M orm ons, M usical Theater, and

the Publie Arena, o f D oubt

JakeJohnson

Hi, I ’m B ro th e rjak e“ ”.
‫اأآ(اﺛﻢ‬ 1 ‫ ا' ﺑﻤﺎ؛ آ‬of a sm ilingw hite ‫أآا‬: ‫ أآا؛‬١١ ‫ ־ا‬1‫اأآ‬ :
shirt and tie flashes across the screen as I watch yet another edi -
‫آار)أا‬ of the “B ro th e rjak e ”‫'ارآا‬ ’‫) را‬: ‫ م; الﺀأ׳ ا‬,channel. B ro th e rjak e
described by o n e ‫) را’ ا ' ارآا‬:):‫آار)׳‬ :‫ آا‬:‫ آ‬as “the Stc;phc;n)‫ ارارﻧ)ﺲ‬:‫ا־آ‬
of ٨١٠٢١٦٦٠١٦ satire,” carries a grow ing ‫ اأالال؛‬:‫) آا‬:‫ ا׳‬throughfallacious:
explanations of controversial ٠٢ historically ‫ رأرآﺗﺂ‬1‫ ا‬:‫ أا؛ آا‬aspects )‫׳‬
of M orm onism . These explanations are presented as “ Brother
Jake Explains”:‫ ر؛ا‬11)‫ ار‬:‫ ل‬by video titles covering a ‫اﺑﺄآا‬:‫آ‬ of
dicey issues including “polygamy,” “M orm onism is ١٦‫” ارﺀ‬,a cult
C hurch discipline,” “M orm ons are “ ٦٦٠^ racist,” and “Prophets
arc; awesome.” Siufllar to)‫ آار‬:‫ آ‬satirical explanations of cluu'ch
culture :‫آار)־آا‬ ‫ اأ־ا‬1‫اأآ‬ the ٨١٠٢١٦٦٠١٦ -ranks (such as the “ Diction
ary of florrelad o n ” by‫؛‬٦١٦‫ ا‬1‫د؛ دآرﺀ' آ‬1‫رﺀ‬,‫ ﺑﻤﺒﻢ؛‬t^‫آاؤا؛ﻟﻞ‬ )‫ ﻟﻠﺮ‬Smith), Brother
Jak e’s ١٦٦‫؛) ا؛‬١٩‫اد[؛ ا؛‬1 ·· L-١‫؛‬٦‫־ل‬1‫ ؤ‬occupies a1‫اآأ‬ ‫ ا؛‬space 1,‫ ﺀال'ﻟ؛ﺪآ‬:‫ﺀاا'ث‬:‫ آﺀث‬by
online anonyiTiity, where questitming, frustrated ,٠٢ transitional
M onnons dialogue with‫؛‬٦١٦)٦another ٦١٦‫ [؛‬true: believing ‫ آا‬:‫ اﺑﺄآا‬:‫إل־ آ‬
‫ 'ا]م‬:‫ أا‬labeled 'I'bM s lor short'
‫ آ‬1‫ اآ‬particular: ‫ اأ؛ أ׳ا‬:)‫ر‬1 ٦١٦٦ w atching this day mockingly refers
to that latter deiTiographic 1’‫آأاد‬. 1‫ آﺀﺛﺎ‬True Believing“ ‫ ح‬1‫أﻟﺮﺀآا ' آد؛‬
D ude,” t h i s vi،k:o is a departure: lor B ro th erjak e. R a t h e r ‫ ا‬1‫آا؛ آ‬
pi،:al fast-paced(‫׳‬
his t ‫؛أا‬:‫؛'ل' اأ‬:‫ أاد؛ آاأ‬and hokey collages, B ro th erjak e
sets this story to the tu of)n‫؛ا‬: ‫ أ‬1‫) رأ‬:‫ا־ آ‬ and Sullivan’s “1،٨١٦٦ the
Very M odel of a M odern M a j ^ G eneral ”١٦٦Pirates of Penzance
^٢٠
187)‫( و‬. ‫ ة‬:linages flash across the screen as B ro th erjak e patters
I feel weird when people talk about my Mormon underwear
.And when I go to ehureh I dress real niee and shave my faeial hair
”,And even though you might be thinking “this guy is a giant piude
It’s no big deal beeause I am a tme-believing Mormon dude.‫؛؛‬
90 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

Gilbert ‫ ا؛‬1‫ آل‬Sullivan’s “m odern ‫ آر )' أا؛آا‬ge:1re:ral” is a bum bling

and laughable buffoon whose naïve, self-deprecating words have
eharm cd audicnecs for generations. Brother Jak e’s earieaturc of
faithful M orm on m en exploits M orm ons’ special allmity ‫ آر؛ا‬musi-
cal dre:atc:r. In (‫آار‬:‫آ‬ words, if Brother Jak e’s video co>TTplicatc:s an
easy response, it’s because M orm on eultural offense is ‫ ا^أآا‬:‫آ[ اأ־ ال‬
a M orm on cultural virtue. M orm ons and musieal theater have
long m aintained an open eourtship. From loeal w ard roadshows
to the Bill C um orah l‫؛‬ag‫׳‬c:am and from the Polynesian Cultural
C enter to Saturday’s Warrior, M orm ons have found in musical
theater a rem arkable m eans of self-expression and identity that
is probably unique am ong .‫آا‬:‫آ‬ ‫؛׳) أ־‬١١٦ faith traditions.
W hy is this so? W hat is it about the musical stage that M or-
mons find so attraetivc, so natural a spaec ‫ ط‬whieh to explore
religious identity? A nd w hat does it then m ean w hen M orm ons
like Brother Jake begin using musical dre:atc:r to challenge that
identity? Moreover, w hat of the spcetaeular satire writ large on
the Broadway stage ‫ ط‬The Book of Mormon: The Musical (2011) ٠٢
‫ ط‬the online “viral picket sign” Prop ‫و‬.‫ ־‬The Musical (2008)?
The Book o f Mormon’s creators, M att Stone and Trey Parker,
(:‫׳‬k:‫؛‬n‫־‬ly voiced their reasons for portraying M orm ons on the musi-
cal theater stage:
To us ffere’s [‫ ]ﺀأئ‬so many things about Mormonism, even the
way they present themselves, when you go to Salt Lake City,
the temple, when you go to some of their things, they present
themselves in a vety kind of Disney kind of way.
And we would have this running theme. We would always say
when we’re working on either the sets or the costumes or what-
ever, we’d say: No, make it more Rodgers and H ^ m erstein . O r
make it more Disney. O r make it more Mormon. And they’re like:
Well, which one is it? And we’re like: No, it’s all the same word
for the same thing.4
These outsiders saw ‫ ط‬M orm onism an im m ediate ( 0 )UTC:('fi0 )T
with the ore:rstatc:cl optimism andw holesom e ‫ال‬:‫ ا‬1‫ اآ‬:‫ آر) آا؛‬of musical
theater.F rom G olden Age musicals to the late tw entieth-century
Johnson: Mormons and Musical Theater 9‫ו‬

launch of Disney into the Broadway industry, M orm onism , at least

according to Parker and btmte;, rem ains rem arkably associable
with the entire evolution of A m erican musical theater. Yet at first
consideration, a musical about M orm ons is an unseemly proposi-
tion. Indeed, displaying M orm onism (٠١٦the musical stage would
seem laughable (which the show definitely ‫)! ئ‬. For some reason,
though, itju st makes sense. M ore to the point, such a display has
been happening for a long time.
Nevertheless, the m ore recent satirical works have arisen in
this a r ti c u la r m om ent and through this particular m edium for a
reason. M y task here is to exam ine this phenom enon and explore
just w hat it is ‫ا؛‬1‫ ار)ر־‬musical theater and M orm onism that make
them such successful if unlikely, bedfellows, and w hat tiiese recent
satirical works m ay have to say about m odern M orm onism and
its association with musical theater. A complete accounting of
M orm ons and musical theater is beyond the scope of this essay,
but I w ould like to open up the possibility of using musical theater
as a lens through which to view M orm on culture and identity in
order to better understand through the musical stage the ‫ اآأل־‬:‫ آ‬-
ent theatúcalities of M orm onism and its com m unity of believers.

