I Thought Harold Bloom Was Our Friend!

[birdgirl]

Will This Election Be the Mormon Breakthrough?

[William Schryver]

Stunning.

Simply stunning.

The most explicitly anti-Mormon article I have read since Romney first came onto the national political scene in 2007. It is also shockingly uninformed on many important points--proving again that Bloom, despite the many good things he has had to say about Mormonism, remains amazingly ignorant of its tenets.

This article also betrays Bloom's true feelings about Joseph Smith and Mormonism in general. Everything he has said previously must now be viewed through the lens this column provides us.

Echoes of Stephen A. Douglas ...

.

.

.

ETA: Upon a second reading, Bloom's article almost strikes me as an emotional rant. In many ways, it is disjointed, and I believe it will be largely inaccessible to a general audience. It does seem aimed towards the irreligious left, but I'm doubtful that even many of them will really grasp the essence of what Bloom is trying to say in many instances, although they will certainly get the gist of his message: a Mormon in the White House represents a much more potentially serious threat to democracy than an Evangelical, and certainly more than any ostensibly Christian POTUS that has gone before.

Bloom's repeated insinuations that the Brethren in SLC would rule the country through a Romney presidency is just downright paranoid nonsense.

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't think Bloom ever took Mormonism seriously on its own terms. For him, religion is merely "spilled poetry." Bloom likes JS because he has an exotic religious imagination, but that's about it.

[William Schryver]

I don't think Bloom ever took Mormonism seriously on its own terms. For him, religion is merely "spilled poetry." Bloom likes JS because he has an exotic religious imagination, but that's about it.

Perhaps so, but this is a sincere attempt at a hostile attack. Sincere, but not all that effective in the end, for the simple reason that Bloom is so far detached from the common man that he doesn't even know how to build them a good boogey man. For the handful of Marxist elitists who will be able to read between his rather obtuse lines, they will be deeply alarmed by the notion of a Mormon in the White House. But I've got to believe they were never even on the fringes of Romney's target audience in the first place.

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[Avatar4321]

I wish I could say I'm shocked. But I'm not.

What's amazing is they think that getting a Mormon in the White House is a big deal for us when it really doesnt matter at all.

[Kevin Christensen]

He said basically the same things in The American Religion. The only new wrinkles come from the years in between. Older, not wiser.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[William Schryver]

He said basically the same things in The American Religion.

I did not realize that. I haven't read the book. I probably should.

The only new wrinkles come from the years in between. Older, not wiser.

But his timing with this article is clearly calculated to produce the most negative effect possible at this unique juncture in Mormon history. It is a deliberately hostile strike by someone who has presented himself, over the years, as an admirer of Mormonism.

As I said above, this all draws interesting parallels with the Stephen A. Douglas betrayal of the Mormons in 1857. Even some of the salient arguments are the same. The only mitigating factor when it comes to Bloom's attack is that (as I also mention above) most people simply won't be able to understand what Bloom is talking about when it comes to some of his more outrageous statements.

At any rate, I think this article should permanently disabuse people of the notion that Harold Bloom is a friend of the Latter-day Saints. He clearly is not. He is a vicious enemy who is willing to both misrepresent our beliefs and encourage others to regard us as dangerous to the health of the body politic.

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[Sky]

I didn’t really get the central point that Bloom was trying to make, other than to make sensationalistic claims about Mormonism. The article seemed to ramble.

If I knew next to nothing about Mormonism, what would my impression be after reading this article? Would that impression be fair or accurate?

I don't have time to respond to everything, but he said several things that I objected to, including:

1. "Mr. Romney, earnest and staid, who is deep within the labyrinthine Mormon hierarchy, is directly descended from an early follower of the founding prophet Joseph Smith, whose highly original revelation was as much a departure from historical Christianity as Islam was and is."

2. "However, should Mr. Romney be elected president, Smith’s dream of a Mormon Kingdom of God in America would not be fulfilled, since the 21st-century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has little resemblance to its 19th-century precursor."

3. "The Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed has little enough in common with the visions of Joseph Smith. The oligarchs of Salt Lake City, who sponsor Mr. Romney, betray what ought to have been their own religious heritage."

4. "Though I read Christopher Hitchens with pleasure, his characterization of Joseph Smith as “a fraud and conjuror” is inadequate. A superb trickster and protean personality, Smith was a religious genius, uniquely able to craft a story capable of turning a self-invented faith into a people now as numerous as the Jews, in America and abroad."

5. "Persuasively redefining Christianity has been a pastime through the ages"

6. "Joseph Smith, killed by a mob before he turned 39, is hardly comparable to the magnificent Akiva, except that he invented Mormonism even more single-handedly than Akiva gave us Judaism, or Muhammad, Islam."

