (And, please, don't bring up that annoying musical!)


----------



## norman bates

I hope is some opera that talks about the angel MORONI


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> I hope is some opera that talks about the angel MORONI


Is that the one who manifested as a talking fish?


----------



## undergroundrailroad

Perotin said:


> I'm just reading The book of Mormon and I was wondering whether it had served as a source of inspiration for classical musicians and composers. I found one such example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know of any other such work? (And, please, don't bring up that annoying musical!)


A couple years before his passing, pianist Grant Johannesen (himself a Mormon) championed 18 Mormon composers on a cycle of piano pieces called Mormoniana -

http://www.mormonartistsgroup.com/mormon_artists_group/Mormoniana_prospectus.html

http://www.byumusicstore.com/mormoniana-cd/


----------



## BurningDesire

It inspired an opera by the guys who created South Park.


----------



## clavichorder

BurningDesire said:


> It inspired an opera by the guys who created South Park.


Well, a musical theater piece. I haven't seen it yet, but its supposed to be hilarious.


----------



## Guest

Perotin -
I am a Mormon myself, and have read the Book of Mormon many times. I am not aware, though, of any music that has been written about it, apart from some hymns that are particular to our church that draw as source material from the book. I will be curious about this as well.

As for The Book of Mormon, the Musical, well, it is what it is. I understand many find it hilarious. I haven't seen it - don't plan on it either. Not that I can't stand a work that parodies my belief - I just don't care for the South Park style humor, or the incessant vulgarity. An article in The Daily Beast described it as, "The Book of Mormon may be the most obscene show ever brought to a Broadway stage." And - while I wouldn't expect a parody of my religion to really be all that accurate - I understand that quite a bit of what is in it is based more on caricatures of Mormons by non-Mormons rather than actual Mormon doctrine.


----------



## drpraetorus

There is at least one opera that I know of. It is based on the Abinidi story. BYU produced it a couple years ago. Although there are song cycles and other works, they do not seem to have gone beyond the Mormon audience. I must say that they Leroy Anderson setting of "The Lords Prayer" from his oratorio "The Book of Mormon" is the one I lime the best of the many settings out there. It can be heard at 47:50 in this recording of the oratorio. Actually the name of the oratorio is "From the Book of Mormon"


----------



## Guest

I guess I'm going to have to look up that oratorio now. Can it be purchased commercially?


----------



## matsoljare

I'm really surprised that there isn't more Mormon music - classical, popular or folk - that deals specifically with the stories and beliefs unique to Mormons. Surely there must be more examples from other genres?


----------



## Guest

matsoljare said:


> I'm really surprised that there isn't more Mormon music - classical, popular or folk - that deals specifically with the stories and beliefs unique to Mormons. Surely there must be more examples from other genres?


There are - but more what you would probably call Mormon pop. More pop-influenced than classical influence. Retailers like Deseret Books probably offer them for sale. There are also several Mormon-specific hymns. Our hymnal contains many standard hymns known to most Christian groups, and then some that are unique to us. You can more than likely hear several of those on recordings by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

This website gives a pretty good selection:
http://deseretbook.com/LDS-Music/c/2#q=&page=1&sort=popularity&facets=category:2

As for popular, well, you have to understand that it would be a pretty niche market. The average non-Mormon is not really looking for such music. Other than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir - probably the most well-known Mormon musical group worldwide -, then you have the Osmonds, who didn't necessarily sing Mormon-themed stuff, or now Gladys Knight, who has done some recordings - I don't know exactly how specifically Mormon they are - since she became a Mormon.


----------



## Albert7

Ironically enough I live here in Utah and can only think of Saturday's Warrior which isn't classical. I can't think of a Mormon classical composer either .


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> An article in The Daily Beast described it as, "The Book of Mormon may be the most obscene show ever brought to a Broadway stage."


You did read the whole article from which you extract your quote?

How about this, mined from the same review...?



> But their musical also has an uplifting message: the Mormons save the African villagers and come to realize that the moral of the story is more important than whether it's true. "We may laugh at [Mormons'] silly beliefs," Stone says, "but at the end of the day, we really liked them. We wanted it to be a feel-good musical. And one that inspires people as well."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/06/south-park-musical-book-of-mormon-is-magical.html


----------



## KenOC

I don't live in Utah, am not a Mormon, and find the Mormon religion absurd. Well, other religions too! Still, when I saw the Book of Mormon at the Pantages Theater in LA, I came away feeling somewhat cheapened and unclean.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> You did read the whole article from which you extract your quote?
> 
> How about this, mined from the same review...?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/06/south-park-musical-book-of-mormon-is-magical.html


Yes, I did read the whole article. And I was commenting specifically on how I don't really enjoy the vulgar humor that they employ. I don't watch South Park, either.

And should I feel good about the fact that they depict Mormon missionaries as naive and ignorant of what they teach, but, hey, it's all good in the end, because they really do like us? Or that they mock the doctrine, so long as people come away feeling good about it all? Sorry, that's a bridge too far for me.

Don't get me wrong - I wasn't expecting any more from it. I'm familiar with their work - this isn't the first, nor likely the last, time that they will use Mormons as the butt of jokes. Nor the first time they used Mormon missionaries, in particular (e.g. "Orgazmo"). I don't look to them to provide people with an accurate depiction. They mock for profit. It is what they do. Yes, they are, generally, even-handed in mocking just about everybody, but they do seem to put an inordinate amount of effort into Mormons.

And again - it isn't that they mock Mormons that I would stay away from it. As I already said, first, I don't care for the vulgar humor, and the incessant profanity. I don't particularly find it funny. I haven't seen any of their movies, and haven't watched South Park since I was an undergraduate, over 14 years ago. And they generally mock by holding up inaccurate caricatures of actual Mormon doctrine.

Do you go watch a lot of movies/shows/plays that hold atheists up to incessant ridicule? Well-produced or not?