Theatricality ancl M ormon Beginnings

M orm ons have long been a theatrieal people. H arold H ansen has
w ritten that while the Saints were in Nauvoo,
plauued leisure beeame a part of the well-ordered Mormou
life. There was time to partieipate iu debating soeieties, adult
edueational programs, musie, and the theatre. . . . It was during
this period that the Prophet gave his permission and influenee
to the produetion of plays. The Mormons had for some time a
small hall that they referred to as the Fun House, where music,
reeitations and dances wem held.5
This em brace of the theater would im m ediately have set the
M orm ons apart from other nineteenth-century religious groups,
most of which dem arcated the th(:at(:r as a space of immorality.
K ennetii M acgowen similarly argues that “of all tht: churches
92 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

that have weleomed baek their prodigal‫ ؛‬٠٥ the dram a, none has ,
given him so royal a weleome as the Latter-D ay Saints of U ta h”.‫ﺀ‬
itted as fo?٩٦ -were against eontinual harassments, early M or
mons m ight bejustified in lacking a sense of h um or ٠٢ possessing
an aggrandized self-importanee. Yet ،:a٢١ (‫ ׳‬M orm ons seem to have
been willing to engage ‫ ط‬theatrics andvarious amusements in spite
of (orperhaps to spite) the m ounting challenges they faeed. Joseph
Sm ith’s re:portod lightheartedness smacked some as an attrilrt>to
unbefitting a self-pronounced proplrt:t. As Davis ‫اأﻧﺎ‬،‫آار‬ writes ‫ط‬
Wit & Whimsy in Mormon History, however, M orm ons “were ١٦‫ارﺀ‬
insufferable bores.” ffadrt:r, m om ents of theatrical cclcbrati(m
and other festivities dem onstrated ‫ال؛آا‬ like“‫آا‬:‫آأ‬, roplrt:t?,‫ اآ[ا‬:
M orm ons saw themselves on an ctcrnalj(m rncy but they did not
m ind envy in g some good times along the way 7”.
ly M ormIndeed,
ons took‫־‬u:‫؛‬
L ‫آا‬:‫آأ‬ recreation— particularly
their theatrical entertainm ent— seriously. ' ١١٦٠٦ dedication of ١١٦٠٦
Salt Lake T h eater ‫ ط‬em bodied the fervor and seriousness 1862
with which C hurch leaders em braced and u n d c r s to d the role
of ١١٦٠٦ ‫آال‬،‫ ا؛ ل‬،‫ أآا؛ آل‬،‫■ ﺑﻤﺎار‬١١٦٠٦ M orm ons . ‫آالاﺛﻢ‬،‫ﺑﻤﺎار‬ '‫ آا‬١١٦٠٦ ١٦٧١١٢١١١٦^■ was
not yet complete, in the dedicatory prayer, D aniel ١١. Wells of
the First ?residency petitioned that the theater “m ay be pure and
holy ١١١٦١٠( the1/ ‫ ل־آر‬our ) ١٧٠٢١ , ١٢٠١‫ ־‬a safe and righteous habitation
for the assemblages of T h y people, for pastime, am usem ent and
rccreatfon; for plays, theatrical performances, fo r ‫ا‬،‫ث‬،‫ ا׳ آام ) ﺑﻤﺎ־ آالاز‬:‫<ا‬
fions ,‫ آه‬celebrations ,‫ آه‬for whatever purpose it ١١١٥١٠be used for
the benefit of T hy Saints :Wells
‫”؛؛‬. continues
As the unstrung how longer retains its elastieity, strength and
,powers, so may Thy people who eongregate here for reereation
unbend for a while from foe sterner and more wearying duties
of life, reeeive that food whieh in our organization beeomes
,neeessaty to supply and invigorate our energies and vitality
,and stimulate to more enduring exertions in the drama of life
its various seenes and ehanges which still in Thy providenee still
await us9.
Wells’s ‫׳ زل؛آﺗﺂ‬،‫ آث‬alludes ١٢( both th e ‫أا‬،‫إلل؛ أآال؛آل ال؛ آث‬١٢( be perform ed
and enjoyed in the theater as well as the figurative association
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 93

between the theater and “the dram a of life.” It m ight seem, then,
th at M orm ons h ad already begun viewing their life ‫ ط‬theatrical
term s. T h e theater was to be a holy spaec of rcercation, invigora-
tion, and stimulation. “If I were plaecd on a eannibal island and
given the task of eivilizing its people, I should straightway build
a theater for the purpose,” Brigham Young onec proelaim cd.‫”؛‬
So it was not surprising that he foeuscd on building the Salt Lake
T h eater at the same time as he was building the Salt Lake Tab-
c rn a e lc -tw in spaecs for refining the Saints.
Brigham Young’s apparent interest in the theater dates baek at
least to M ay 1, 1844, when he played the role of the “H igh Priest”
in Thom as Lome’s play Pizarro. This role would prove prophctie.
O n ju n c 27, less ‫ آا؛ آ[ا‬two m onths after the perform ance of Pizarro,
Joseph Smith was m urdered and, following the ensuing sueecssion
e r is is w h ie h in eluded people elaiming to have envisioned Young
accuratelyportrayingjoseph Smith, as it w e re -Y o u n g ‫اب־ ا‬:):‫ ا؛׳‬1 ‫ اأ‬: the
second president of the C hureh. Perhaps Young understood the
providcnec of such casting the way others did. Aeeording to aetor
Joseph Lindsay, T hom as Lyne Immorously “regretted having cast
Brigham Young for that p art of the high priest” bceausc “h e’s been
playing the eharaetcr with great sueecss ever since.” 11Inasm ueh as
Jo h n Taylor, who was with Smith when he was m urdered, would
proelaim that “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Sccr of the Lord, has
done m ore, save Jesus only, ‫ آر؛ا‬the salvation of m en ‫ ط‬this world,
than any other m an that ever lived ‫ ط‬it,” Young’s prom incnec
took on a ‫) ل‬:‫ اأآل؛ ا‬: theatrical legaey, at least in the eyes of some.12
Perhaps cehoing Taylor’s remarks, Philip M argetts called Young a
“cham pion of the dram a and friend of the actor,” adding that the
M orm on prophet “did m ore to elevate the dram a and cneouragc
the histrionie art, in his day, than perhaps any m an ‫ ط‬A m erica.” 13
T hcatrieality lies at the heart of the M orm on cxpcricnec.
Joseph Sm ith’s various tellings of his storied first vision, ‫ ط‬the
latter versions o f ‫) أآا־ا‬:‫ آا׳‬G od and Jesus Christ appear before Smith
in a grove of trees near his hom e in Palmyra, N ew York, lend a
dceidcdly m elodram atic poalhy to the C hurch’s genesis story.
M egan Sanborn Jones has most persuasively argued for this very
in te r s e c tio n , elaiming tiiat “Smith’s entire life and eventual death
94 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

were m elodram atie rather than tragie if his ealling is read as a

m iraeulous ‫ا‬:‫ ا׳ ا‬:‫ أا‬that intervened ‫ ط‬hi s 1‫اأ‬ ‫”'' ־‬.
‫ ا־ آر)اخ‬:)‫ ا׳ ار‬:‫ آ‬, Sm ith’s
writing of received revelations, as (.da Lidia B ushm an and R ichard
Bushm an have w ritten, “rccnaetcd the writing of the Bible.”‫؟؛‬
T h e tem ple rite, em erging in prom inenee at the end of
Sm ith’s life, ean be viewed ‫ ط‬light of its <:h‫־‬a11TaLi(:‫ ׳‬qualities,
being described by one seholar as “a staged rc^ cscn tatio n of
the step-by-step aseent into the prcscnec of the E ternal.”‫ ؟؛؛‬T he
perform ative nature of the tem ple ecrcm ony bceomcs even m ore
apparent when studying it in its evolution to the version taught ‫ط‬
temples today. In earlier versions of the endow m ent ceremony,
the eharaetcr of a seetarian m inister funetioned as a theatrical
straw m an against whieh M orm on kihhlul could perform their
restored religion. This satirieal and laughably onc-dim cnsional
representation of religious thinkers ()‫ ا‬1‫ اﻟﻤﺤﺎ‬: of M orm onism curi-
ously creates an inverse secnario to the satirieal thcatrieal jokes
that M orm ons today find themselves the butt of (a topic to which
I ’ll return below). For now, ÍLis enough to point OLILthat satire, like
theatricality in general, has a long history within M orm onism .
Erom the livc-aetion (٠٢ prc-recm dcd) dram a of the M orm on
endow m ent ceremony, where selected m em bers of the audience
can even break through the ‫)؛؛‬LU'Lh wall to perform the lead roles
of A dam or Eve, to the concept of “perform ing” baptisms [٠٢ foc
dead— another opportunity [٠٢ M orm ons, like stage actors, to don
alternate identities ١٦‫ ارﺀ‬entirely ‫ آا‬:‫() آأ‬١١١٦ ‫ ا‬1‫ اآ‬: M orm on temple
is a space of the theatrical. It isn’t ‫ا‬:‫ ﻫﻪ‬m uch ‫ا‬:‫ ه‬say, then, that a
ffohfol M orm on is and has always been a perform ing M orm on.