7. "I recall prophesying in 1992 that by 2020 Mormonism could become the dominant religion of the western United States. But we are not going to see that large a transformation. I went wrong because the last two decades have witnessed the deliberate dwindling of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into just one more Protestant sect. Without the changes, Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a fellow Mormon, would not seem plausible candidates."

8. "Smith was not a good writer, except for one or two of his sermons, as reported in transcriptions by his auditors, but his mythmaking faculty was fecund."

9. "Joseph Smith continues to be regarded by many Mormons as a final authority on issues of belief, though so much of his legacy, including plural marriage, had to be compromised in the grand bargain by which the moguls of Salt Lake City became plutocrats defining the Republican party."

10. "The hierarchy’s vast economic power is founded upon the tithing of the faithful, who yield 10 percent of their income to the church."

11. "A Mormon presidency is not quite the same as an ostensibly Catholic or Protestant one, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints insists on a religious sanction for its moralistic platitudes."

12. "Mormons earn godhead though their own efforts, hoping to join the plurality of gods, even as they insist they are not polytheists."

13. "The Mormon patriarch, secure in his marriage and large family, is promised by his faith a final ascension to godhead, with a planet all his own separate from the earth and nation where he now dwells. From the perspective of the White House, how would the nation and the world appear to President Romney? How would he represent the other 98 percent of his citizens?"

[facie ad faciem]

I was going to post something on this until I saw it had already been done. I actually printed it off to underline and annotate. (Looks like my scriptures, now, after two readings.) Since there was no available comments section, I had to get stuff off my chest.

As Kevin said, it's basically a condensed rehash of twenty-year-old ideas, with talk of Mitt Romney thrown in. A friend of mine commented, "I find some of his sweeping judgements on what Mormonism is to be irresponsible in some cases and laughable in others." It's deliberate dissemination of misinformation and misrepresentation that is based on broadly misunderstanding Mormonism specifically, religion in general, and even American politics, economics, and culture.

However, to be nice, it is well-written; it's just the content that's crap. And it is full of some wonderful one-liners:

Edit: Dang, Sky beat me to it...

Edited November 14, 2011 by facie ad faciem

[Storm Rider]

Not very impressed with this essay. He is not a stupid man and remains someone that I typically enjoy reading; however, his politics are just so poor as to be laughable.

[Freedom]

I read this article in the NYTs and then found a response in Deseret news, also linked below.

http://www.nytimes.c...rough.html?_r=1

http://www.deseretne...-theocracy.html

Is he suggesting that Pres Monson is wealthy and maintains power through his money? What exactly is he implying by his double-speak? And Romney, who is somehow one of the powerful leaders of the church, is also supported by these wealthy few at the top? I used to respect this fellow but what is he talking about?

"I recall prophesying in 1992 that by 2020 Mormonism could become the dominant religion of the western United States. But we are not going to see that large a transformation. I went wrong because the last two decades have witnessed the deliberate dwindling of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into just one more Protestant sect."

???

"Joseph Smith continues to be regarded by many Mormons as a final authority on issues of belief, though so much of his legacy, including plural marriage, had to be compromised in the grand bargain by which the moguls of Salt Lake City became plutocrats defining the Republican party."

We got rid of polygamy because of money and power and to control the republican party?

"A Mormon presidency is not quite the same as an ostensibly Catholic or Protestant one, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints insists on a religious sanction for its moralistic platitudes."

Does he even know how to write in English? Put away your thesaurus man and try to say what you mean already. If this were an English 101 essay he would get a c- for his inability to express his thoughts in a simple coherent manner.

"No Mormon need fall into the fundamentalist denial of evolution, because the Mormon God is not a creator. Imaginatively liberating as this may be, its political implications are troublesome. The Mormon patriarch, secure in his marriage and large family, is promised by his faith a final ascension to godhead, with a planet all his own separate from the earth and nation where he now dwells. From the perspective of the White House, how would the nation and the world appear to President Romney?"

Oh do tell Harold, do tell.

"Mormonism’s best inheritance from Joseph Smith was his passion for education, hardly evident in the anti-intellectual and semi-literate Southern Baptist Convention. I wonder though which is more dangerous, a knowledge-hungry religious zealotry or a proudly stupid one?"

Oh no, stay away from those knowledge-hungry zelots! Thanks for your pedantic rant and your eruditedness Harold but I am left without any idea what is troubling you. Is your concern that the money and power hungry church leaders will make Romney follow morals and seek knowledge? What exactly are the moralistic platitudes that they will sanction? Perhaps you can tell us how Romney perceived his minions when he was governor?

Well, as a point of discussion, I would be interested to read some insight into how our church leaders are money hungry and how we have become protestant.

The church of 2011 is the same church of 1992, be it a bit larger and with a better composed policy manual. Or have those Salt Lake plutocratic oligarchs pulled the wool over my eyes?

[Sky]

I expected better of this man. I fear that all too many people will accept his statements at face value simply because he is an academic intellectual. That must mean that he knows what he's talking about, right? It's all about money and power. The anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons must be making a heyday out of this.