----------



## Guest

Personally, I'm waiting for their big broadway musical mocking Muslims. But, then, I guess this was easier - Mormons don't generally issue fatwas calling for the death of people who mock their religion. Mormons are safe for mocking. I don't think you would have people, either, praising to the heavens a musical mocking Muslims. You wouldn't get top-level politicians and potential presidential candidates (e.g. Hillary Clinton) going to see a musical mocking Muslims. But Mormons are okay - they are safe.


----------



## Guest

albertfallickwang said:


> Ironically enough I live here in Utah and can only think of Saturday's Warrior which isn't classical. I can't think of a Mormon classical composer either .


Ugh - I was hoping Saturday's Warrior wouldn't be brought up. I have never been a big fan of this Mormon "pop" stuff. I have seen it, and it didn't do anything for me. There are other Mormon pop groups as well. Not a big fan of Christian "pop" either.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Yes, I did read the whole article. And I was commenting specifically on how I don't really enjoy the vulgar humor that they employ. I don't watch South Park, either.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Do you go watch a lot of movies/shows/plays that hold atheists up to incessant ridicule? Well-produced or not?


That's fine. I just didn't want your quote to imply to other readers that the article by _The Daily Beast_ (?!) was wholly critical.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the last comment.


----------



## Guest

Well, you wanted to point out that the review in the Daily Beast goes on to praise The Book of Mormon, and how it really has an uplifting message, and Stone and Parker really do like Mormons. Okay. I think anybody who cares anything about the musical already knows enough about it - and, like I said, my original comment was simply about the vulgarity in it, so I didn't feel that the other comments were germane to my statement. 

The other comment goes to whether a similarly cleverly crafted musical that mocks atheists with incorrect caricatures of what they say would gain as much traction, or if this particular musical has gained as much traction primarily because it is fun and safe to mock Mormons - you are being edgy.

And along those lines, I loved the joke the other day on The Daily Show where one of the reporters was interviewing an atheist with a vendetta against a diner that gives a 15% discount for praying - "A rabbi, a priest, and an atheist go into a bar. The rabbi and the priest slam the door in the atheists face because he was being a d*ck and they didn't want to be around him."


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Well, you wanted to point out that the review in the Daily Beast goes on to praise The Book of Mormon, and how it really has an uplifting message, and Stone and Parker really do like Mormons. Okay. I think anybody who cares anything about the musical already knows enough about it - and, like I said, my original comment was simply about the vulgarity in it, so I didn't feel that the other comments were germane to my statement.
> 
> The other comment goes to whether a similarly cleverly crafted musical that mocks atheists with incorrect caricatures of what they say would gain as much traction, or if this particular musical has gained as much traction primarily because it is fun and safe to mock Mormons - you are being edgy.
> 
> And along those lines, I loved the joke the other day on The Daily Show where one of the reporters was interviewing an atheist with a vendetta against a diner that gives a 15% discount for praying - "A rabbi, a priest, and an atheist go into a bar. The rabbi and the priest slam the door in the atheists face because he was being a d*ck and they didn't want to be around him."


I don't care for the musical, I've not seen it, have no intention of seeing it, and am not a fan of South Park. I wasn't posting to counter your opinion with my own, nor to use someone else's opinion to counter yours either. I just didn't think it fair to leave other readers with the impression that some definitive adverse judgement had been passed on the musical by that article.

As for the references to atheism, they seem to be irrelevant to a discussion about The Book of Mormon.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

BurningDesire said:


> It inspired an opera by the guys who created South Park.


'I believe' you're referring to the musical _The Book of Mormon_:






"I Believe"

_Ever since I was a child
I tried to be the best
So what happened?

My family and friends
All said I was blessed
So what happened?

It was supposed to be all so exciting
To be teaching of Christ across the sea
But I allowed my faith to be shaken
Oh, what's the matter with me?

I've always longed to help the needy
To do the things I never dared
This was the time for me to step up
So then why was I so scared?

A warlord who shoots people in the face
What's so scary about that?

I must trust that my Lord is mightier
And always has my back
Now I must be completely devout
I can't have even one shred of doubt

I believe that the Lord God created the universe
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins
And* I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America*
I am a Mormon
And a Mormon just believes

You cannot just believe partway
You have to believe in it all
My problem was doubting the Lord's will
Instead of standing tall

I can't allow myself to have any doubt
It's time to set my worries free
Time to show the world what Elder Price is about
And share the power inside of me

I believe that God has a plan for all of us
*I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet
And I believe that the current President of the Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God*
I am a Mormon
And dangit, a Mormon just believes

I know that I must go and do
The things my God commands
I realize now why He sent me here

If you ask the Lord in faith
He will always answer you
Just believe in Him and have no fear

(General, we have an intruder. He just walked right into camp.)

I believe that Satan has ahold of you
I believe that the Lord God has sent me here
*And I believe that in 1978 God changed His mind about black people*
You can be a Mormon
A Mormon who just believes

(What the **** is this?)

And now I can feel the excitement
This is the moment I was born to do
And I feel so incredible
To be sharing my faith with you

The scriptures say that if you ask in faith
If you ask God Himself, you'll know
But you must ask Him without any doubt
And let your spirit grow

*I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob
I believe that Jesus has His own planet as well
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri*

If you believe, the Lord will reveal it
And you'll know it's all true, you'll just feel it

You'll be a Mormon
And, by gosh, a Mormon just believes_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Personally, I'm waiting for their big broadway musical mocking Muslims. But, then, I guess this was easier - Mormons don't generally issue fatwas calling for the death of people who mock their religion. Mormons are safe for mocking. I don't think you would have people, either, praising to the heavens a musical mocking Muslims. You wouldn't get top-level politicians and potential presidential candidates (e.g. Hillary Clinton) going to see a musical mocking Muslims. But Mormons are okay - they are safe.


How about a musical about turning the other cheek?


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> How about a musical about turning the other cheek?


There are inaccuracies in those lyrics.

And Mormons did turn the other cheek. Remember all those organized boycotts of the musical? Oh, wait, that's right. There weren't any. Nor did church leaders call for any. In fact, their message was, now that you've gone to be entertained by this musical, why don't you come and find out what the real Book of Mormon is actually all about.