M orm onism M eets M usical Theater

In ‫ ׳‬١١١^ways, A m erican musical theater and the M orm on ['ahh
seem cut from the same cfoth. Both the musical genre and the
C hurch emerge in New York State in the early decades of the
nineteenth century and, as uniquely Americanc:)Uitic:s, ‫ آا()ر־ا‬musi-
cal theater and M orm onism have served as useful lenses through
which ‫ ه;ا‬analyze cultural trends and dispositions in the country at
large. For this reason, it seems p ru d en t and potcafoall)‫ ׳‬fruitful to
Johnson: Mormons and Musical Theater 95

follow the histories of musieal theater and the M orm on C hurch

and note their m om ents of intertw ining as significant andproduc-
tivc m om ents of cultural analysis.
At least one M orm on-thcm cd musical, An Aztec Romance, had
h ad a fix-pcrform anec Broadway run as early as 1912. But it took
until ‫ ا ذا؟ ا‬, w hen A lan J. L erner and Frederick Bowc created a
Broadw ay musical with a M orm on character, ‫اب־ا‬:‫ ا־آر؛ا‬: M orm on-
ism was auspiciously introduced to 'I'he G reat W hite Way. $(:t
in 1853 ‫ ط‬the wilds of California, Paint Your Wagon follows the
ins and outs of a miner, his daughter, and their neighbors— all
m en— living ‫ ط‬a m ining camp. W hen a M orm on m an nam ed
Jaeob W oodling moves into file eamp, along with his two wives,
the rest of the m en dem and th at W oodling sell one of his wives,
whieh he does for $800. W oodling’s im portanec in the plot—
whieh was aneillary from the start, other than the story needing
another w om an to earry it through— ends there. T h e rclcvanec
of a polygamist M orm on 1051 ‫ ط‬was a eultural strcteh to begin
with. So tenuous was the polygamist eonncetion to M orm onism
‫ ط‬post-w ar A m criea that in m odern revisions of Paint Your Wagon,
the M orm on and his wives play a signifieantly dim inished role.17
If the transition from M orm on rc^ cscn tatio n s ‫ ط‬theater to
musical theater hinged (٠١١tired polygamist rhetoric, the C hurch
was already preparing a revision of a musical dram a with a dceid-
cdly different purpose. In 1053, H arold I. H ansen, who was the
artistie ‫ ا־آأل‬:):‫ آر) ا׳‬of the Hill (‫ اﻧﺲ‬1‫ آا؛־آر) أ‬1‫ ا' ﺑﻤﺎ؛م‬:‫ آا؛‬in Palmyra, New
York, visited a young ‫ ر)ل‬،‫ ا؛־آر) ا׳‬student nam ed Craw ford Gates at
the Eastm an Sehool of Musie. A eeording to Gates, H ansen “dis-
eloscd his own hopes and plans for the long-term development
of the pageant. Before I knew it, he h ad inform ally asked me to
eomposc the original musical seorc he h ad ‫ ط‬m ind.” 18 Although
the pageant h ad its first offieial pcrform anec in 137 ‫ و‬, offieials had
undcrgirdcd the work by using existing music, such as m aterial
taken from R iehard W agner’s operas Lohengrin and Die Walküre or
^ l^ ik o v s k y ’s Pathétique sym phony Gates would go on to ercatc
an original score used from 57‫ ول‬until 1 8 7 ‫ و‬, then revising a new
score 88 ‫ ط‬1‫ و‬that is still ‫ ط‬use today.
96 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

While the pag‫׳‬L:am tradidm i ‫آاإلأآار) آا־ آر)اخ ط‬ argualil) ‫ال׳‬:‫ ا׳ اأ־ آ‬:‫ل‬
from the children’s pageants of M orm on Sunday Schools in die
nineteendi ،v:)ULu‫־‬y and m odern M orm on ‫ داآاآث) ا‬1)‫ث‬ -‫ﺀ'ا‬:‫ث‬
1‫ ﺀا؛‬:‫أﺀث‬pageants
have cropped up at various site s-in e lu d in g the M esa, Arizona,
Easter Pageant; the -‫ر) ر'ا) ا؛ ا‬, Illinois, Pageant; the O akland “A n d It
Cam e to Pass” Pageant; aud tlie: h la m i,fh a h , “M orm on M iraelc
Pageant”— the 11111 (‫ ا؛־ آر)آاالﻧﺲ‬1‫ آ‬Pageant remains the flagship ‫ط‬
that genre. Even the H B O television series Big Love, which follows
a fietional family of polygamists living ‫ ط‬suburban Salt Lake
County, set an entire episode around the family’s earavan aeross
the eountry to visit the pageant. M eanwhile, when researching
m aterial ‫ آر؛ا‬The Book o f Mormon: The Musical, its crc:ath‫׳‬L: team
travelled to Palm yra to cxpcricnec the pageant. 'I'icy Parker
recalls that he, M att Stone, and eo-writcr R obert Lopez “went
to the pageant, and wc’rc like, wow, okay, wc gotta make our
musieal better than this one, and they’ve been working on that
one a long tim e.” 19T h e team found the story so eompclling that
they open both aets of flie show with the story of M orm on, the
golden plates, and Joseph Smith— “our own mhflaturc: version
of the 11111 (‫االﻧﺲ‬1‫ا؛־آر) آ‬1‫ آ‬Pageant,” Parker adds." And, as M iehacl
Hicks has pointed o u t,th e creators even borrow a musical ('a)i('arc:
from G ates’s seorc and insert it into die song “I Believe,” whieh
is the ‫ﺀ‬1‫ا؛ آا؛ آ‬،‫ آأا׳‬Elder Kevin Price’s witness-bearing m om ent of
complete M orm on conviction.21

M orm ons Make M usicals

T here was an explosion of religiously them ed musicals with a p o p /
roek seorc being producedb()Lh in .‫آا‬:‫آ‬ ‫) أ־‬:‫ ا؛׳‬and abroad during
the early 1970s, some with enorm ous sueecss. T h e im m ediate
trium ph of Jesus Christ Superstar, evolving from a 1970 eonecpt
album to a 1971 Broadway produetion, seems to have cneouragcd
the (:rc:adm1 of (‫ اآ[ار‬:‫ آ‬religiously-themed musicals (most u()Lably
Godspell in 1971), though it was not the first. It was m ore of the
cvangclieal, rather than the popular hum anist and quasi-satirieal
musieals, however, that mostly paved the road to M orm on success
and interest in musical ‫ ا‬1‫ اآ‬:‫ ا؛‬:‫'آ‬. E arry N o rm an , close ‫ اأ־ 'اآ‬:‫ آلا‬of Ted
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 97

Neeley— whose later appearance as Jesus in the 173‫ و‬film version

of Jesus Christ Superstar catapulted his earccr in thcatcr h ad been
writing musicals and rock operas with a dceidcdly evangelistic
bent since 1 6 8 ‫ و‬. Lex de Azevedo, com poser of the hit M orm on
musieal Saturday’s Warrior, has w ritten that attending a Los Angeles
perform ance of his ‫ اأ־ 'اآ‬:‫ آلا‬R alph Carm ichael’s early Christian rock
muûcdlANaturalHigh gave him file idea to write “a ‘eontem porary
m usical’ for [Latter-day Saints].”22
W ith these and other musical influences abounding, M orm ons
began ercating musieals 70 ‫ ط‬1‫ و‬, dozens of whieh survive today,
and most of which were w ritten with a M orm on audicnec in
mind. Zion Theatricals— a liecnsing eom pany for M orm on plays
and musicals— displays a lengthy, though not exhaustive, list of
musicals w ritten by and ‫ آر؛ا‬M orm ons. As of this writing, the:‫أا־آ‬
are thirty-seven musicals listed on the eom pany’s website.22 In his
short artielc “T h e T heatre as a Tem ple,” Zion Thcatrieals owner
and thcatrieal com poser c. M iehacl Perry argues ‫ آر؛ا‬tire: sanctity
of file theater, going so far as to elaim that “the theatre is the best
place for the exploration of belief ”2‫ م‬Even more, Perry writes of
the pow er of the theater and its particularly Spirit-filled place: in
building the K ingdom of God:
Theatre is one of the greatest missionary tools ever invented. Minds
are enriehed, hearts touehed and spirits enlivened through the
power of the spoken word on a stage. ^ i n ^ m e s s i n g‫ ־‬Te
e^erienees of others on stage brings us eloser to understanding,
empathy, and eompassion in a non-threatening atmosphere. It
is all a fietion. Nobody is in real peril. There is no real danger,
immediate or otherwise, of someone really losing their testimony,
or life, or prineiples. The stage is a supposition. The aetors are
players in a mateh of wits and wills. They are imitators of life, not
life itself. This is the loving atmosphere we ean ereate within the
walls of fire seeond type of Temple—a Theatre.22‫׳‬
After pointing baek to the temple ecrcm ony as a pcrform anec
in itself and overlaying the theatricality of the: Hill flemroralr Pag-
eant w ith ‫ آا؛ أا׳ز<)׳ أا־ا ا‬old-Jesus’ confounding of religious leaders
‫ ط‬the temple, Perry concludes by asking, “W hat m ore of a Temple
98 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

