I Thought Harold Bloom Was Our Friend!

[Analytics]

Well, Bloom certainly seems to think [Jon Huntsman] isn't [a real believer].

You misunderstand. Bloom isn't promoting people being false believers or non-believers. He just wants people to be like President Obama, "Doubtless Mr. Obama’s Christianity is sincere, but happily it is irrelevant to his governing style and aspirations. There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman." He has no problem with believers believing, as long as they secularly govern our secular government.

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.

I’ll just respond by quoting his last two paragraphs in full:

We can be certain that President Obama will not care to address these arcane matters in his debates with Mr. Romney. Doubtless Mr. Obama’s Christianity is sincere, but happily it is irrelevant to his governing style and aspirations. There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman.

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? Either way we are condemned to remain a plutocracy and oligarchy. I can be forgiven for dreading a further strengthening of theocracy in that powerful brew.

If you’d like to lock arms with the “proudly stupid” Baptists in order to feel victimized by this article that is certainly your right, but I hope you take solace in the fact that some 98% of Republican voters reject the only secular-seeming Republican in the field, and you will certainly continue to get the plutocracy and oligarchy your side wants.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Analytics

[Sky]

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...

Point taken, Selek.

I should have better clarified better my personal view.

I will try to be careful to not let this get too political in order to not get the thread shut down.

I think everybody should vote their conscience. My personal political views lean more towards the Democratic Party, but I want you to know that I still love the Church and believe in its teachings. I go to great lengths on this board to defend the leaders of the Church as well as my fellow Church members.

I tend to agree with some (emphases on some) of Bloom’s political views, but his criticism of the Church was uncalled for. It casts a shadow of doubt on his entire article.

I hope this sufficiently clarifies my position.

[Pahoran]

You misunderstand. Bloom isn't promoting people being false believers or non-believers. He just wants people to be like President Obama, "Doubtless Mr. Obama’s Christianity is sincere, but happily it is irrelevant to his governing style and aspirations. There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman." He has no problem with believers believing, as long as they secularly govern our secular government.

IOW, if you leave your beliefs out of your decision-making, Bloom will condescendingly bestow his permission upon you to be in government -- providing your politics are far enough to the left, of course.

I’ll just respond by quoting his last two paragraphs in full:

We can be certain that President Obama will not care to address these arcane matters in his debates with Mr. Romney. Doubtless Mr. Obama’s Christianity is sincere, but happily it is irrelevant to his governing style and aspirations. There appear to be no secular seeming Republicans running for the White House, except, ironically, Mr. Huntsman.

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? Either way we are condemned to remain a plutocracy and oligarchy. I can be forgiven for dreading a further strengthening of theocracy in that powerful brew.

And what development does Bloom foresee as a "further strengthening of theocracy," pray tell? Isn't it the possibility of Romney's election?

If you’d like to lock arms with the “proudly stupid” Baptists in order to feel victimized by this article that is certainly your right, but I hope you take solace in the fact that some 98% of Republican voters reject the only secular-seeming Republican in the field, and you will certainly continue to get the plutocracy and oligarchy your side wants.

"Analytics,"

I realise the extent of your analysis was to allow your secular hero to do your thinking for you; but I recommend against projecting these absurd conspiracy theories onto others. Since I am entirely unaware of anybody who really wants "plutocracy and oligarchy," your accusation is clearly false.

IOW, you succeeded.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

Okay, I’m slightly confused. Maybe somebody can help me out.

On the one hand, Bloom seemed to be criticizing the Church for becoming too mainstream (i.e. moving too far away from Joseph Smith’s original supposedly subversive teachings).

But on the other hand, his article is full of zingers that criticize the Church for being too much outside the mainstream (i.e. “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.”

Bloom seems to be saying two things that contradict each other. How can he have it both ways? It makes his line of reasoning hard to follow.

And what does he mean by “the moguls of Salt Lake City became plutocrats defining the Republican Party?” Since when did the leaders of the Church define the Republican Party? Did he somehow miss that the Church is officially neutral with regards to political parties? Or that the Church is not helping to try to get Romney elected? Or that Mitt Romney is not a General Authority?

He is saying things that aren’t truthful or that are a distorted version of the truth. But he will get a free pass because he is supposedly an expert.

[Analytics]

And what development does Bloom foresee as a "further strengthening of theocracy," pray tell? Isn't it the possibility of Romney's election?

He's lamenting the entire religious right--not singling out Mormons.

I realise the extent of your analysis was to allow your secular hero to do your thinking for you; but I recommend against projecting these absurd conspiracy theories onto others. Since I am entirely unaware of anybody who really wants "plutocracy and oligarchy," your accusation is clearly false.