But I do find it interesting that people are considered edgy for writing a hit musical that mocks, of all things, Mormons. Probably one of the safest groups out there to mock, maybe after Hare Krishnas. Tell me - do you imagine Hillary Clinton would have gone to see a Broadway musical that mocks Catholics? Or Jews? Or Muslims? Somehow I don't see that happening.

But it's cool. It's not the first time, nor the last.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> There are inaccuracies in those lyrics.
> 
> And Mormons did turn the other cheek. Remember all those organized boycotts of the musical? Oh, wait, that's right. There weren't any. Nor did church leaders call for any. In fact, their message was, now that you've gone to be entertained by this musical, why don't you come and find out what the real Book of Mormon is actually all about.
> 
> But I do find it interesting that people are considered edgy for writing a hit musical that mocks, of all things, Mormons. Probably one of the safest groups out there to mock, maybe after Hare Krishnas. Tell me - do you imagine Hillary Clinton would have gone to see a Broadway musical that mocks Catholics? Or Jews? Or Muslims? Somehow I don't see that happening.
> 
> But it's cool. It's not the first time, nor the last.


The lyrics in the song "I Believe" don't say anything about turning the other cheek, so why bring it up?


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I don't live in Utah, am not a Mormon, and find the Mormon religion absurd. Well, other religions too! Still, when I saw the Book of Mormon at the Pantages Theater in LA, I came away feeling somewhat cheapened and unclean.


Interesting Ken! You feel the same about religion as I do about atheism!


----------



## DavidA

DrMike said:


> Personally, I'm waiting for their big broadway musical mocking Muslims. But, then, I guess this was easier - Mormons don't generally issue fatwas calling for the death of people who mock their religion. Mormons are safe for mocking. I don't think you would have people, either, praising to the heavens a musical mocking Muslims. You wouldn't get top-level politicians and potential presidential candidates (e.g. Hillary Clinton) going to see a musical mocking Muslims. But Mormons are okay - they are safe.


Interesting when the BBC broadcast the disgusting Jerry Springer the opera there were 50,000 complaints about it. The BBC did nothing. They did admit that if it had been mocking the Prophet Mohammed, however, they would not have broadcast it for fear the studio would have been bombed! Search is the courage of the pseudo intellectual liberal left!


----------



## Guest

Why was it disgusting?

I recall the complaints were orchestrated.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Interesting when the BBC broadcast the disgusting Jerry Springer the opera there were 50,000 complaints about it. The BBC did nothing. They did admit that if it had been mocking the Prophet Mohammed, however, they would not have broadcast it for fear the studio would have been bombed! Search is the courage of the pseudo intellectual liberal left!


Separate state and economics (not unlike separating church and state)-- and these type of problems will evaporate into the thinnest of ether.

In a free society people will only pay for what they want to see, and others won't be forced to subsidize it.


----------



## Guest

gog said:


> Why was it disgusting?
> 
> I recall the complaints were orchestrated.


Mostly due to profanity, and a LOT of talk of raping virgins and babies, clitorectomies, and a song that repeatedly, and in graphic ways, says, "F*** you, God."


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> The lyrics in the song "I Believe" don't say anything about turning the other cheek, so why bring it up?


You brought up turning the other cheek in post #22. I don't get what you are asking here.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Mostly due to profanity, and a LOT of talk of raping virgins and babies, clitorectomies, and a song that repeatedly, and in graphic ways, says, "F*** you, God."


OK, you've got me at an advantage, as I've not seen it. I don't like opera, I don't like Springer but I do believe in freedom of speech and think that context is essential in the assessment of language used. Plus I'm opposed to fundies and supernatural beliefs.


----------



## Guest

Sorry, you were asking about Springer, I was talking about the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> You brought up turning the other cheek in post #22. I don't get what you are asking here.


Well, _I_ quoted the lyrics from the song "I Believe" (which was actually in post #21), which said nothing about "turning the other cheek."

You then mixed-up posts #'s 21 and 22 (whether deliberately or un-), when starting off by_ addressing _post #22, but then switching over to _talking about_ post #21.

I believe trial lawyers call it a 'bait and switch.'


----------



## Guest

Nope, I just like to respond to everything I have read in one post, where possible. At any rate, I interpreted your comment about turning the other cheek as a dig against me for not turning the other cheek regarding a musical that mocked my religion. If that was not the intent of post #22, then I apologize.


----------



## Guest

And regarding the lyrics to "I Believe," they refer more to joking caricatures that others make of Mormons. 

Thomas S. Monson, the current prophet and president of the church, doesn't so much talk directly to God, as he receives revelations from God for the world - essentially the same role of prophets referenced in the Bible.

The issue of blacks in 1978 is how others interpret it - we hold that it was not yet time for them to receive the priesthood, as determined by God.

We don't believe that we each receive our own planet. We don't believe God lives on Kolob. We don't believe that Christ resides on his own planet. Those are not Mormon doctrines - those are distortions that others use to mock us, straw men.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Nope, I just like to respond to everything I have read in one post, where possible. At any rate, I interpreted your comment about turning the other cheek as a dig against me for not turning the other cheek regarding a musical that mocked my religion. If that was not the intent of post #22, then I apologize.


Quoting one source while responding to another--- 'switching contexts'--- is sophistry. It'd never stand in a court of law. . . well, in a non-Orwellian one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> And regarding the lyrics to "I Believe," they refer more to joking caricatures that others make of Mormons.
> 
> Thomas S. Monson, the current prophet and president of the church, doesn't so much talk directly to God, as he receives revelations from God for the world - essentially the same role of prophets referenced in the Bible.
> 
> The issue of blacks in 1978 is how others interpret it - we hold that it was not yet time for them to receive the priesthood, as determined by God.
> 
> We don't believe that we each receive our own planet. We don't believe God lives on Kolob. We don't believe that Christ resides on his own planet. Those are not Mormon doctrines - those are distortions that others use to mock us, straw men.


You speak for all Mormons?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Interesting when the BBC broadcast the disgusting Jerry Springer the opera there were 50,000 complaints about it. The BBC did nothing. They did admit that if it had been mocking the Prophet Mohammed, however, they would not have broadcast it for fear the studio would have been bombed! Search is the courage of the pseudo intellectual liberal left!