experience is there than an audience seeking enlightenm ent, even

if it is through the m eans of an entertainm ent?”^‫؛؛‬
?erry ’s high valuation of theater readily amplifies w hat has
already been noted about M orm on reliance and love for the
theater as a ‫أاﺀأآ(ا‬ space ‫ آر؛ا‬spiritual edification. H e even refers
to Brigham hi)LI١٦٢‫ ׳‬in the >11attL:r, ‫■ ﺑﻤﺂأا() اﺀ‬him as saying that
“file stage can be m ade to aid the pulpit ‫ ط‬impressing upon the
minds of a ('()iiuiiLufity an ()‫'آاﺑﻤﺄآا‬ :(‫ اآ‬:‫ ل‬sense of a virtuous life,
also a proper horror of the enorm ity of sin and a just dread of
its consequences. T h e p ath of sin with its throne and pitfalls, its
gins and snares can be revealed, and how to shun it.”27 As much
as the tem ple is a space (or‫ ־‬instruction ‫ ط‬m atters timeless, the
theater likewise com plements the temple in that it creates a space
where that instruction and the challenges of m odern life can be
easily negotiated.
Zion Theatricals, whose stated purpose is “e fig h te n m e n t
through C e rta in m e n t,” thus offers M orm ons a one-stop shop
for wholesome musical theater. 1١٦ addition to licensing various
musicals and plays, the com pany also takes submissions for new
works th at are “Family Friendly, yet challenging,” further adding
to the understanding of M orm ons as both consumers and pro-
ducers of musical theater.2‫ ؛؛‬W ith these rather loose param eters,
file plots for such mmicals have an understandably broad range.
Some dramatize biblical ٠٢scriptural stories or ‫ا؛־آ־ل‬ upon patriotic
themes as )!localizing- opportunities, while others focus on issues
surrdunding contem porary ‫؛؛‬٧٦٦١١١ life.
ft is within this latter group that the M orm on sensation Sat-
urday’s Warrior was born. W ritten in 1973 and filen ‫) ا؛ا‬:‫ آ‬released
on 1989 ١١١٦٦٦ ‫ ط‬, Saturday’s Warrior follows the stdry of a group of
children ‫ آا־آ()ز־ا‬١١٦٦() a M orm on ‫؛؛‬١١٦٦١١١. Based (٠١٦N ephi A nderson’s
1898 ‫ ا()آل‬-):‫ ا‬Added upon, Saturday’s Warrior depicts a pre-m ortal
existence ‫ ط‬which Sdcial relationships are form ed, and where that
same Sdciality then carries ()‫׳‬١٦٦٦ ‫ا(اأ־‬ )(‫ زأا؛ ا־ آ()أآا‬. As the children
prepare to be b orn on Earth, they make promises to keep true
to the com m andm ents and their convictions of the true Gdspel
so that, after death, they ١١١^be reunited in heaven. T h e dldest
sibling,Jimmy, encounters tem ptation (٠١٦ Farth, however,a!fo h h
Johnson: Mormons and Musical Theater 99

actions threaten to compromise his eternal place am ong the rest

of his family. While m uch m ore could be stated about Saturday’s
Warrior, suffice it to say for now that its effects on M orm on cul-
ture have been substantial. M atthew Bowman attends to this best
when he writes that Saturday’s Warrior introduced “ ‫ ظ‬1‫) ر)ل ﺋﻞ‬:‫ آاأ־ آا׳‬:
appealing to M orm ons seeking assurance that divine intentions
were deeply woven into their lives and that though these beliefs
set them apart from the world they were indeed ‫ﺑﻤﺂأا؛االا‬ G od’s
plan.”29 A lthough the musical suggests a vision of pre-m ortal life
that was theologically unsubstantiated, its grip (٠١١ M orm onism
remains tight still today, with m any m em bers (mnceptualizing
their familial and rom antic relationships in term s introduced by
Saturday’s Warrior. And, with a new lilm adaptation scheduled for
release in 2016, the musical seems positioned to gain traction for
a new generation of M orm ons.

M orm onism Enacted through M usicals

W hile Saturday’s Warrior remains p art of a long-standing cultural
craze in M orm onism , it is, of course, only one of m any M orm on
musicals (e.g., open Any Door [ 1 7 2 ‫ ] و‬and M y Turn on Earth [ 7 7 ‫)] ول‬.
But musical theater has taken root in M orm on culture in (‫ آار־‬:‫ آ‬,
more localized ways. T he w ard roadshow, which has been described
as “a ]ffini-musical, a song-and-dance production,” is a feature of
local wards, often produced in contest with other wards in stake
or multi-stake com petition.30 Evolving from im prom ptu musical
perform ances that often cropped up along the westward trek across
the Rocky M ountains, the roadshow has long been considered a
m eans of u n i t i n ^ m‫־‬d m em bers in “an activity of unity, love, and
cooperation.”‫ ؛'؟‬In h er 1 8 4 ‫ و‬Ensign article “G et that Show on the
Road: 11(‫ ار‬to Stage a Roadshow,” K athleen Lübeck plays up
the im portance of the roadshow, offering the following advice to
local roadshow organizers:
It’s also importaut to base roadshows ou wholesome values, and
not to mimie the immoral o:de^than-uplifting attitudes and styles
often portrayed on television or in the movies. At the same time,
 00 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

sacred topics should he avoided, so as not to trivialize the sacred

aspects of the gospel. Roadshows should generate the positive
value system that we as church members espouse, while at the
same time not becoming didactic or preachy.‫؛؛؛‬
Anxiety about secular en tertainm ent likely bolstered the
im portance of roadshows in M orm on life. Indeed,
as m uch as Brigham Young encouraged song and dance while the
M orm ons trekked across the country often under harsh condi-
tions, roadshows and other C hureh-sponsored cultural activities
were designed to help keep the m odern M orm on m ind 0(1 tlrc:
troubles of the world and focused on issues of greater worth, such
as solidarity, cooperation, and wholesome entertainm ent. These
activities also fostered prosel}rtizing, as Pat 1‫ ا؛ل‬-‫ أل‬of the G eneral
C hurch Activities Com m ittee said 1983 ‫ ط‬:
Much in the emertainment world is trying to pull people away
from the gospel in subtle ways. Television, movies, music, rock
concerts—all are being used as tools for the adversaty, to some
degree. The freshest faces tell us to be immoral; beautiful people
tell us it’s okay to do things we’ve been told all our lives we
shouldn’t do. Too often we’ve been so bu^w ^chin^elevision in
the front room that we haven’t noticed Satan slipping in ^‫־‬ough
the back door. This is one major reason that Church activities are
so important. We can offer an alternative entertainment to our
people. And vety often, through the informal door of activities,
we bring many people into the front door of the Church and
to a testimony of the gospel.
N ot only did roadshows bring people into contact with the
Chur c h, but ‫آا‬:‫آأ־‬ ultipuhy(‫ ا' ا)ر‬:‫ ا־ آ‬:‫ ل‬members ‫ ا־آا‬:‫ االاﺀ‬:‫ اآل‬opportunities
to gather and enact a CLihural perform ance of faith prom otion.
To this end, roadshows are perhaps the m ore pronounced experi-
enees m em bers have with M orm on ‫ا‬1‫) ﻣﺤﺎاآ‬:'‫ا؛‬1‫آا‬:‫ا؛‬ :‫־آ‬,١٦٦‫ ا؛‬١٦١‫ ׳‬Church
m em bers having been ‫اﻟﺮ)־آاأ‬ ‫)ا‬:‫ ا׳‬:‫ ل‬to, and regularly involved with,
the roadshows at a young age— and some under cxtraordinaty con-
dirions. 1١٦ 19?8, for example, the Los Angeles W ard for the D eaf
plaeed first ‫ ط‬their stake roadshow eom petition, despite having a
Johnson: Mormons and Musical Theater 01

cast almost entirely com posed of hearing im paired persons. T he

on-stage actors signed their lines, while offstage actors read those
lines into a m icrophone. W hen the problem s of bringing music
and dance into the show becam e apparent, the solution was to
place a hearing norm ative perform er on stage to dance and thus
visually align the music with the clm reography for the rest of
the cast. Although the Los Angeles W ard for the D eaf m ay have
succeeded ‫ ط‬their roadshow un d er unusual circumstances, one
w ard leader’s reaction likely echoes w hat m any M orm ons m ight
say about the lessons learned putting on their own roadshow:
“W hen I saw the roadshow ‫ ط‬perform ance, I said, ‘Hey, th a t’s
no roadshow; tb a t’s a miracle!’”^
Roadshows, like m any children’s pageants and, ^ rtic u la rly
in U tah, Pioneer D ay pageants, help M orm ons celebrate their
heritage while also deepening their roots within their faith com-
munity. M orm ons continue to m aintain a rich legacy of musical
dram as, only a few of which are m entioned here. A lthough early
depictions of M orm onism occurred ‫ ط‬the secularized space of
the musical stage, M orm ons have constructed an impressively
rich and varied musical theater culture within their own cultural
traditions, thus producing a relationship between faith and perfor-
m anee that is unique am ong A m eriean Christian faith traditions.
From D onny O sm ond’s portrayal of Joseph in A ndrew kloyd
W ebber and T im R iee’s Joseph and theAmazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
to the reeent and offieial C hureh produetions Faith— The Musical
and Savior of the World, M orm on resonanees with musieal theater
rem ain strong. Yet this legacy of m usical ‫ اآ[ا‬:‫ ا؛‬:‫ آ‬within the Church
has, ‫ ط‬recent years, provided fertile ground for various works of
satire to emerge, elothed in the familiar garb of musical theater.
As m uch as M orm ons identify with the theatrical, and even filter
their faith through dram a itself, the theatrical is a serious means
of dissent both within and w ithout the M orm on ranks.