And I bet you're entirely unaware of anybody who votes against his or her own economic best interest, right?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

We idolize an idealized image of him, but not many Mormons know much about the real man behind the myth of Joseph Smith. And I think that's a shame, because given a choice between following the real Joseph Smith or the mythological Joseph Smith, I'd follow the former to the grave, but there is something about the latter that I don't really trust--maybe it's the fact that my jaded modern mind doesn't trust people, like politicians, whose public image seems too polished.

[Pahoran]

He's lamenting the entire religious right--not singling out Mormons.

Sorry, but you're in complete denial. Here's what your hero actually wrote:

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....

Cue sinister music; and this:

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.

BTW, this is not merely boilerplate anti-Mormonism, it is Ed Decker anti-Mormonism. Never in your wildest fantasies could you have hoped that a nationally recognised mainstream figure would be spouting this garbage, could you?

It's garbage. You know it's garbage.

But it's anti-Mormon garbage, and that's why you love it.

And this:

Though I read Christopher Hitchens with pleasure,

Well that explains a lot. And:

There are other secrets also, not tellable by the Mormon Church to those it calls “Gentiles,” oddly including Jews. That aspects of the religion of a devout president of the United States should be concealed from all but 2 percent of us may be a legitimate question that merits pondering. When I wandered about the South and Southwest from 1989 to 1991, researching American religion, I was heartened by the warmth that greeted me in Pentecostal and Baptist churches, some of them independent indeed. But Gentiles are not allowed in Mormon temples.

Yes, more spooky conspiracy stuff. But this applies to everyone on the "religious right," does it? NOT!! And:

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.

Oh no, he's not singling out Mormons; not even a little bit.

And this:

The 19th-century Mormon theologian Orson Pratt, who was close both to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, stated a principle the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never repudiated: “Any people attempting to govern themselves by laws of their own making, and by officers of their own appointment, are in direct rebellion against the kingdom of God.”

Pity he didn't give us a source for this statement. I wonder where he got it? The Seer, perhaps?

Like every other anti-Mormon?

But tell us, because we'd love to know; how do statements by the 19th-century Mormon theologian Orson Pratt inform us about the views of the 21st century American religious right?

And this:

Mormons earn godhead though their own efforts, hoping to join the plurality of gods, even as they insist they are not polytheists. 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? How would he represent the other 98 percent of his citizens?

Are you going to tell us that LDS-style theosis is a dominant view of the religious right?

And so we come down to:

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?

In case you can't guess, it's the "knowledge-hungry" one.

Either way we are condemned to remain a plutocracy and oligarchy. I can be forgiven for dreading a further strengthening of theocracy in that powerful brew.

And wherein does Bloom see a "further strengthening of theocracy" to dread? Why, in the dreadful prospect of a Romney presidency, of course.

Just once, "Analytics," I'd love to see you actually live up to your name and analyse something.

And I bet you're entirely unaware of anybody who votes against his or her own economic best interest, right?

On the contrary, I'm well aware of people who vote for principles rather than their own back pockets. I flatter myself that I might be one of them. The notion that this is a vote for "plutocracy and oligarchy" is left-wing ideological Dreck.

Bloom emerges from this article, dripping with academic condescension and oozing leftist paranoia, with nothing in his defence but the bare possibility that he wrote it as some kind of English department exercise in wordsmithing, without actually putting his own views into it.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

We idolize an idealized image of him, but not many Mormons know much about the real man behind the myth of Joseph Smith. And I think that's a shame, because given a choice between following the real Joseph Smith or the mythological Joseph Smith, I'd follow the former to the grave, but there is something about the latter that I don't really trust--maybe it's the fact that my jaded modern mind doesn't trust people, like politicians, whose public image seems too polished.

Well, either he was a prophet of God and the head of this dispensation - or he wasn’t. And that’s all there is to it. And if he wasn’t, then we have nothing. Where do you stand on this?

You’re not the first one to criticize the way the LDS Church supposedly presents an idealized Joseph Smith. I’ve heard almost everything that has been said about him from different sources, and yet I still subscribe to the things I learn about him from LDS sources.

And your statement that “not many Mormons know much about the real man behind the myth of Joseph Smith” strikes me as condescending. Don't expect to get too far with respectful dialogue with comments like that.

[KevinG]

Anyone who knows the real Joseph Smith is very old indeed.

[why me]

Bloom does not like the fact that we can now have a mormon president in the usa. When the lds church was basically centered in the west, Bloom had no problem with the lds church. But now that mormons are actually becoming major politicians and the lds church is a world wide church, he sees problems with mormonism. And he sees a threat. Now if the lds church would go back to the 80's where mormons were basically cow hands, farmers, ranchers and spud eaters from Lehi all would be well again.

We also saw this with JFK when he was running for president. The fear was that JFK would be taking his marching orders from the vatican and I am sure that scores of articles were written on the score. But such fears were unfounded. And it would be the same with Romney.