Just because a programme attracts complaints, does not mean they are justified in their opposition.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jan/09/broadcasting.religion


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> Just because a programme attracts complaints, does not mean they are justified in their opposition.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jan/09/broadcasting.religion


I think anyone who is forced to pay for something against their will has a right to complain about what their money is financing.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> I think anyone who is forced to pay for something against their will has a right to complain about what their money is financing.


So? "Right to complain" does not equal "justified complaint."


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Quoting one source while responding to another--- 'switching contexts'--- is sophistry. It'd never stand in a court of law. . . well, in a non-Orwellian one.
> 
> View attachment 58453


Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't realize we are in a court of law . . . wait, I just checked. Turns out this is an internet forum. I think I'm good here.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> You speak for all Mormons?
> 
> View attachment 58455


Okay, let me specify. That is not Mormon doctrine. What individual Mormons believe, I can't say. But that is not official Mormon doctrine. Does that satisfy your court of law requirements?


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> So? "Right to complain" does not equal "justified complaint."


When it is financed by taxpayer dollars, then that is not the forum for controversial material. Especially if the people have no choice regarding withholding paying for it. Here, though, there is no opportunity to object by taking business elsewhere. So they are registering their disapproval in the only way available to them. Hence the problems inherent in anything that is nationalized and functions off of taxpayer dollars. There is no longer, theoretically, any recourse for disapproval - you are merely subject to the whims of whatever bureaucrat makes the decisions.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Okay, let me specify. That is not Mormon doctrine. What individual Mormons believe, I can't say. But that is not official Mormon doctrine. Does that satisfy your court of law requirements?


Fair enough. . . but of course other Mormons who disagree can very well say the same thing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't realize we are in a court of law . . . wait, I just checked. Turns out this is an internet forum. I think I'm good here.


We're not--- but if one wishes for one's argument to be taken seriously by rational adults, then I think propriety rules out logical fallacies and sophistical shortcuts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> So? "Right to complain" does not equal "justified complaint."


How would you justify spending what another has earned?

-- Unless you advocate slavery.

(And then it still wouldn't be justified.)


----------



## Albert7

Okay to get back onto point for this thread... I can name two prominent classical music celebrities who are Mormon related... The 5 Browns

and Lindsey Sterling who isn't really classical music:


----------



## KenOC

albertfallickwang said:


> Okay to get back onto point for this thread... I can name two prominent classical music celebrities who are Mormon related... The 5 Browns...


I don't think very many Mormons are pointing with pride to the 5 Browns these days, or at least to the father.



Marschallin Blair said:


> How would you justify spending what another has earned?
> 
> -- Unless you advocate slavery.


Or capitalism.


----------



## Woodduck

albertfallickwang said:


> Ironically enough I live here in Utah and can only think of Saturday's Warrior which isn't classical.* I can't think of a Mormon classical composer either *.


Here's Mack Wilberg:

http://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Choral-Music-Mack-Wilberg/dp/B0011ZROQQ

The _Requiem_ is a work of genuine loveliness - a bit over-long for its substance, I think, but if you like gentle, thoroughly tonal contemporary music with a sort of Vaughan Williamsy flavor, this is easy on ear and heart and nicely done by the MTC with Frederica von Stade and Bryn Terfel. The other short choral pieces, all to religious texts, vary in quality but won't offend anyone musically except some guy and his friends, who will tell you a contemporary composer shouldn't write stuff like this. But that bunch won't be listening anyway.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Fair enough. . . but of course other Mormons who disagree can very well say the same thing.
> 
> View attachment 58458


Except they would not be citing Mormon doctrine, but their own opinions. That is the nice thing about official doctrine - you can verify it. So it doesn't matter if someone disagrees. If a Catholic comes and tells you that Catholic doctrine is fine with abortion, then we can definitively say that person does not know the doctrine, because you can verify that that, most definitely, is not Catholic official doctrine. Same with Mormon doctrine.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I don't think very many Mormons are pointing with pride to the 5 Browns these days, or at least to the father.
> 
> Or capitalism.


I had to look up who the 5 Browns were.

Why would we not point with pride to the 5 Browns? They did nothing wrong - it was the father. While I don't know the specifics, I'm willing to bet the father has been excommunicated.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> I don't think very many Mormons are pointing with pride to the 5 Browns these days, or at least to the father.
> 
> Or capitalism.


My right to my property naturally infringes on your right to steal-- sure.


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> Here's Mack Wilberg:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Choral-Music-Mack-Wilberg/dp/B0011ZROQQ
> 
> The _Requiem_ is a work of genuine loveliness - a bit over-long for its substance, I think, but if you like gentle, thoroughly tonal contemporary music with a sort of Vaughan Williamsy flavor, this is easy on ear and heart and nicely done by the MTC with Frederica von Stade and Bryn Terfel. The other short choral pieces, all to religious texts, vary in quality but won't offend anyone musically except some guy and his friends, who will tell you a contemporary composer shouldn't write stuff like this. But that bunch won't be listening anyway.


Good find... you got me beat here  By the way, I really enjoy the recordings of The 5 Browns. They are very talented.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Except they would not be citing Mormon doctrine, but their own opinions. That is the nice thing about official doctrine - you can verify it. So it doesn't matter if someone disagrees. If a Catholic comes and tells you that Catholic doctrine is fine with abortion, then we can definitively say that person does not know the doctrine, because you can verify that that, most definitely, is not Catholic official doctrine. Same with Mormon doctrine.


. . . then of course there will always be people in any religious or political sect who say that they are are citing the same text that you are-- but that _you're_ 'misinterpreting' it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Here's Mack Wilberg:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Choral-Music-Mack-Wilberg/dp/B0011ZROQQ
> 
> The _Requiem_ is a work of genuine loveliness - a bit over-long for its substance, I think, but if you like gentle, thoroughly tonal contemporary music with a sort of Vaughan Williamsy flavor, this is easy on ear and heart and nicely done by the MTC with Frederica von Stade and Bryn Terfel. The other short choral pieces, all to religious texts, vary in quality but won't offend anyone musically except some guy and his friends, who will tell you a contemporary composer shouldn't write stuff like this. But that bunch won't be listening anyway.