Taking M orm onism to the Stage

T he 2008 debacle surrounding California’s Proposition 8 w h i c h
defined m arriage as a union betw een a m an an d a w om an—
 02 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

prodded the M o rm o n C hureh into the national spotlight when

C hureh leaders encouraged its m em bers to contribute time and
resources to the cam paign for the proposition’s passage. T he
C hureh reeled ]١٢٠١٦٦ the public outcry against its role ‫ أ‬١٦the cam-
paign, and its m em bers suddenly becam e contestants ‫ ط‬a fierce
debate over the consequences of unpopular political ‫ ار) آاأ‬:‫ آا‬:‫ آا‬.
W hen com poser M arc fihafinau heard ‫ اﺧﺂ[ا‬Scott Eckern, the
M orm on artistic director of the ‫ آار)آا‬-‫ ا؛ ار)־ آﺗﺂ‬California M usical
Theater, h ad contributed $ 1,000 to support the c.ampaign against
gay m arriage, he immediately set to work OIT Prop 8: The Musical.
T h e musical ‫ اآ[ا־‬:‫ اﻟﺦ‬:‫ آ‬com m unity— heavily rc:lia>u on gay creators
‫؛‬١١٦٢.] perform ers— was outraged at Ec.kern’s (:'(‫ أار )[ ار־[ أ־ آأار‬, seeing
]‫ ا‬as ‫؛‬٦١١ act of betrayal. Jeffrey Seller, a ‫ زا؛־ اال؛ ر)־آﺛﺎ׳‬producer, was
am ong those angered by Eckern: “T h a t a m an who makes his
living exclusively dm!L>gh the musical ‫ اآ[ا־‬:‫ اﻟﺦ‬:‫ آ‬could do something
so hurtful to the ٢ ١٦١■ ٦١
‫ﺀ‬١
‫ر‬٦٦ ‫اﻟﺨﺂ[ا ؤاآ‬ forms his ‫ س)׳أا‬:‫ ﻟﺮ)ر) آ[ أا‬is a ‫آ'[ﺀاﺗﺂ‬
١١[ the stom ach.”35For his p art, l']،k(.au eventually resigned ]‫()־؛‬١٦٦
his position at California Musical T h eater and, as a gesture of
good faith tow ard the gay community, contributed $ 1,000 to a gay
rights group. Still, ties between M orm ons 8 ‫؛‬٦١١٢ [‫ آار) اأإلر) ﺗﺂر)־آﻣﺎ‬were
strong, ‫؛‬٦١١٢] Ec.kern’s position thrust m usical ‫ اآ[ا‬:‫ اﻟﺦ‬:‫ ر־)آاأ آ‬the mix ]١١
a satirical representation of religious ‫س) ﺑﻤﺂاأ־ 'آاأ‬ :‫س) آا‬
:‫ آا‬on civil rights.
Shaim an wrote Prop 8: The Musical in one day, filmed it whir
a cast o f Hollywood regulars like Jack Blac.k, Neil Patrick H arris,
and Jo h n ( ]. Reilly, ‫؛‬٦١٦٢], through the site www.funnyordie.com.
the video becam e an instant h i t - w h a t Shaim an later called a
“ ‫ ]اخ־ آأ׳ ا‬picket sign.” A lthough the musical is ju st o v e r ‫ ا־ آ[ ا‬:‫ ا‬: mill-
Utes long, it characterizes the gay com m unity as com placent
and naively ‫؛‬ipLfofisfic in the wake of B arrack (!)Iranra’s 2008
presidential ;‫ ا؛‬:[)‫س‬ :،‫ '' آار )[ا׳‬it also colors religious figures (who are
dressed in various forms o f religious c'foLlfing■ !١٦٢: prom inent
dark suit, white shirt, an d tie of M orm on m en chief am ong them)
as ]‫ اﻟﺨﺂ‬:‫ ] الا‬and scripturally selective in their condem nation of
homosexuality. W hen Jesus appears to the ‫ اآ[ اﻟﺦ' ﺑﻢ‬:‫ ا־آ‬:‫ا[آا ل‬ [ ‫ اأﺳﺂا‬:,
he condem ns the religious zealot’s selectivity, telling them that
if they are going to pick an d choose, they should choose love
instead o f hate. Finally, Neil Patrick H arris enters the stage and
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 03

suggests to those gathered th at there is m oney to be m ade in

gay m arriages, whieh finally unites the two divided groups in a
eom m on goal of using the surplus m oney from gay m arriages to
save the faltering ،‫ ا‬1‫ اآ‬:‫^ آ‬:‫ آا؛׳‬econom y
T h e dram a surrounding Proposition 8 and the M orm on
C hureh did not w ane easily After the (‫) ار‬:‫ار)׳‬1‫ اأ‬: of ‫آار) اأإلر) ﺗﺂر)־آﻣﺎ‬
8 was overturned ‫ ط‬the N inth C ourt of Appeals, a new dram a
unfurled, though this time a staged one. Entitled 8, the play was
a dircet recnaetm cnt of the court proeccdings in the case Perry V.
Schwarzenegger.37A Los Angeles perform anec of the play took plaec
on M arch 3, 2012, and, as with Prop 8: The Musical, it featured a
lineup of some of the most prom inent stars in Hollywood, includ-
ing George Clooney, Kevin Bacon, B rad 1‫ ا؛ راأم‬1‫( آأ‬: Lee Curtis,
and, again, Jo h n c. Reilly A lesser known aetor also took the
stage that night, but one already assoeiatcd with playing out the
diffieultics of identifying as a gay m an ‫ ط‬a culture unready ‫آر؛ا‬
change. R ory O ’Malley, a Tony-nom inated actor from the original
Broadw ay cast of The Book of Mormon: The Musical, was prim arily
known for his role as Elder MeKinley, the elosctcd missionary
who sings of suppressing “gay thoughts” ‫ ط‬order to avoid feeling
sad. O ’Malley providcsjust one possible hinge between the vitriol
surrounding Proposition 8 and the erass joeularity of The Book
of Mormon: The Musical. Indeed, given that The Book of Mormon
opened on Broadway prceiscly force years afic;r 18 ‫آار) اأإلر) ﺗﺂر)־آم‬
was up for vote, one eould eonsidcr the parodying of M orm ons
on stage by a host of gay or gay-advoeatc perform ers a form of
eultural rc;trfoatfon. If the M orm on C hurch h ad enough pow er
to sway legislation against the gay community, then the musieal
theater com m unity could do one ‫اب־ا‬:‫ ا‬:‫ آ‬by im agining (٠١١ stage
a version of M orm onism w here openly gay m en could don the
label of M orm on missionary, preaeh a particularly ‫ أ; ا;اﺀ‬gospel
of inclusion, and through the magic of musical theater challenge
the pow er of one of the fostcst-growing religions in the eountry/‫؛؛׳‬
H ow did The Book of Mormon ‫آاإلأاﺗﺂأآار)')')ا؛‬ that? 1١٦ the ،'(‫>( أآار‬
die song “I Believe,” ‫ آر؛ا‬example, Trey Parker explains that the
hum or was not fabrieatcd b u t ‫ اآ[ ا؛־آ‬:‫ آ‬comes from existing M orm on
doetrinc so unfam iliar as to seem outrageous. (،‫׳‬ ‫ار)ﻧﺲ‬1 ‫ اأ‬:‫آل‬ routines
 04 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

are frequently done “on a rhythm of one, two, three, and three is
always friejoke,” and so with “1 Believe,” “w ejust p u t the weirdest
M orm on ‫ ار־ ا‬:‫ أا‬:‫ اآ[ا ط إا‬: third slot and they ‫ ار־ا‬:)')‫ آار‬: ‫ا ع) ار)'أ‬:‫ ا׳ ا‬:‫ آا‬Lh()ugh
they’re just facts.”39 T hus ‫ ط‬The Book of Mormon, the cosmology
of the planet Kolob, the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1 7 8 ‫ و‬,
and the im probability of aneicnt Jews sailing aeross the oecan to
A m criea bceom c puneh lines. As M att Stone relates, The Book of
Mormon prods the ncecssarily ridiculous quality of faith whieh,
by definition, does not assume plausibility. “T h ere’s a eafiiarsis ‫ط‬
being able to really laugh at some of the goofier ideas of religion,
w ithout ncecssarily laughing at the people praetieing them ,” says
Stone. “1 filink it feels good to ‫ ط‬some ways aeknowlcdgc that
ecrtain aspcets of religion are just silly But w hatever anybody’s
religion is, wc should be able to laugh at it and at the same time
understand that wc should aeecpt people who believe and have
faith, w ithout dismissing their lives as unscrious.” Stone later adds
that he and Barker “never w anted the musieal to pretend it had
any answers. We w anted to be funny and p u t on great num bers
and get some of our ideas out there.’’^” Stone and Parker’s satire,
‫ ط‬other words, derives easily from the sLfe]fe('t m atter provided by
M orm onism , its trudti'uhu:ss self-evident and readily apparent.
Musical satires like Prop 8: The Musical and the stiekincss wife
which the Proposition 8 eam paign remains assoeiatcd with M or-
‫ألاةﻟﻞ[ﻫألا‬ have cxaetcd a eost on the M orm on cxpcricnec of the
last dceadc. Likewise, if the M orm on C hureh in 2011 h ad one
wish, having a musical sharing the same nam e as its key religious
book would likely be far from it. Nonefeeless, the C hureh has
found itself in the strange position of needing to distanee itself
from The Book of Mormon while also blushingfrom all the rceiproeal
m edia attention it brings. T h e same attributes that onec m ade the
C hureh easy ‫اﻟﻠﺮ؛ا‬ :‫ آ‬for faith-prom oting M orm on musicals— the
prom ised “c fe i^ tc n m c n t from c n tc r ^ n m c n t”‫ ־‬havc bceomc
digested by popular eulture and cxerctcd as a ‫ اآالآار)־ آﺗﺂ‬: inversion
of itself. Yet the fact that the flfe m h ('‫))؛‬UhmL:s to buy (ull-page:
advertisements in the playbill only adds another dimension to the
odd relationship the C hureh m aintains with its musical O th crT
Try as they may, M orm ons seem perpetually attaehed to musical
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 05

theater ‫ ط‬all its guises, even w hen the theater beeomes the space
for M orm on lampooning. 11()‫ ا‬else could M ichael Hicks have
w ritten about The Book of Mormon that, “even w ithout the words,
the show would feel like a M orm on musical”?42