Edited November 17, 2011 by why me

[Cobalt-70]

Well, either he was a prophet of God and the head of this dispensation - or he wasn’t. And that’s all there is to it. And if he wasn’t, then we have nothing. Where do you stand on this? You’re not the first one to criticize the way the LDS Church supposedly presents an idealized Joseph Smith. I’ve heard almost everything that has been said about him from different sources, and yet I still subscribe to the things I learn about him from LDS sources. And your statement that “not many Mormons know much about the real man behind the myth of Joseph Smith” strikes me as condescending. Don't expect to get too far with respectful dialogue with comments like that.

This is not a criticism of the LDS Church. Obviously, it doesn't make sense for the LDS church to present a picture of the real Joseph Smith in its ecclesiastical publications, the purpose of which is building faith by presenting himhagiographically. I'm criticizing rank-and-file Mormons for either (1) not being interested in getting to know the real Joseph in their own study, outside of church, or (2) not being sophisticated enough to tolerate a founding prophet who made serious errors of judgment and had flaws, weaknesses, and frailties. Not knowing the real Joseph does him a disservice, I think. It's like George Washington--how many Americans know the real George Washington, rather than the idealized version of him that we are taught in grade school?

Edited November 17, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

This is not a criticism of the LDS Church. Obviously, it doesn't make sense for the LDS church to present a picture of the real Joseph Smith in its ecclesiastical publications, the purpose of which is building faith by presenting himhagiographically. I'm criticizing rank-and-file Mormons for either (1) not being interested in getting to know the real Joseph in their own study, outside of church, or (2) not being sophisticated enough to tolerate a founding prophet who made serious errors of judgment and had flaws, weaknesses, and frailties. Not knowing the real Joseph does him a disservice, I think. It's like George Washington--how many Americans know the real George Washington, rather than the idealized version of him that we are taught in grade school?

The entire history of Judaism and Christianity is filled with such men. How do Christians accept a prophet that had two she-bears eat a pack of children? How about those who committed sexual sins? Or those who actually sat at the Master's feet, learned from him, knew him as the Messiah, and still denied him? There are so many other examples of God using weak vessels to accomplish great things; Joseph was no different and certainly not unique.

[Sky]

This is not a criticism of the LDS Church. Obviously, it doesn't make sense for the LDS church to present a picture of the real Joseph Smith in its ecclesiastical publications, the purpose of which is building faith by presenting himhagiographically. I'm criticizing rank-and-file Mormons for either (1) not being interested in getting to know the real Joseph in their own study, outside of church, or (2) not being sophisticated enough to tolerate a founding prophet who made serious errors of judgment and had flaws, weaknesses, and frailties. Not knowing the real Joseph does him a disservice, I think. It's like George Washington--how many Americans know the real George Washington, rather than the idealized version of him that we are taught in grade school?

I disagree with your insinuation that you can’t know the “real” Joseph Smith through LDS publications. You may say that this is not a criticism of the LDS Church, but the implication still stands that the LDS Church presents a whitewashed or less-than-honest version of Joseph Smith in their publications (an all-too-common criticism).

Said Elder Oaks in the October 2007 General Conference:

“Many years of inspired work have produced our 2008 volume of the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of this dispensation. This is a landmark among Church books.”

As far as rank-and-file Mormons - not all of us have the time for more in-depth study of Joseph Smith outside of church.

I will say that it is good for members of the Church to know some less-than-savory things about Joseph Smith in order to not be completely blindsided or to possibly lose their testimonies later. Richard Lyman Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling” is a good place to start. Also FAIR and the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

Did Joseph Smith have flaws, weaknesses, frailties, and make serious errors of judgment? Yes. Are those things as big of an issue as our critics like to make them out to be? I don’t think so.

[Sky]

Here is some good commentary by Mark Paredes regarding Bloom’s essay.

Et tu, Harold Bloom? Mormonism, Mitt-and ignorance

[thesometimesaint]

Sky:

Very good.

[Cobalt-70]

Said Elder Oaks in the October 2007 General Conference:

“Many years of inspired work have produced our 2008 volume of the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of this dispensation. This is a landmark among Church books.”

Even if you only learned everything that Smith ever taught, you know almost nothing about his history. A person is not merely the sum of what he teaches. Besides, the LDS Church officially presents only a tiny fraction of what he taught. The church does this for good, practical reasons, but they fail to convey much insight as to who he really was, because they lack historical context.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Utter nonsense. The Church has a long established method for what we teach as doctrine, and the personal ruminations of any Prophet including JS just don't make it so. Further the life of JS, and times is well attested to particularly compared to other Biblical Prophets.

[KevinG]

Even if you only learned everything that Smith ever taught, you know almost nothing about his history. A person is not merely the sum of what he teaches. Besides, the LDS Church officially presents only a tiny fraction of what he taught. The church does this for good, practical reasons, but they fail to convey much insight as to who he really was, because they lack historical context.