Thanks for mentioning this. I like what little I've heard on You Tube. It definately has a Vaughan-Williams flavoring to it; and it also sounds like 'film score music' as well-- which is funny, because if the exact same music was composed for a film and didn't have a religious text to it, a large contingent of classical music listeners wouldn't give the music the attention it deserves.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> When it is financed by taxpayer dollars, then that is not the forum for controversial material. Especially if the people have no choice regarding withholding paying for it. Here, though, there is no opportunity to object by taking business elsewhere. So they are registering their disapproval in the only way available to them. Hence the problems inherent in anything that is nationalized and functions off of taxpayer dollars. There is no longer, theoretically, any recourse for disapproval - you are merely subject to the whims of whatever bureaucrat makes the decisions.


"Taxpayer dollars" is not some self-evident justification for censorship. If taxpayers wish to complain, that is their right (though they don't have to own a TV, so they don't have to have a licence, so they don't have to fund the BBC). But if every programme that was complained about was pulled, I'm not sure what would be left, and your right to object to 'controversial' material does not trump my right to object to American imported TV shows.


----------



## DavidA

gog said:


> Why was it disgusting?
> 
> I recall the complaints were orchestrated.


Well the liberal left said they were so they must have been! Don't believe everything you hear!


----------



## DavidA

DavidA said:


> Well the liberal left said they were so they must have been! Don't believe everything you hear!





MacLeod said:


> Just because a programme attracts complaints, does not mean they are justified in their opposition.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jan/09/broadcasting.religion


Quoting from the Guardian, the bastion of the pseudo-intellectual liberal left, rather proves my point!


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . then of course there will always be people in any religious or political sect who say that they are are citing the same text that you are-- but that _you're_ 'misinterpreting' it.


So? There are always going to be those on the fringe. They don't define the doctrine, which is written down. If I interpret Darwinism differently, does that mean that is a valid interpretation? If I interpret Newtonian physics differently, does that make it valid?

Who cares what non-sanctioned ways people interpret Mormon doctrine? That does not redefine it. Mormon doctrine is Mormon doctrine. Are you being obtuse on this point, or is it really that difficult a concept? There is no way of reinterpreting it and still be valid - Mormon doctrine does not state that God lives on Kolob. If someone says he does, that is not Mormon doctrine, that is their own belief - and cannot be applied to the official, established doctrine of the church. Come on now - you make every affectation at being an educated person here - this isn't a difficult concept.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> "Taxpayer dollars" is not some self-evident justification for censorship. If taxpayers wish to complain, that is their right (though they don't have to own a TV, so they don't have to have a licence, so they don't have to fund the BBC). But if every programme that was complained about was pulled, I'm not sure what would be left, and your right to object to 'controversial' material does not trump my right to object to American imported TV shows.


Oh, come off it. It isn't censorship. Because people don't want offensive things shown on taxpayer-funded state TV does not equal censorship. So because people want to have a TV - something that is almost universal in most industrialized nations - then they should have to pay the government a tax to watch it, and that money should be able to pay for whatever programming the mid-level unelected bureaucrats deem should be shown on state-funded TV, and who the hell cares what the people who pay for it think?

There are plenty of things out there that could be shown - and are - that don't draw the same kind of objections as Springer. And yes - you should be able to complain about imported American TV shows. It is YOUR MONEY that is paying for it. You should have a say.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Quoting from the Guardian, the bastion of the pseudo-intellectual liberal left, rather proves my point!


I don't believe you have a right at TC to scorn those whose political opinions you oppose. I object.

In the meantime, would the Daily Telegraph, that well-know bastion of the liberal left, be a better source of opinion?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/drama/3593690/Hooray-for-Springers-trail-of-trash.html


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> My right to my property naturally infringes on your right to steal-- sure.


Uh...no. As the good Mr. Marx pointed out, the capitalist waxes rich on the surplus value of his workers' labor. In other words, he sells the fruits of somebody else's labor for more than he pays. Thus he is spending what he has not earned (by your terms). In that sense, an analog of slavery. But Marx aside, the system seems preferable to some alternatives.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Oh, come off it. It isn't censorship. Because people don't want offensive things shown on taxpayer-funded state TV does not equal censorship. So because people want to have a TV - something that is almost universal in most industrialized nations - then they should have to pay the government a tax to watch it, and that money should be able to pay for whatever programming the mid-level unelected bureaucrats deem should be shown on state-funded TV, and who the hell cares what the people who pay for it think?
> 
> There are plenty of things out there that could be shown - and are - that don't draw the same kind of objections as Springer. And yes - you should be able to complain about imported American TV shows. It is YOUR MONEY that is paying for it. You should have a say.


It is censorship. I do have a say, but my right to a say is only the same as yours. Someone must decide what line they will tread in balancing opinions. As my business is not making TV programmes, I have to leave that to someone else, and I will complain if I don't like it. I can't expect that my demand for 'bland' to be taken off the air to be immediately complied with just because I have the right to make the demand, anymore than another has the right to expect that 'filth' will be removed.


----------



## Guest

albertfallickwang said:


> Good find... you got me beat here  By the way, I really enjoy the recordings of The 5 Browns. They are very talented.


Like I said, I had never heard of the 5 Browns. I'll have to sample some of their recordings.

While not a composer, if we are talking about musicians, like the 5 Browns, then there is also Michael Ballam. He is primarily a singer, but also plays piano and oboe. He directs the Utah Festival Opera.


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> ..So because people want to have a TV - something that is almost universal in most industrialized nations - then they should have to pay the government a tax to watch it...


Certainly not so in the US. TV channels are either totally funded by advertising or else (in the case of public channels) voluntary viewer donations. A very different system.

BTW the British shows are very popular on public channels, and I believe those channels pay a substantial price for them. I'd guess that a good amount of British TV, the series anyway, are produced with an eye to the American market.