M usical T heater and “Exquisite Bufoonery”

bo, now to ‫)־آ‬:‫ آا־ آا‬to Brother Jake. 1١٦ addition to “1 am d:e Very
M odel of a True Believing M orm on D ude,” Brother Jake has ere-
atcd two other satirical videos that use musical ‫ اآ[ا‬:‫ ا؛‬:‫ آ‬to tell the
story. O n e , ‫ا‬:‫أآا‬ :‫“ ل‬M eant Symbolically” and set to the trme: of
the song “Defying Gravity” from ‫ ا‬1‫ اآ‬: Itit 2003 Broadw ay mnsical
Wicked, treats the traditionally literal interpretation of historieal
events ‫ ط‬the M orm on past. For M orm ons, history is so tightly
woven with theology as to make the two nearly inseparable. In
2()02, President G ordon B. Hinckley m ade this ‫آاأر)ﺗﺂ‬ very ck:ar
with his statement: “1 knew a so-called intcllcetual who said the
C hurch was trapped by its history. M y response was that w ithout
th at history wc have notiling.”4‫ ؟؛‬As m ore cvidcnec suggests that
sueh tidyviews of history are pr11(‫؛‬k:>11atie, however, M orm ons are
faced with an impossible interpretive dilemma: either transform
some of tile literal past into a figurative one orjettison it altogether
whieh, as Hinckley has stated, is tantam ount to tiirowing out all
of M orm onism . Brother Jake spoofs the dilemma:
This new approaeh is so exeiting
I feel a huge sense of relief
Don’t have to turn my baek on reason
In matters of belief. [. . .]
I ’lljust say it’s meant symbolieally
So I can justify it logieally
That way I’ll reeoneile all my beliefs
And never be pinned down!
It seems fitting that Brotiier Jake chose to base his satire (٠١٦
“Defying Gravity,” a song with eonnotations of Elphaba (the green-
skinned Wicked W itch of the West) breaking out of the confines
of ajudgm cntal soeicty. As mneh as ‫ ا‬1‫ اآ‬: W icked W itch’s delusions
 06 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

of acceptance are betrayed by her eventual w atery demise ‫ ط‬die

1939 film The Wizard, of Oz, so too m ight the M orm on conscience
be pricked by the difficult position of defendingtheological notions
rooted ‫ ط‬a literal history no longer tenable. As with Elphaba, so
too with M orm on history: a splash of pure insight threatens to
melt it all away.
In ‫ آار) آا؛‬:‫ آ‬of his videos, Brother Jake satirically sings of the
promises of correlation, which is the ^ stem atic quasi-normalizing
of M orm on doctrine, policy, and theology that began 1960 ‫ط‬
under the guidance of apostle H arold B. Lee. W ith his satire set
to the tune of the title song from Oklahoma/, Brother Jake opines
that correlation has been used by the C hurch both to whitewash
troublesome aspects of its history and to choke (‫ االر‬dissidence.
W ith C hurch disciplinary actions against two prom inent M orm on
activists‫ ־‬K ate Kelly and Jo h n Delfiin m aking headlines ‫ط‬
2014 and 2015, Brother Jak e’s satire hits a {^rticularly sore spot
on tite M orm on conscience. W hile images of Kelly and Dehlin
flash across the screen, Brother Jake sings:
Correlation, where sharing doubtsjust doesn’t fly
And where evety hour’s
Run by priesthood power
Whieh is really great if you’re a guy
Brother Jake ،'(‫ع)أآار‬ his unbridled critique of Church policy,
concluding the song with the following tines:
But if you don’t know what to do
Just go piek up a manual or two
Cause when we say
Only white shirts on Sunday
We’re saying we eould use some homogenization:
Correlation’s the way.
And if you say
“Hey there’s a better way,”
Just remember we’re your only way to salvation.
So shut up and obey.
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 07

This sort of criticism m ay n o t be uncom m on, or even unex-

pected, in a church of fifteen million m em bers. It is the m edium
of musical theater, though, th a t seems to m ake B rother J a k e ’s
satire sting a little harder. Even m ore, such an association already
seems so familiar. W hen asked why he uses musical theater
in his video satire, B rother Jak e gave a response th a t perhaps
alm ost any A m erican M o rm o n could agree with: M orm onism
and musical theater “were b()th intim ately intertw ined in my
upbringing.” H e continues,
Brotherjake is a character who operates in the Colbert-like nether
space of imitating the heuristics of an ideological “in” group
while taking no pains to soften or gloss over the harsher/more
bizarre implications of the ideology itself . . . Musical theater,
with its cheesy, cheety tone and generally ^:Hghtforward mes-
saging seemed like a perfect fit. It struck me as a great vehicle
for taking something that externally appears harmless and mar-
rying it with the uncomfortable, like playing “happy birthday”
in a minor key.44
This modusoperandi fits easily within the general theory of satire,
which P. K. Elkin argues is “a catalytic agent” whose function “is
less to judge people for their follies and vices than to challenge
their attitudes and opinions, to taunt andprovoke them into doubt,
andperhaps into disbelief.”45 “Satirists can provoke by challenging
received opinion,” adds Dustin Griffin. “T hey can also provoke by
holding up to scrutiny our idealized images of oursHves forcing
us to adm it that such things are forever out of reach, unavailable
to us, or even the last things we would really w ant to attain.”“
O f course, these are dangerous qualities for an institution to
tolerate and, as such, the M orm on C hurch in recent years has
arg u ed ^ ecario u sly that m em bers have the right to voice opinions,
but to not lead others htto disbelief. Following her public cam paign
for the ordination of women, K ate Kelly’s c o m m u n ic a tio n by
her bishop was explained in his letter: it was not that she had
w rong-headed questions or beliefs, but that “you have persisted
in an aggressive ‫ا‬:)‫ اآر)' ا‬to persuade other C hurch m em bers to
your point of view and [therefore] erode the faith of others.”“
 08 D ia l o g u e : a Journal of M o rm o n Thought, 48, no. 4 (Winter 2015)

Similarly, ‫ اآ[ا‬: stake president (‫أآار)־آﺗﺂ ار‬ :‫ آا‬M orm on blogger

and podcast h o s tjo h n D ehlin wrote ‫ ط‬his letter of explanation
regarding D chlin’s cxeom m unieation that “this aetion was not
taken against you beeause you have doubts ٠٢ because you were
asking questions about C hurch doctrine.” Rather, it was because
of “categm ical t t c m e n t s opposing die ddctrine of the C hurch,”
widely disseminated (inline.^
Ironically, ÍLm ay be precisely this seemingly draconian attitude:
that births satire in the Church. Griffin has argued that “it is the
limitatidn on l're:c: inquiry and dissent that proe‫׳‬okc:s (‫ اآ(ر‬: to irony—
and td satire,” noting that if dpcnly challenging orthodoxy were
tolerated, then pc:oplc:‫ ار)ا‬1‫ ل‬simply take ‫آا‬:‫آأ‬ frustrations to ‫ اآ[ا‬:
newspapers and debate openly there.49 As has been the case with
bdth K ate Kelly ‫اال آار) الآلا؛־‬:‫ آ( أآا‬,‫ ا־ ار)آا‬:‫ ا׳ ا‬:‫ آ‬, it is ‫ آاال‬1):'
‫ ا‬:‫آا؛‬ ١١١٦‫)ا־آ‬.: :
free speech ends and inappropriate criticism begins. Td th at end,
satire emerges only in environm ents of repression and heavy-
handedness, where edneeptidns of free speech are eurtailed and
uniform ity expected. Shaftesbury p u t it well: “,Tis the persecuting
Spirit has raised the bantering one. T h e greater the W eight is,
the bitterer will be the Satire. T h e higher the Slavery, the m dre
exquisite ‫ اآ[ا‬: Buffoonery.”50 Arguably, tiiis is w hat M orm onism
risks today and, until that risk dissipates, one ean expeet only m dre
exquisite buffoonery and m usical ‫ﺗﺂآا؛ا‬ )‫ ا־آأ■ل ﺑﻤﺂألآار)ر‬:):‫ ا׳‬:‫ ل‬tOLvarel the
C hurch (rom ‫ اأآ[ اأ־ا آار)ب־ا‬and ‫ ار) آ[ اأ־ا‬the ranks of membership.