[Freedom]

I expected better of this man. I fear that all too many people will accept his statements at face value simply because he is an academic intellectual. That must mean that he knows what he's talking about, right? It's all about money and power. The anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons must be making a heyday out of this.

You assuming they are able to understand his cryptic writing style.

[annewandering]

wow did he ever get up on the wrong side of the bed! Or a bit into his bottle of whatever. Its hard to believe anything, except possibly the National Enquirer, publishing such drivel.

[facie ad faciem]

If anyone cares, there's another small discussion on the same Bloom article over in the "In the News" section.

[annewandering]

I disagee with anyone who says it was well written. It was rambling and nearly incoherent. Big words do not well written make. The so called facts were hardly facts at all. The only thing to be gotten from the article is that it was apparently an attack on Mormons in politics and a casual slap at Baptists based on flights of fancy and improvisation.

[cinepro]

I suspect Bloom is just mad at us for not continuing our growth trajectory and making him look bad.

[LeSellers]

I suspect Bloom is just mad at us for not continuing our growth trajectory and making him look bad.

First sensible thing you've posted in a very long time.

Congratulations, even if it was an accident. Sometimes a blind hog finds a truffle.

Lehi

[why me]

If Romney is the republican candidate we can expect more of this kind of article. It will not get better but it will get worse. I think that we should call it 'growing pains'. As Mormons reach for high office various viewpoints will come to the fore and many will not be positive. The only solution is: when mormons take high office, they will be judged by their actions and not by their religion. And everyone will be just a little more smarter about mormonism.

[Ares]

If anyone cares, there's another small discussion on the same Bloom article over in the "In the News" section.

Merged!

[Analytics]

To me, it reads more like a rant against how certain special interests manipulate the religious to vote Republican, which as a party seems determined to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class smaller.

“A dark truth of American politics in what is still the era of Reagan and the Bushes is that so many do not vote their own economic interests. Rather than living in reality they yield to what oddly are termed “cultural” considerations: moral and spiritual, or so their leaders urge them to believe. Under the banners of flag, cross, fetus, exclusive marriage between men and women, they march onward to their own deepening impoverishment."

He claims that “Mormonism’s best inheritance from Joseph Smith was his passion for education,” which he juxtaposes with the “anti-intellectual and semi-literate” Southern Baptist Convention. Isn’t it ironic how fervent Mormons are to align themselves politically with the “proudly stupid” evangelical anti-Mormons?

The piece is pro-secularism, not anti-Mormon. “There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman.”

Edited November 15, 2011 by Analytics

[Sky]

To me, it reads more like a rant against how certain special interests manipulate the religious to vote Republican, which as a party seems determined to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class smaller.

“A dark truth of American politics in what is still the era of Reagan and the Bushes is that so many do not vote their own economic interests. Rather than living in reality they yield to what oddly are termed “cultural” considerations: moral and spiritual, or so their leaders urge them to believe. Under the banners of flag, cross, fetus, exclusive marriage between men and women, they march onward to their own deepening impoverishment."

He claims that “Mormonism’s best inheritance from Joseph Smith was his passion for education,” which he juxtaposes with the “anti-intellectual and semi-literate” Southern Baptist Convention. Isn’t it ironic how fervent Mormons are to align themselves politically with the “proudly stupid” evangelical anti-Mormons?

The piece is pro-secularism, not anti-Mormon. “There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman.”

I think Bloom is on to something with regards to politics, but if he didn't want to come across as anti-Mormon, he should have avoided phrases such as:

"The Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed"...

"The hierarchy’s vast economic power is founded upon the tithing of the faithful, who yield 10 percent of their income to the church"...

It probably doesn’t help that so many individual Mormons happen to vote Republican. It makes the Church an easy scapegoat.

[Analytics]

I think Bloom is on to something with regards to politics, but if he didn't want to come across as anti-Mormon, he should have avoided phrases such as:

"The Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed"...

"The hierarchy’s vast economic power is founded upon the tithing of the faithful, who yield 10 percent of their income to the church"...

It probably doesn’t help that so many individual Mormons happen to vote Republican. It makes the Church an easy scapegoat.

Fair enough—he certainly had no intention of not sounding anti-Mormon. But in this case, his criticism of the Mormon Church is ironic—he’s criticizing it for being mainstream. The Conservative narrative is that greed is a euphemism for motivated self-interest, which is the precise cause of America's greatness. For conservatives, “corporate greed,” is an entirely good thing.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Analytics

[facie ad faciem]

I disagee with anyone who says it was well written. It was rambling and nearly incoherent. Big words do not well written make.

Very good. I retract my previous statement

[Freedom]

Sorry, I did not realize there was a story was already posted. I want to respond to his post but from reading his article, I don't know that he is capable of rational thought.