----------



## DavidA

DavidA said:


> Well the liberal left said they were so they must have been! Don't believe everything you hear!





MacLeod said:


> I don't believe you have a right at TC to scorn those whose political opinions you oppose. I object.
> 
> In the meantime, would the Daily Telegraph, that well-know bastion of the liberal left, be a better source of opinion?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/drama/3593690/Hooray-for-Springers-trail-of-trash.html


The Telegraph is now a bastion of the liberal left? What a change of heart!


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Uh...no. As the good Mr. Marx pointed out, the capitalist waxes rich on the surplus value of his workers' labor. In other words, he sells the fruits of somebody else's labor for more than he pays. Thus he is spending what he has not earned (by your terms). In that sense, an analog of slavery. But Marx aside, the system seems preferable to some alternatives.


One should note that wherever the good Mr Marx's policies have been implemented, the workers always have the same - nothing.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I don't believe you have a right at TC to scorn those whose political opinions you oppose. I object.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> If that is so, why do people assume it's OK to scorn religious opinions they don't agree with?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> MacLeod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you have a right at TC to scorn those whose political opinions you oppose. I object.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is so, why do people assume it's OK to scorn religious opinions they don't agree with?
Click to expand...

Because you're not the only one who thinks it's OK to post against the spirit of the ToS.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The Telegraph is now a bastion of the liberal left? What a change of heart!


So, we both agree that the Telegraph is not the same as the Guardian. You might therefore acknowledge that your previous argument, that my post in defence of positive opinions on Springer was not supported because I relied on a reference to a 'liberal-left' paper, is now invalid.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> So, we both agree that the Telegraph is not the same as the Guardian. You might therefore acknowledge that your previous argument, that my post in defence of positive opinions on Springer was not supported because I relied on a reference to a 'liberal-left' paper, is now invalid.


The original point is not invalid. That the BBC ignored 50,000 objections to a show which Christians considered blasphemous while admitting that they would not dared to have put on a show which similarly mocked the Prophet Mohammed because they would have been afraid of possible reprisals.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The original point is not invalid. That the BBC ignored 50,000 objections to a show which Christians considered blasphemous while admitting that they would not dared to have put on a show which similarly mocked the Prophet Mohammed because they would have been afraid of possible reprisals.


Not the point I was referring to, of course, but let's not go round again, eh?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Well the liberal left said they were so they must have been! Don't believe everything you hear!


The Wiki entry seems to me to confirm my belief.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> So? There are always going to be those on the fringe. They don't define the doctrine, which is written down. If I interpret Darwinism differently, does that mean that is a valid interpretation? If I interpret Newtonian physics differently, does that make it valid?
> 
> Who cares what non-sanctioned ways people interpret Mormon doctrine? That does not redefine it. Mormon doctrine is Mormon doctrine. Are you being obtuse on this point, or is it really that difficult a concept? There is no way of reinterpreting it and still be valid - Mormon doctrine does not state that God lives on Kolob. If someone says he does, that is not Mormon doctrine, that is their own belief - and cannot be applied to the official, established doctrine of the church. Come on now - you make every affectation at being an educated person here - this isn't a difficult concept.


Of course any person can say that about _your point of view _as well-- and this type of finger-pointing is not restricted to religion.

In the field of U.S. Constitutional law for instance, you have lawyers who are original-intent theorists, Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, neoconservatives, socialists, libertarians, and critical-race theorists--- all of whom cite the same document for their completely different points of view.

Who sanctions the sanctioners?


----------



## DavidA

gog said:


> The Wiki entry seems to me to confirm my belief.


As I said, don't believe everything you read!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> As I said, don't believe everything you read!


I don't. I assess information. Various groups organised protests. I see it garnered a lot of awards too.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Uh...no. As the good Mr. Marx pointed out, the capitalist waxes rich on the surplus value of his workers' labor. In other words, he sells the fruits of somebody else's labor for more than he pays. Thus he is spending what he has not earned (by your terms). In that sense, an analog of slavery. But Marx aside, the system seems preferable to some alternatives.


Is Marx on perilously-thin ground?-- no, that's right: he _already fell through _the thin ice. . . all the way back in the 1880's-- when the Marginal Revolution in economics conclusively demonstrated that 'value' and 'price' don't come from labor but rather from the independent subjective evaluations of people acting in the marketplace.

A Swiss, Leon Walras; an Englishman, William Stanley Jevons; and (most importantly) an Austrian, Carl Menger--- all independently arrived at the subjective theory of value. These men gave economic science the modern theory of value where it is demonstrably shown that wages come out of the marginal product.

For example, if I spend two weeks of labor time painting a picture of mine, I can receive a modest fee. Picasso, in starkest of contrasts, can spend a mere couple of minutes of labor time on a sketch and command millions of dollars in so doing.

Is it 'labor' that determines 'value'?-- Or is it the marketplace?

The Theory of Surplus Value is antecedently derived from the Labor Theory of Value, so if the Labor Theory of Value folds, so goes the Theory of Surplus Value with it, along with its bogus theory of exploitation. 

. . . and bye-bye Dialectical Materialism.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Of course any person can say that about _your point of view _as well-- and this type of finger-pointing is not restricted to religion.
> 
> In the field of U.S. Constitutional law for instance, you have lawyers who are original-intent theorists, Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, neoconservatives, socialists, libertarians, and critical-race theorists--- all of whom cite the same document for their completely different points of view.
> 
> Who sanctions the sanctioners?
> 
> View attachment 58497


This isn't constitutional law. The leadership of an organized church stipulates the official doctrine. And that is what we are talking about here. The statements I called out are not accurate descriptions of official Mormon doctrine. And are you really arguing that the creators of South Park are more of authorities as to what is official Mormon doctrine? Has either of them ever been a Mormon? No. You know you don't have a leg to stand on . . . I realize you are just trolling on this issue, as you frequently do with anything regarding religion, which you enjoy frequently mocking.


----------



## Albert7

Any chance that we can bring this thread back to the OT? Like discussing the Mormon influence on classical music and not about religious specifics?  Thanks.