Conclusion
In the inaugural issue of thisjournal, Eugene England shared
these words:
A dialogue is possible if we ean avoid looking upon doubt as a
sin— or as a virtue‫ ־‬but can see it as a eondition, a eondition
that ean be produetive if it leads one to seek and knoek and
ask and if the doubter is approaehed wiffi ^m pathetie listening
and thoughtful response— or that ean be destruetive if it is used
as an eseape from responsibility or the doubter is approached
wiffi condemnation.51
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 09

England wrote those words in 66 ‫ ول‬, a half-century ago. In that

year, ‫ اآ\أ‬1‫ ا‬Disney died, Jo h n 1‫اد‬:‫ آار) آا‬proclaim ed his b an d m ore
popular than Jesus, 1‫ اا؛ل‬-‫ أل‬o . M cK ay was the president of the
M orm on Chureh, and Crawford G ates’s beloved seorc would be
heard for (٠١١١١‫ ׳‬١١٦١: (١١١١١١٦ ١١١٦١(: at ١١٦١: ١١١١١ ).‫ آا؛־آ() آان‬Pageant, bo
m uch has changed sinec th at time, yet the single issue plaguing
Eugene England then remains unresolved now, and is playing out
on an even grander sealc on YouTube ehannels and theatrieal
stages around die world.
Musieal dieater has dirived ‫ ط‬M orm on eultnre for generations,
and will likely continue to do so.Y 'fou ،:(Ihcts ١١٦١: impervious satire
of musical theater exact upon M orm onism , however, remains to
be seen. As M orm ons (:‫ آال)־آ' آال)׳‬satirical attackers they do so at
a disadvantage, sinee the m edium of musical dieater seems so
expertly chosen to cause ١١٦(: most damage. Inasm uch as musi-
cal theater has been for M orm ons a balm and entertainm ent, a
m eans of self-expression as well as identity, it has lately taken the
shape of the legendary horse left outside the gates of Troy. T he
horse was the em blem of the eity Odysseus rem em bered, and
eould easily d ceciv c ‫ آ[ أ׳ا‬its llattc:q‫׳‬. If M orm on (‫ ׳־‬١١١١١١١(: h ad an
em blem, then perhaps ١١would be ١١٦١: musical stage and, like ١١٦١:
horse of the Trojans, a m eans of understanding itself.
D cstruetion need not ensue, of eoursc. It is the favorable
environm ent for satire that ehokcs true discourse— discourse not
left awash ١١٦ a sea of falsely ‫)أل‬:‫ أآ)() ا() آا׳‬/ ‫ ا‬:‫) ل‬:‫ ا׳ ﺀا()׳‬:‫ إلا() أاﺗﺂ‬of belief
and doubt. “T here was belief before there was doubt,” Jennifer
M iehacl H ceht has {‫׳‬ ‫ا‬:‫ ا )ل) ا‬:‫آا‬ argued, “but (٠١١١١ ‫ ا' ׳ ا؛‬:‫ آ‬١١٦١‫ا־آ‬: : was
a culture of doubt could there be the food of active:‫اب־أ‬:‫ أا‬:‫■ا ﺑﻤﺂاأ׳ ا‬ [‫ا؛ آ‬
is at the center of m odern faiths.”52
T h e atm osphere ‫ ا؛ آ[ا‬encourages the satirical is a polluted
one and ‫ ط‬need of refreshing. Given the eonncetion between
M orm onism and the musical stage, one ean imagine things being
quite the opposite:: musical ‫ اآ[ا‬:‫ ا؛‬:‫ آ‬and its unique space ١١٠١‫ ־‬the
hum orous being a vchielc for healthy discourse about any num ber
of partieular priekly issues, rather than a site where the C hurch’s
pcnehant for dam aged or quashed rhctorie forces the satirieal hand.
“H um or ean serve as a release or escape: ١٠١‫ ׳‬releasing accum ulated
٦ ٦0 D ia lo g u e : a J o u r n a l o f M o r m o n T h o u g h t, 4 8 , n o . 4 (W in te r 2 0 1 5 )

teiTsioiT,” writes Davis ‫ آار) اأﺛﺎ‬. “Seeing ‫ ا' ا)أل‬:‫ ا־آ‬:‫ ﺧﺎ־ آا؛ﺗﺂ آا‬of ‫ط ا]أا‬
juxUtp‫)؛‬shh)u, it ('‫؛‬١١٦ ‫ ا־آ‬:):‫ أآا־ﺑﻤﺮ)׳‬/ ‫ ا‬: incongruities ‫ ا؛‬1‫ آل‬complexity. ‫ا‬
is thus closely related to a sense of perspective. It is also akin to
humility. .١١٦٢.] it is a way of ck:l‫؛‬uiug■‫ ﺑﺎر)־آﺗﺂ‬1‫ ا‬:‫ إلآا‬so lh‫؛‬u they do 1T0 t
appear overwhelming.”53 Musical theater, with all its rich ties with
M orm onism , !‫׳‬١١‫؛‬١١ offerjust the m eans lhr()L1gh which ‫ ا׳ أا') الﻟﺮ)־ آﺗﺂ‬:
dialogue emerges, problem s can be defined with less anxiety? and
the air can be cleared of its ‫اﺗﺂ‬:‫) أآا־ آ‬:‫اأ־آاﺗﺂآاأ إلار) أ׳‬ )‫ د‬. At least it is
one place to start.

Notes
1. See S m ith’s “D ictionary o f C orrelation” a n d oth er writings on his blog,
daym onsm ith.w ordpress.com .
2. A dnrittedly this is one o f the m ost p o p u la r p aro d ied songs ‫ ط‬p o p u lar
eulture, witlr references eoming‫ ׳‬from as varied a group as television shows like
Frasier, ALadAbout 2011, Babylon 5, 1‫ اﻟﺘﺔ‬Family Guy; video gam es ALass Effect ‫ث‬an d
Alass Effect ‫ الا! ه;ت‬films Never Cry Wolf, Kate & Leopold, an d the Veggie Tales film
The Wonderfid World o f Auto-Taimnent. Additionally, m ^ re m a tie ia n an d m usical
th eater com poser T om L ehrer has p en n e d several songs b ased on “I A m the
Very M odel of a M o d e rn M ajo r G en eral,” ineluding‫ ׳‬his breakdow n o f the
periodie ‫ دك‬in “E lem ents Song.”
3. All lyries taken from the videos on B r ^ r e ty a k e ’s YouTube channel,
“B J a k e .” h ttp s ://w w w .y o u tu b e .c o m /c h a n n e l/U C O u 7 Z M \V q k r7 c K D rv
E X Z U u O . (accessedjun. 25, 2015).
4. M att Stone an d Trey Parker, “‘Book of M o rm o n ’ C reators on T h e ir
Broadw ay S m ash,” Interview by T erry Gross, Fresh Air from WHYY, N ational
Publie R adio, M ay 9, 2011. h ttp ://w w w .n p r.o rg /2 0 1 1 /0 5 /1 9 /1 3 6 1 4 2 3 2 2 /
book-of-m orm on-creators-on-their-broadw ay-sm ash.
5. H aro ld L H ansen, ‘A H istory 1‫ ﺀاة‬Influence of the M o rm o n T h ea tre
from 1839 1869,” PlrD diss. B righam Young University, 1967, 5.
6. K enneth M aeg'owan, Footlights across America, Toivards a National Theater
(New York: H areo u rt Braee an d C o m p an y 1930), 233.
7. Davis Bitton, Wit ‫ ?ة‬1‫ ا‬7‫ ا[ ﻳﺄاﺀ'»׳‬in Alormon History (Salt Lake Cily: D eseret
Book, 1974), ix.
8. Deseret News, vol. 11, no. 37, M ar. 12, 1862 (quoted in H an sen , p. 49).
9. H ansen, 50.
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater

10. Ibid., foreword.

11.‫ل‬01‫س‬S. Lindsay, TheAIormons and the Theatre, ٠٢The History o f Theatricals
in Utah (Salt Lake City, U tah , 1905), 6 7.
12. D octrine an d C ovenants 135:3.
13. “Early T heatrieals in U ta h ,” The Juvenile Instructor, vol. 38 (1903):
290 91.
14. M egan S an b o rn Jones, PeiformingAmerican Identity in Anti-Alormon Alelo-
drama (New York: Routledge, 2009), 34.
15. C laudia L au p er B ushm an an d R ich ard L. B ushm an, Building the Ring-
dom.A History o f Alarmons inAmerica (Oxford: O xford U niversity Press, 2001), xi.
10. A ndrew E ln t, “‘W ho Shall A scend into th e D ill of the L o rd ?’ Sesqui-
eentennial Refleetions o f a S acred Day: 4 M ay 1842” in Temples o f the Ancient
Wodd, edited by D o n ald W P arry (Salt Lake City, U tah: D eseret Books, 1994), 49.
17. D iseonrfort witlr the prospect o f selling h u m an beings likely played
as signifieant a role in this ehang'e as any sensitivity surrounding‫ ׳‬M o rm o n -
ism. In a 2007 produetion by the P ioneer T h ea tre C o m p an y for example,
W oodling an d his wives only “pass through tow n b u t it’s a very quiek appear-
ance.” Artistic director C harles M orey ad d ed th a t the M o rm o n eharaeters in
th e original produetion, “even for me, a non-M o rm o n , [were] off-putting‫׳‬.”
Ivan M . Lineoln, “Som e N ew C olors for ‘Paint Your W agon,’” Deseret Mews,
Sept. 23,2007. M eanw hile, onAnAztecRomance, see A rdisParshall, “‘C orianton’:
G enealogy o f a M o rm o n P h en o m en o n ,” at h ttp ://w w w .k ee p ap itch in in .o rg /
archives/corian to n -g en ealo g y -o f-a-m o rm o n -p h en o m en o n /.
18. C raw ford Gates, “T h e D elights o f M aking‫ ׳‬C u n ro rah ’s M usic, ”Journal
o f Book o f Alormon Studies, vol. 13 nos. 1 2 (2004): 72.
19. Steven Suskin, The Book o f Alormon: The Testament o f a Broadivay Alusical
(New York: N ew m arket Press, 2012), 48.
20. Suskin, 48.
21. N oting the transform ative m o m en t E lder Priee experiences w hile on
his mission, H ieks w rites th a t linking‫ ׳‬the pageant's seore witlr Priee grounds
th e m issionary’s testim ony w ithin the fram ew ork o f th e pag ean t's eelebrated
M o rm o n genesis: “As if to validate th a t transform ation in Ί Believe,’ eaeh
ehorus begins by asserting‫ ׳‬the w ords Ί am a M o rm o n ’ to the five notes o f the
opening fanfare for th e D ill C unrorah Pageant, th e an n u al eom m em oration
o f Jo se p h ’s excavating th e plates.” M iehael Hieks, “E lder Price Superstar,”
Dialogue: A Journal o f Alormon Thought, 44, no. 4 (W inter 2011): 233.
٦ ٦2 D ia lo g u e : a J o u r n a l o f M o r m o n T h o u g h t, 4 8 , n o . 4 (W in te r 2 0 1 5 )

