I think Harold Bloom reads my posts

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

basically Bloom is saying that the teachings of Smith were revolutionary, so much so, that we are a religion apart.

But the current trend is to try and minimize our differences and hope for mainstream acceptance. I HATE this.

So it comes down to whether you think Smith was revolutionary or not.

Shouldn't the aim of theology be to systematize what's revealed in canonical works? I'd be troubled if theology was tailored to proselyting and not vice versa.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Sure, and The Angel and Beehive: THE MORMON STRUGGLE WITH ASSIMILATION by Armand L. Mauss makes a similar argument from a sociological perspective as compared to White's theological perspective. Still, I think Bloom's framing of the issue is pretty good and different than White or Mauss.

What are some non-theological ways we're trying to mainstream ourselves? White is a socioliogist by training, and his argument is pretty much a application of Stark & Finke's Churching of America, who are sociologists themselves.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

What are some non-theological ways we're trying to mainstream ourselves? White is a socioliogist by training, and his argument is pretty much a application of Stark & Finke's Churching of America, who are sociologists themselves.

My apologies. You're right, I was sloppy in marking the differences. White does suggest that the shift toward neo-orthodox theology arose from the crisis of secularization. Which is very much a sociological explanation for his hypothesized shift in theology. I was referring to theology as his basic unit of analysis. The bulk of the book defines protestant neo-orthodox, traditional Mormon, and neo-orthodox Mormon theology and then lays out his case for a shift.

Mauss' hypothesis is a bit different, but clearly similar. He hypothesizes periods of assimilation and retrenchment (I think it is probaby fair to view retrenchment as the response to the crisis of assimilating too well into American society). He doesn't really try to use theological changes as evidence for assimilation and retrenchment. Although, unsurprisingly theology is in the background of a lot of his analysis. Mauss also sees more retrenchment than I think Mike does in his original post. Thus, Mauss uses things like the development of and emphasis on the church education system and the missionary program as evidence of retrenchment from an institutional perspective. He also points to a renewed emphasis on genealogy and temple work as evidence of retrenchment. Where he veers pretty sharply into White is he believes that retrenchment led to a shift towards a more fundamentalist posture or disposition (in the general and not the polygamist sense). So, I probably shouldn't have described Mauss' book as more sociological. It's broader in terms of its coverage, focuses more on institutional changes, uses more quantitative data, etc.

[SeattleUte]

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm neither a Sunstoneophile or FARMSophile. I have little interest in or desire to tackle Nibleyesque arcana. But I'm going to try to decipher the Bloomspeak in this to a large extent incomprehensible (I submit) essay to see if I can get at (for what it's worth) what Bloom really thinks about Joseph Smith.

Clearly Bloom revels in the arc and drama of Joseph's life as a self-styled American frontier prophet, and understandably so (I'm going to try to limit my own editorial input in this post). Joseph re-enacted the Exodus, on the American frontier! And his life ended fittingly in martyrdom, at the hand of the Illinois militia. Joseph and his followers certainly drew inspiration from the story of the Exodus. And Joseph wound up a conflation of Peter and Moses. Waters has alluded to the covert conspiracy between a martyr and his eventual martyrers. The story is certainly amazing, and understandably alluring to a lover of religious history who has designated himself as the (as Bloom has) ultimate interpreter of American culture. In his own right Joseph certainly was every bit as much a "prophet" as was Muhammad (and Bloom clearly appreciates the parallel, as did Joseph, who compared himself to Muhammad). But Joseph is an American; he is our prophet. And the competition is weak.

Joseph's character flaws (to an outside observer) of being a serial adulterer, irresponsible with his own and other people's money, ambitious, prideful, and a sometimes suppressor of speech actually seem to add to Bloom's estimation of him. He revels in the mystery and complexity of the Prophet, including his statment, "No Man Knows My History."

Bloom has written previously about the fateful turn that Christianity took with Paul, who imported Greek philosophy into Christianity, and set about making it saleable to the Greeks and the Romans. Bloom embraces the common notion that Paul is the true father of mainstream Christianity. Paul's Christianity left behind the ascetic, rural Christianity of James the Just, which was hostile to Paul's religion. The latter did not meekly die off, however. It begat various permutations of Christianity, most of them "heresies" such as Arianism, Gnosticism and Pelagianism that eventually failed after a valiant fight, but one in particular that was spectacularly successful, Islam.