----------



## starthrower

albertfallickwang said:


> Any chance that we can bring this thread back to the OT? Like discussing the Mormon influence on classical music and not about religious specifics?  Thanks.


It's a non-starter, as Dr. Mike mentioned in his first post. This thread has more than run its course, which is going nowhere.


----------



## DavidA

gog said:


> I don't. I assess information. Various groups organised protests. I see it garnered a lot of awards too.


Assessing information perhaps includes a wider reading list than Wiki


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Assessing information perhaps includes a wider reading list than Wiki


It does indeed. Other sources consistently report the same information; that protests were orchestrated by groups such as Christian Voice and the Salvation Army. Are you denying this?


----------



## Guest

It brings to mind a lawsuit in Canada where a syndicated writer was sued for violating some speech law for saying something disparaging about Islam. I also hear about such similar laws over there in the UK - is that true? And does it only apply to Islam? Or do they only enforce them when the subject is Islam, for fear of the potential rioting that might ensue?


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> It brings to mind a lawsuit in Canada where a syndicated writer was sued for violating some speech law for saying something disparaging about Islam. I also hear about such similar laws over there in the UK - is that true? And does it only apply to Islam? Or do they only enforce them when the subject is Islam, for fear of the potential rioting that might ensue?


That would depend on whether the writer was attempting incitement. The law does not distinguish on any particular religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> This isn't constitutional law. The leadership of an organized church stipulates the official doctrine. And that is what we are talking about here. The statements I called out are not accurate descriptions of official Mormon doctrine. And are you really arguing that the creators of South Park are more of authorities as to what is official Mormon doctrine? Has either of them ever been a Mormon? No. You know you don't have a leg to stand on . . . I realize you are just trolling on this issue, as you frequently do with anything regarding religion, which you enjoy frequently mocking.


Nice pro-_ject_-ion there.

How is it the problem of _others_ that they won't genuflect to _your_ religious beliefs (in a classical music forum)?


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Nice pro-_ject_-ion there.
> 
> How is it the problem of _others_ that they won't genuflect to _your_ religious beliefs (in a classical music forum)?


You clearly have no clue what Mormon doctrine is, and the fact that you demur to the characterizations made by the satirists of South Park who are more in the market for laughs than accuracy tells me there is nothing further that the two of us need discuss on this matter. If you want a thoughtful debate on the issue, I welcome it, but not so long as you cite the musical as your source for Mormon doctrine.


----------



## Albert7

DrMike said:


> You clearly have no clue what Mormon doctrine is, and the fact that you demur to the characterizations made by the satirists of South Park who are more in the market for laughs than accuracy tells me there is nothing further that the two of us need discuss on this matter. If you want a thoughtful debate on the issue, I welcome it, but not so long as you cite the musical as your source for Mormon doctrine.


A good place to learn about Mormon doctrine is this book:









As much as South Park guys try to be entertaining, the musical does not indicate much about the religious beliefs but rather the cultural perspective.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> This isn't constitutional law. The leadership of an organized church stipulates the official doctrine. And that is what we are talking about here. The statements I called out are not accurate descriptions of official Mormon doctrine. And are you really arguing that the creators of South Park are more of authorities as to what is official Mormon doctrine? Has either of them ever been a Mormon? No. You know you don't have a leg to stand on . . . I realize you are just trolling on this issue, as you frequently do with anything regarding religion, which you enjoy frequently mocking.


That's not what Luther said.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's not what Luther said.


I'm not Lutheran.

My church believes in continuing revelation from God - we can all receive revelation from Him. But the only one who is allowed to receive revelation relating to the official doctrine of the church, or for the church in general, is the prophet who is at the head of the church. Thus it doesn't matter what individual members may interpret as doctrine. As far as official doctrine is concerned, it has to come from the top, and then it is made widely known and published, so that all can know what it is. So if someone is saying something that does not comport with that official doctrine, then it is ridiculous to apply it to the official doctrine. And what I cited earlier from that song is NOT official church doctrine. It isn't even trying to be. It is a caricature of doctrine, intended to mock and hold up to scorn - scoring the most possible laughs at those goofy Mormons, with accuracy not high on the requirements. And if you hold yourself to be conversing from a position of being informed, this doesn't speak well, in general. It is more intellectual laziness - mocking a religion based, not on actual doctrine, but rather on what comedians and entertainers are portraying as doctrine. A poor source, indeed, from which to gather information. Need I remind you that popular entertainment is rarely a reliable source for accurate information?

By the way, your posts are so much more enjoyable, and my pages load up so much quicker, now that I have turned off images.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> I'm not Lutheran.
> 
> My church believes in continuing revelation from God - we can all receive revelation from Him. But the only one who is allowed to receive revelation relating to the official doctrine of the church, or for the church in general, is the prophet who is at the head of the church. Thus it doesn't matter what individual members may interpret as doctrine. As far as official doctrine is concerned, it has to come from the top, and then it is made widely known and published, so that all can know what it is. So if someone is saying something that does not comport with that official doctrine, then it is ridiculous to apply it to the official doctrine. And what I cited earlier from that song is NOT official church doctrine. It isn't even trying to be. It is a caricature of doctrine, intended to mock and hold up to scorn - scoring the most possible laughs at those goofy Mormons, with accuracy not high on the requirements. And if you hold yourself to be conversing from a position of being informed, this doesn't speak well, in general. It is more intellectual laziness - mocking a religion based, not on actual doctrine, but rather on what comedians and entertainers are portraying as doctrine. A poor source, indeed, from which to gather information. Need I remind you that popular entertainment is rarely a reliable source for accurate information?
> 
> By the way, your posts are so much more enjoyable, and my pages load up so much quicker, now that I have turned off images.


. . . which was Luther's point-- and what I was trying to convey: to wit, he broke with the "authorities" of his time, and so did Jesus and Joe Smith for that matter.

-- Something I do everyday. It's no big deal._ ;D_


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . which was Luther's point-- and what I was trying to convey: to wit, he broke with the "authorities" of his time, and so did Jesus and Joe Smith for that matter.
> 
> -- Something I do everyday. It's no big deal._ ;D_


Fine - so if someone is out there claiming something different from official Mormon doctrine, then they can go start their own church. But if you want to call it official Mormon doctrine, then that is what it needs to be.