22. “T h e W riting o f Saturday’s //‫״״‬

‫ﺀ؛ا‬ P art II,” p osted on S atu rd ay ’s
W arrior 2016 T h e M otion P icture Facebook page, h ttp s://w w w .faceb o o k .
co n r/sa tu rd ay sw a rrio r/ (accessedjun. 25, 2015).
23. See w w w .ziontheatricals.com /alpha-listings-m usicals/ for descriptions
o f m any o f the musicals.
2d. c . M iehael Perry, “T h e T h ea tre as a T em ple,” ww w.ziontheatricals.
co m /th e -th e atre -a s-a -tem p le/■Jul. 21, 2014, (accessedjun. 25, 2015).
25. Perry, “T h e T h ea tre as a Tem ple.”
26. Ibid.
27. Q u o te d in Perry, “T h e T h ea tre as a Tem ple.”
28. See w w w .ziontheatricals.com /subm it. (A ccessedjun. 25, 2015).
20. M atthew B ow m an, The Alormon People: The Alaking o f an American Faith
(London: R ^ l e d g e , 2012), 208.
30. K athleen Lübeck, “G et T h a t Show on the Road: H ow to Stage a
Roadshow ,” Ensign (August 1984): h ttp s ://w w w .ld s .o rg /e n sig n /1 9 8 4 /0 8 /
get-that-show -on-the-road-how -to-stag‫׳‬e-a-roadshow ?lang‫=׳‬eng.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Q u o te d in K athleen Lübeck, ‫؛‬Activities T h a t C h an g e Lives,” Ensign
(Aug. 1083): h ttp s ://w w w .ld s.o rg /e n sig n /1 9 8 3 /0 8 /a c tiv itie s-th a t-c h a n g e -
lives?lang=eng.
34. K im R . B urningham , “H ea rd through the H ea rt,’,NewEra (Nov. 1978):
h ttp s://w w w .ld s.o rg /n ew -era/1 9 7 8 /1 1 /h e ard -th ro u g h -th e-h eart?lan g = en g .
3 5. Q u o ted in Jesse McKinley, “T h eater D irector Resigns A m id Gay-Rights
Ire,” Neiv York Times, Nov. 12, 2008. h ttp ://w w w .n y tim e s.c o m /2 0 0 8 /1 1 /1 3 /
th e a te r /13thea.htm l.
36. S hainran originally toyed witlr the idea o f basing‫ ׳‬the musical aro u n d
the poppy field scene in The ‫ ﺀامﺀ ا‬/ o f Oz‫“ ■׳‬I said, ‘Well, m aybe th a t first sec-
tion should be all of us on a Hill, witlr poppies, an d it snows an d w e’re p u t to
sleep, an d th en the Proposition 8 people are looking‫ ׳‬th ro u g h the crystal ball,
like the W icked W itch o f the W est in ‘T h e W izard of ( )/. Because th a t’s w hat
happened. We stupidly allowed ourselves to be lulled into a sense of, every-
th in g ’s fantastic now, look everything’s changing. A n d this couldn’t possibly
be voted into law. T his is ju st like some little pesky th in g th a t w e’re swatting‫ ׳‬at ,
a n d it will go aw ay im m ediately” Q u o ted in D ave Itzkoff, “M arc S haim an on
Johnson: Mormons and Masical Theater 3

‘P rop 8 T h e M usical,’” Mew York Times, D e c . 2008 , ‫ب‬. h ttp ://a rts b e a t.b lo g s.
n y tim es.com /20Q 8/12 /0 4 /m arc-sh aim an -o n -p ro p -8 -th e-m u sic al/? r = 0 .
37. Perry ?١. Schwarzenegger (later c h a ñ a d to Hollingsworth ‫ اﺀ‬Perry) was the
federal case th a t resulted in Proposition 8 being ruled unconstitutional. T h e
plaintiffs w ere sanre-sex couple K ristin Perry an d S an d ra Stier, w ho in 2009
w ere denied a m arriage license in A lam eda County, California, because they
w ere gay.
38. The Book o f Alormon was n o t the first tim e T rey P arker an d M att
Stone musically lam p o o n ed M orm onism . In 2003, th eir South Park episode,
“All ab o u t the M o rm o n s” musically ^‫؛‬m ra tiz e d ^ s e p h S m ith ’s First Vision,
subsequent visits from the angel M oroni, a n d S m ith ’s m ethods o f ttanslating
T h e Book o f M o rm o n using■ seer stones tucked inside his hat. As off-cam cra
voices n arrate the story, the continuous trope “D urn, dunr, dunr, durn, dunr”
is eventually revealed to be a hom onym for “dum b.” T h e off-cam cra voices
thus are conceptualized as a singing■ G reek chorus, moralizing■ the errancy of
S m ith ’s claim s an d the naivete o f his early followers.
39. Trey Parker ‫ اﺀآ؛ة‬M a tt Stone, interview by T erry Gross.
40. Suskin, 55.
41. T hese advertisem ents frcqucntiy feature representative im ages o f m en
a n d w om en witlr the w ords “Y ou’ve seen th e play . . . now rea d the book,”
“T h e book is always better,” or simply “I ’ve read the book,” followed by an
im age o f the actual Book o f M orm on. In 2011, L iza Morong■ becam e the
first convert to the church directly resulting from the m usical and, as at least
one article p ointed out, m issionaries patrolling‫ ׳‬outside theaters have found an
engaging‫ ׳‬an d curious audience o f theater-g'oers eager to m eet real M orm ons.
See D anielle T um m inio, “D o n ’t^ d g 'e a Book o f M o rm o n by its Cover: H ow
M orm ons are Discovering‫ ׳‬the M usical as a C onversion Tool,” Huffngton
Post, M ay 13, 2013, h ttp ://w w w .h u ffin g to n p o st.co m /d a n ie lle -tu m m in io /
d ont-judge-a-book-of-m orm on-by-its-cover-how -m orm ons-are-discovering-
the-m usical-as-a-conversion-tool b 3267252.htm l.
42. Hicks, 228.
43. G ordon B. Hinckley, “T h e M arvelous Foundation o f O u r F aith,”
Ensign (Oct. 2 2 ‫)س‬: h ttp s://w w w .ld s.O rg /g en e ra l-c o n feren ce /2 0 0 2 /1 0 /th e-
m arvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang‫=׳‬eng·.
44. Personal em ail correspondence witlr the authoi;, M ar. 5, 2015.
45. P K . Elkin, Augustan Defence o f ‫ﺀه‬،'‫(ﺀ׳ ا‬Oxford University Press, 19 7 3), 201.
٦ ٦4 D ia lo g u e : a J o u r n a l o f M o r m o n T h o u g h t, 4 8 , n o . 4 (W in te r 2 0 1 5 )

46. D ustin Griffin, Satire: A Critical Réintroduction (Lexington: U niversity

Press o f Kentucky, 1994), 60.
47. See link to p d f o f the letter in “O rd a in W om en Releases L D S B ishop’s
L etter G iving Reasons for K elly’s E xeom m unieation,” ‫ ﻣﺠﺘﺮﻣﺢ׳ ﺀﺀﺀﺀم‬, Ju n . 23,
9014, h ttp ://w w w .d e s e re tn e w s.c o m /a rtic le /8 6 5 6 0 5 6 5 9 /O rd a in -W o m e n -
releases-L D S -b ish o p s-letter-g iv in g -reaso n s-fo r-K elly s-ex co m m u n icatio n .
htnrlppg—all.
48. See p d f link to full letter in “M o rm o n Stories E ounder D ehlin’s S pread
o f ‘Ealse C oncepts’ Results in E xeom m unieation from L D S C h u rch ,” Deseret
News, Feb. 11, 2015, h ttp ://w w w .d e s e re tn e w s.c o m /a rtic le /8 6 5 6 2 1 5 7 6 /
M orm on-Stories-founder-D ehlins-spread-of-false-concepts-results-in-excom -
m unication-from -L D S .htm l?pg= all.
49. Griffin, 139.
50. Characteristics, edited by j . M. R obertson (London, 1900), 1:50 51.
51. Eugene England, “T h e Possibility o f Dialogue: A Personal View,” Dia-
logue: Ajournai o f A lormon Thought 1, no. 1 (Spri ng10 :(1966 ‫׳‬.
5 9 ^ e n n ife r M ichael H echt, Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their
Legacy o f Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson
(New York: H a rp e r Collins, 9003), xxi.
53. Bitton, vii.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.