facie ad faciem Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 FWIW, Joanna Brooks has posted a quick comment on Bloom's article over at Religion Dispatches.
cinepro Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 FWIW, Joanna Brooks has posted a quick comment on Bloom's article over at Religion Dispatches.Joanna Brooks Betrays Cinepro's Mormon Fantasy. 1
facie ad faciem Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Joanna Brooks Betrays Cinepro's Mormon Fantasy.Laughed out loud at that one. Did like this quote:And blaming the emergence of Mitt Romney on Mormonism’s abandonment of its original nineteenth-century fervor is like blaming the rise of Joe Lieberman on Judaism’s abandonment of the eighteenth-century Polish shtetl. If only the Hasidim had won, there would be no Lieberman, after all. Edited November 15, 2011 by facie ad faciem
cdowis Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Look carefully -- he is basically saying that Romney is the candidate sponsored by the church's powerful and elite leadership. He promolgates the "Mormon Conspiracy" theory that we are trying to take over the world. It is interesting how this is mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon, e.g. after the speech of Samuel the Lamanite.
Avatar4321 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I suspect Bloom is just mad at us for not continuing our growth trajectory and making him look bad.If that is the case, then perhaps we should kick up our efforts, get the Spirit and starts teaching the people the Gospel through word and example.
Avatar4321 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 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.If people leave us alone, we will convert the world.If, however, they want to cause us problems, we will do it faster.It's just how it is.
Avatar4321 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 FWIW, Joanna Brooks has posted a quick comment on Bloom's article over at Religion Dispatches.Not sure what the heck she was talking about with Bureaucracies.
facie ad faciem Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Not sure what the heck she was talking about with Bureaucracies.Church administration (as seen within the COB) is divided into how many departments? How long is the chain of command within those various departments? How many people have to sign off on a project before it can get rolling? And talk about paperwork...The twin hallmarks of bureaucracy--officialism and red tape--are alive and well. But bureaucratic organization is pretty much a necessary evil for things to function coherently within an institution as large as the Church now is.(Maybe my computer didn't register your sarcasm font correctly, Avatar?)
Avatar4321 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Having been in the Church both in and out of Utah, I have yet to see any issues with bureaucracies. No sarcasm, because seriously, of all the problems out there, this doesnt appear to be a big one to me.The bigger problems the Church has to deal with is the plague of pornography crippling our priesthood and the priesthood settling for authority with no power. I think that the Church would look much different if the Power of the Priesthood was being used as wide spread as the Lord intends.
why me Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 If people leave us alone, we will convert the world.If, however, they want to cause us problems, we will do it faster.It's just how it is.Vocal exmormons have been predicting the fall of the lds church for quite some time. However, the media coverage of the lds church, regardless if it is critical, points in favor of the lds church making an arrival on the American scene. Thus, the media reaction to mormonism and how public personalities cope with the lds emergence explains a great deal about the success of the lds church in the latter days.
why me Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Having been in the Church both in and out of Utah, I have yet to see any issues with bureaucracies. No sarcasm, because seriously, of all the problems out there, this doesnt appear to be a big one to me.I think that the bureaucracy angle comes from the lds office building in salt lake city and how all material used in the lds church comes from that building. During JS's time, we can see more hands on preaching and doings. But this is only natural with a small sized church. As churches grow, it is only natural that there is a center of leadership were decisions are made.
cinepro Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) The bigger problems the Church has to deal with is the plague of pornography crippling our priesthood and the priesthood settling for authority with no power. I think that the Church would look much different if the Power of the Priesthood was being used as wide spread as the Lord intends.I was just thinking about this a few weeks ago.Having grown up in the pre-internet Church, I can't for the life of me see any obvious difference in the outward experience of going to Church and being LDS between the pre-internet (less porn) and post-internet (more porn) eras.Pornography may be much more widespread now than it was 15 years ago, but the home teaching numbers appear to be about the same, Church attendance appears to be about the same, the lessons appear to be about the same quality, talks and testimonies haven't changed much, the incidence of wives attending without their husbands seems to be about the same (it's certainly not epidemic levels in my ward) etc. Tithing may go up and down, but I suspect economic factors have a much greater effect than pornographic ones.Probably a topic for a different thread, but when the rubber hits the road I just don't see any "crippling" going on from pornography. Ultimately, I suspect the internet is much more damaging to the Church for the ease with which it makes information available as opposed to the ease with which it makes pictures of available. Edited November 16, 2011 by cinepro
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 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.”To the extent that "secularism" is a codeword for "the marginalising of believers," you are probably right.But in any event, Harold seems to be withering in his Bloom.Regards,Pahoran
Calm Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 But in any event, Harold seems to be withering in his Bloom.Oh, that was painful.
Analytics Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 To the extent that "secularism" is a codeword for "the marginalising of believers," you are probably right.But in any event, Harold seems to be withering in his Bloom.Regards,PahoranConsider what Bloom said: “There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman.” Is your point that by saying this he was marginalizing Jon Huntsman, or is it that Huntsman isn't a real believer?