This is why the Church sponsors book burnings of "Rough Stone Rolling".

[Calm]

While it is interesting to learn of others' lives, I don't see an inherent need to do so in any case save one and that is the man who we are commanded to follow as our teacher and example, Christ. To insist that extensive historical study be undertaken to 'get to know the real man' when it's not the man that is important but those of his teachings that will bring us to God seems to me to border on idolatry....even if such attention does not idealize the man.

This is not the Church of Joseph Smith, but the Church of Jesus Christ. Our attention and efforts should mirror that fact.

If someone is interested in such things and takes joy in such learning, then by all means he should study such....and the Church is making it quite easy for him to do so through the Joseph Smith Papers project and other projects of the Church History Dept. Personally I think it is a more effective use of my time to spend it learning to know those living who I can relate to now in a deeper and more meaningful way at this point of my life. I have already read a number of biographies and reports of Joseph Smith to feel comfortable enough about knowing what I need to know to place the doctrine he taught in the correct context, if I come across something that causes me to change my mind I will do so, but I don't think I or anyone else is obligated to constantly look for evidence that our current assessments are wrong, we only need to stay open to the fact that they may be.

Edited November 17, 2011 by calmoriah

[why me]

Even if you only learned everything that Smith ever taught, you know almost nothing about his history. A person is not merely the sum of what he teaches. Besides, the LDS Church officially presents only a tiny fraction of what he taught. The church does this for good, practical reasons, but they fail to convey much insight as to who he really was, because they lack historical context.

We actually know nothing about any of the apostles' history at the time of christ and after. We also know very little of Paul. But I am sure of one thing. Much of what they said is lost in the wind. We have no idea just what they said on a daily basis. Sad. But with JS we know much more. We can see him as a human being who suffered from human ailments. He was melancholic at times, angry at times, enjoyed wrestling, felt betrayed by his friends etc. We also have much that he said through a second hand source. We have no such ideas about the apostles and Paul. Could they have been so different from JS? They were also human.

[why me]

This is why the Church sponsors book burnings of "Rough Stone Rolling".

Good point.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70:

Utter nonsense. The Church has a long established method for what we teach as doctrine, and the personal ruminations of any Prophet including JS just don't make it so. Further the life of JS, and times is well attested to particularly compared to other Biblical Prophets.

I'm not talking about what the church teaches as doctrine. I'm talking about what the church teaches about what Joseph Smith taught. And again, I completely understand why the church does it that way, and agree with that reasoning. I'm just saying that if the only thing a Mormon knows about Joseph Smith is what she learns over the pulpit, she has a very distorted and idealized image of who Joseph Smith really was and what he actually taught.

[KevinG]

I'm just saying that if the only thing a Mormon knows about Joseph Smith is what she learns over the pulpit, she has a very distorted and idealized image of who Joseph Smith really was and what he actually taught.

Surely we could devote more of Sacrament meeting and Sunday school to stories of Joseph's polyandry and Money digging to help save our poor historically illiterate women from their ignorance.

Because we all know Mormon women just don't read books about history and that kind of stuff.

[Cobalt-70]

This is why the Church sponsors book burnings of "Rough Stone Rolling".

But you are not going to find a church manual that cites Bushman as an authority. Yes, Bushman's book is the first biography of the real Joseph Smith by an active Mormon (unless you count the one by Donna Hill, which was remarkably balanced for its time). And Mormons will get a good basic introduction to the real Joseph Smith by reading that book. My point is that more Mormons should be reading it. But for good reason, there will never come a day when you will see a Correlation-approved discussion of how Smith's telling of the First Vision changed over time, based on his reflections on its meaning. You'll never see a Correlation-approved discussion of whether or not Smith began to doubt himself in the last couple of days before his death, or how he reacted when he heard about the attempted assassination of Lilburn Boggs, or how he approved of Sidney Rigdon's July 4th [1838] Oration. These considerations are crucial to understanding who he was, but have no place at church.

[KevinG]

All sarcasm aside you do understand the difference between church published Sunday School materials and Deseret Book or University of ____ Press history books...

The Church is primarily in the business of teaching the Gospel and historical details are usually left to the introduction section of a manual or in special lessons on the lives of the Prophets. The vast bulk of church published manuals have more to do with what Joseph and other prophets taught not what the details of their lives were. Institute manuals for Church history classes not withstanding.

If individual members are ignorant of our history warts and all they are trying very hard to stay that way. I know these members too. They won't read anything that isn't faith promoting and don't want to hear how prophets are human (od testament or latter-days). Far from being the majority of the Saints they are a minority. You can easily identify them by their teenage children who depart from the church the moment they find out there really weren't Jaredite barges in Lake Michigan.