And let's not play cute here, you aren't trying to convey anything, because you aren't talking about someone seriously reinterpreting Mormon doctrine - you are holding up the vulgar songs of the writers of South Park somehow being an authoritative source of Mormon doctrine. I guess I can look to Moveon.org as a reliable source on what it is Ron Paul believes, and, by extension, what you believe? Or perhaps the unbiased pages of Salon.com? Or perhaps I should look to Paul Krugman for a fair assessment of the Austrian economics that you espouse?

I notice you also throw in the "Joe Smith," a typical tactic of those who like to demean him and the church he founded. How does it feel being one of those hopelessly dreaming that Ronny Paul might get to be president? See how it makes a person's views seem trite when you do that? Maybe we could talk about Pope Franky? Or old Marty Luther? How about Milty Friedman? Or Freddy Hayek?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Fine - so if someone is out there claiming something different from official Mormon doctrine, then they can go start their own church. But if you want to call it official Mormon doctrine, then that is what it needs to be.
> 
> And let's not play cute here, you aren't trying to convey anything, because you aren't talking about someone seriously reinterpreting Mormon doctrine - you are holding up the vulgar songs of the writers of South Park somehow being an authoritative source of Mormon doctrine. I guess I can look to Moveon.org as a reliable source on what it is Ron Paul believes, and, by extension, what you believe? Or perhaps the unbiased pages of Salon.com? Or perhaps I should look to Paul Krugman for a fair assessment of the Austrian economics that you espouse?


No, no, no, a thousand times no.

What I'm saying is that religion bifurcates, trifurcates, and grows and evolves in all sorts of schismatic directions-- and in the end, no one ends up being the final and unimpeachable authority on anything-- unless of course one's a member of a cult (which is just an unpopular religion).

Joe Smith broke with the prevailing religious sentiments of his day; and now we're seeing Mormons breaking with the orthodox Mormonism as well, and starting their own _Mormon_ churches:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, no, no, a thousand times no.
> 
> What I'm saying is that religion bifurcates, trifurcates, and grows and evolves in all sorts of schismatic directions-- and in the end, no one ends up being the final and unimpeachable authority on anything-- unless of course one's a member of a cult (which is just an unpopular religion).
> 
> Joe Smith broke with the prevailing religious sentiments of his day; and now we're seeing Mormons breaking with the orthodox Mormonism as well, and starting their own _Mormon_ churches:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement


So are you really trying to tell me that the Book of Mormon musical was actually mocking one of these splintered off groups, or, as is more likely, they meant to mock the main, dominant Mormon church, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Because if that is what they are doing, then it is only the official doctrine of that one, specific church, that we need concern ourselves with. Let's not pretend this is some great philosophical debate - they meant to mock the mainstream, dominant Mormon church. Who cares about mocking some splinter of a splinter, with membership frequently consisting of little more than a family that didn't like what someone said, so they went and started their own church.

When we are talking about the Roman Catholic church, most people (you may be the exception) assume you mean the primary Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome and headed by the Pope. The same goes with the Mormons. You know very well that the group they are mocking, and whose doctrine they are mocking, is the dominant Mormon church. You are playing coy with these ridiculous tangents, because you simply can't admit that they very likely are not that accurate in their lyrics with what that dominant Mormon church believes. Show me one of these splinter churches that believes those things and you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, it is quite obvious that this is simply more of your typical needling of those who profess a religious faith - which comes up pretty much any time anything remotely religious gets mentioned on here, and you try to affect a knowledge of religious matters that clearly you don't possess. The fact that you try to equate it with legal arguments clearly demonstrates that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> So are you really trying to tell me that the Book of Mormon musical was actually mocking one of these splintered off groups, or, as is more likely, they meant to mock the main, dominant Mormon church, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Because if that is what they are doing, then it is only the official doctrine of that one, specific church, that we need concern ourselves with. Let's not pretend this is some great philosophical debate - they meant to mock the mainstream, dominant Mormon church. Who cares about mocking some splinter of a splinter, with membership frequently consisting of little more than a family that didn't like what someone said, so they went and started their own church.
> 
> When we are talking about the Roman Catholic church, most people (you may be the exception) assume you mean the primary Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome and headed by the Pope. The same goes with the Mormons. You know very well that the group they are mocking, and whose doctrine they are mocking, is the dominant Mormon church. You are playing coy with these ridiculous tangents, because you simply can't admit that they very likely are not that accurate in their lyrics with what that dominant Mormon church believes. Show me one of these splinter churches that believes those things and you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, it is quite obvious that this is simply more of your typical needling of those who profess a religious faith - which comes up pretty much any time anything remotely religious gets mentioned on here, and you try to affect a knowledge of religious matters that clearly you don't possess. The fact that you try to equate it with legal arguments clearly demonstrates that.


No.

But you must be.

Because you constantly talk about how the musical isn't 'true Mormonism.'

But who cares?-- the Mormon musical is just for entertainment; and, not unlike DC or Marvel Comics, I could really care less if it were true. . . or make believe.


----------



## Ukko

I hope nobody is surprised where this thread has gone; where else _could_ it go?

Before it's closed, I 'll just offer the thought I had when I saw the thread title. The Book of Mormon is pretty much downer reading for me; too much killing going on, for reasons I don't get. I envision the appropriate music for the Book - not the church actually - as being a combination of Renaissance "Battaglia" and elements of Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony's finale


----------



## DavidA

gog said:


> It does indeed. Other sources consistently report the same information; that protests were orchestrated by groups such as Christian Voice and the Salvation Army. Are you denying this?


And other protests are not orchestrated? You must be very naive to think that. Politicians don't canvas for votes I suppose? Of course people were urged to protest. But they took the trouble to do so because they cared about the issue concerned! All 50,000 of them!


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> I agree. _;D_
> 
> Perhaps some zealots need to go back to their kennel.


Does that include zealous secularists too?


----------