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Oh, that was painful.Yes, there's nothing like a good pun. (And that was nothing like a good pun.)Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Consider what Bloom said: “There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman.” Is your point that by saying this he was marginalizing Jon Huntsman, or is it that Huntsman isn't a real believer?Well, Bloom certainly seems to think he isn't. But Bloom writes an article saying, in essence, "a believing Mormon is a dangerous beast in politics," and you try to tell us that that "is pro-secularism, not anti-Mormon."So I say: fine. Bloom is arguing that believers (and especially Mormon believers) ought not to be trusted with political power. If that's "pro-secularism," then secularism clearly relies upon marginalising believers.But then I suppose he's not the only one trying to make respectable the argument that non-believers should only vote for folks like them.Regards,Pahoran
Cobalt-70 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I don't see this as an anti-Mormon article. This is no different from what he wrote in his book. In his book, he was discussed the gnostic genius of Joseph Smith, which he described as quintessentially American, and lamented the fact that his successors backed away from much of what Smith taught, and instead tried to transform the faith into something more conventional and less subversive, finally (in his view) becoming the very kind of people that Joseph Smith fought against. Knowing Bloom's outlook, nothing in his recent article surprised me.But this article is not really anti-Mormon. It is pro-Mormon, anti-LDS.
Calm Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Yes, there's nothing like a good pun. (And that was nothing like a good pun.)Regards,PahoranSaid....I am certain....with a fake mustache upon the lip, a cigar in hand, and a twinkle and wink of the eye.....
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I don't see this as an anti-Mormon article. This is no different from what he wrote in his book. In his book, he was discussed the gnostic genius of Joseph Smith, which he described as quintessentially American, and lamented the fact that his successors backed away from much of what Smith taught, and instead tried to transform the faith into something more conventional and less subversive, finally (in his view) becoming the very kind of people that Joseph Smith fought against. Knowing Bloom's outlook, nothing in his recent article surprised me.But this article is not really anti-Mormon. It is pro-Mormon, anti-LDS.A distinction without a difference.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Said....I am certain....with a fake mustache upon the lip, a cigar in hand, and a twinkle and wink of the eye.....Okay, where's the hidden camera?Don't worry, the cigar isn't lit....Regards,Pahoran
selek1 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) It probably doesn’t help that so many individual Mormons happen to vote Republican. It makes the Church an easy scapegoat.The problem with this position, Sky is that it buys into the very sort of manipulation which Analytics and Bloom pretend to decry.The idea that voting Conservative automagically leads to dirtier air, dirtier water, early death, and inevitable impoverishment is a mantra on the Left- a mantra that is rapidly approaching a catechism.But it is neither logically or factually sound.It is precisely the same sort of calorie-free, elitist, feel-good pablum that Bloom and the rest claim is being foisted off on the "religious".If the "religious" are the willing dupes of the Right, then it can be argued with equal facility that the secular (idealistic or not) are the willing dupes of the Left.Analytics and Bloom are quick to decry what they claim is unthinking acceptance on the part of the "ignorant" religious- but just spoon-fed you exactly the same sort of pablum-And you swallowed it.The bottom line is this: Bloom is an ideologue first, a critical thinker second.Anything he has to say about the Mormons (or anyone else for that matter)- whether for good or ill- will first be filtered through the prism of his political ideology.How is that any different than the "ignorant", hay-seed religious rubes he's lambasting?How is that any different than the "Republican plutocrats"he claims to revile?An apparatchik is an apparatchik is an apparatchik... Edited November 16, 2011 by selek1
Calm Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I am not sure Sky meant it that way. I read his comment as saying it was something that just gave those who looked for such another excuse to trash the Church. I didn't read it as him saying it was a valid complaint or actually something unfortunate in itself.
Sky Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) I don't see this as an anti-Mormon article. This is no different from what he wrote in his book. In his book, he was discussed the gnostic genius of Joseph Smith, which he described as quintessentially American, and lamented the fact that his successors backed away from much of what Smith taught, and instead tried to transform the faith into something more conventional and less subversive, finally (in his view) becoming the very kind of people that Joseph Smith fought against. Knowing Bloom's outlook, nothing in his recent article surprised me.If anybody is backing away from much of what Joseph Smith taught, I see that happening more in the Community of Christ rather than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But do we see Bloom paying much attention to the Community of Christ? No. And I certainly don’t see the LDS Church doing much to back away from Joseph Smith’s teachings. For better or for worse, we practically idolize him (I don't mean this as a criticism). In the fairly recent past, we spent two years in Priesthood/Relief Society studying a manual devoted to Joseph Smith’s teachings.I’ll grant that some things that Joseph Smith taught we don’t emphasize as much today, but there is also the basic Mormon belief in continuing revelation, which Bloom seems to have completely overlooked. Of course a dynamic church like the LDS Church isn’t going to look exactly the same today as it did in the 1830’s. Edited November 16, 2011 by Sky
selek1 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I am not sure Sky meant it that way. I read his comment as saying it was something that just gave those who looked for such another excuse to trash the Church. I didn't read it as him saying it was a valid complaint or actually something unfortunate in itself.I will withhold judgement then, until Sky can clarify his/her position- though the remainder of my point stands.Like so many of the intelligentsia, Bloom has an agenda wider than his ego and deeper than the Grand Canyon- which inescapably colors all his writings.Those among the chattering who "love" us today, will cheerfully throw us under the bus the moment it suits their needs/pleasure to do so- the SBC first among them.We, as Latter-day Saints, should be wary of politicians and other first-dates who claim "I only want one kiss..."
Recommended Posts