Clearly Bloom favors the rural, ascetic, stripped down permutation of "Christianity," James the Just's Christianity,which he rightly does not consider to be Christianity, as the world knows it, at all. In fact, Bloom's most recent book assailed traditional, mainstream Christianity as being positively alien to him and having nothing in common with Judaism. In fact, it is the traditional version of Christianity that has the blood of countless Jews (Bloom is a Jew) on its hands. Bloom is in this sense an unapologetic anti-Christian. Clearly Bloom appreciates Joseph Smith's hostility to Paul's Christianity, Mormonism's subversive origins apart from the traditional Christian tree, of which Mormonism has been intensely self-conscious, and Mormonism's eschewing of traditional Christian symbolism--the cross, the saints, the pastoral image of Christ, ostentatious references to the blood of Christ and other evangelical flourishes, etc.

Clearly Bloom does not think much of Joseph's writing. He has called the Book of Mormon "prosaic." He has little or nothing much ever to say about the Book of Mormon, and the parts of Joseph's theology about which he marvels (more on this below) are not to be found in the Book of Mormon (correct me if I'm wrong). In this essay he calls Joseph "sincere," and says that all bad poets are sincere. Read: Joseph is a prophet seer and revelator, but his literature disappoints. He is a bad poet. I have seen no evidence that Bloom believes Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates. I don't think Bloom sees the world in that vein at all. If I have missed something, please direct me. I could repeat all of the foregoing comments with respect to the Book of Abraham. Bloom has not much if anything to say about it, and if pressed, would probably consider it as unflattering to Joseph's legacy. He has called the D&C essentially a crude relative of the Koran.

Now, apart from Joseph's marvelous personal history, and the subversive nature of Joseph's religion that mirrors similar subversions of Paul's Christianity through the ages (generally cropping up on the frontiers of great civilizations fused with Paul's Christianity), what is it that leads Bloom to lionize Joseph, to call him "prophet, seer and revelator" (note his usage of these terms differs from your average Mormon's; he refers to some titanic Old Testament prophets as likely lunatics)? The crux of it appears in his statements that "[r]esearchers doubtless will continue to find occult, Hermetist, Kabbalist sources for Joseph Smith, yet I suspect he made or remade all arcane speculations for himself," and "he was a Sufi who doubtless knew nothing about Sufism." Bloom has also associated Joseph with Gnosticism.

It's impressive that Bloom says such dramatic things about Joseph. But what the Hades does it all mean? What is he talking about? Does anybody here really know? Where do these observations come from? Seemingly he is talking about Joseph's statements that God was once a human, there were gods before God, and all humans can become gods too. Is that it? If so, what's the big deal? Did Joseph really have to be a mind reader to come up with that? Come on. What am I missing?

[MikeWaters]

Trying reading "The American Religion" instead of just reading the reviews.

[SeattleUte]

Come on, Waters. I've called B.S. on "Mormon intellectuals" who like to drop Harold Bloom's name. Somebody show me this subject deserves even two pages. I submit it doesn't.

I wonder if Bloom's "Mormon intellectual" friends that he references have donated to Bloom's department at Yale.

I bet I've read more Harold Bloom than Waters, and have more of his books on my shelf than does Waters.

[MikeWaters]

I bet I have read "the American Religion" twice and that you haven't read it at all.

I'm saying if you are interested in learnign more about what Bloom thinks of Joseph Smith, read his book.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I bet I have read "the American Religion" twice and that you haven't read it at all.

I'm saying if you are interested in learnign more about what Bloom thinks of Joseph Smith, read his book.

I think I'm already inside Bloom's head on this issue. I can read his mind. Am I wrong?

I told you I have read parts of American religion.

[creekster]

No, no, you're wrong. MY ego is MUCH larger than yours!

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

No, no, you're wrong. MY ego is MUCH larger than yours!

Does Harold Bloom your posts?