COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

You wrote: “[n]o Mormon need fall into the fundamentalist denial of evolution, because the Mormon God is not a creator” is delusional.

I thought Mormons believe that Heavenly Father (Elohim) organized matter rather than create it, and hence deny creatio ex nihilo.  So I’m very confused why you think Harold Bloom’s accurate characterization of your deity makes him delusional. 

Anyway, I can go on, but to attack Harold Bloom is ludicrous.  The man has more insight on your faith than you give him credit for.

Comment by Mark on 11/17/11 at 3:40 am

You also wrote: “Today’s LDS Church is no less authentic than that of Joseph Smith’s time, and it takes considerable chutzpah for a non-Mormon gnostic to assert otherwise.”

Oh Really? 

What about Polygamy?  Segregation of Blacks from the Priesthood? 

From a historical standpoint, it’s apparent that the LDS church has gone through substantial evolutionary change not just in its procedures and organization, but also an evolution in what religious doctrine is openly acknowledged and accepted.

Then again, if you don’t think having multiple wives is a big difference from monogamy, I can see how you could reason that the LDS church is the same as it was in the past.

Comment by Mak on 11/17/11 at 3:57 am

Bloom’s op-ed was rambling and non-sensical. He is apparently trying to retract his positive comments about Mormonism, in order to appease his liberal friends and the NYT and help with the media-wide re-elect Obama at all costs effort. I don’t see many religions still sacrificing animals, stoning women, or claiming women should stay silent in church and always keep their heads covered.I don’t see many religions still promoting slavery or forcibly segregating their congregations by race.If you don’t like Mitt Romney’s politics or personality or hair, fine, don’t vote for him. But don’t come up with ridiculous, pompous “reasons” why his religion should disqualify him.

Comment by Sam on 11/17/11 at 4:55 am

“I’d like to focus on Bloom’s statement that the 21st-century LDS Church “has little resemblance to its 19th-century precursor.” Let’s leave aside the fact the church is still led by prophets, apostles, stake presidents and bishops, or that we’re still building temples and sending out missionaries. Instead, let’s consider how closely modern rabbinic Judaism resembles the Judaism of the Hebrew Bible.”

What happened to the Lamanites? You know, the remnant of the house of Israel? How come the dedicatory prayer for the Bismark ND temple did not mention them? It serves a region with the third largest population of Native Americans in the US.

Comment by tapirrider on 11/17/11 at 5:06 am

Mark - nice try. In our belief system, God the Father organizes Jehovah, Michael, and others to create this earth. Is He not therefore a creator? If I own a construction company and organize work crews to build a home, am I not a builder? Or do I have to drive the nails and pour the concrete myself in order to be considered a builder? If it were not for God the Father, none of us would be here.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 11/17/11 at 8:26 am

As for your second point, you have misunderstood my assertion. I did not write that the modern church is identical to the church 160 years ago. What I said is that it continues to be authentically LDS - that is, guided by revelation through apostles and prophets. For us, this is not Joseph Smith’s church - it’s God’s church. The church doesn’t have to remain static in order to remain authentic. Thanks to everyone for writing—and reading.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 11/17/11 at 8:27 am

“For us, this is not Joseph Smith’s church - it’s God’s church.”

That may be a foundational LDS premise, but it is one held by virtually no one outside of the Mormon community.

Those who recognize Mr. Smith’s prophetic credentials presumably have joined his church; 98% of North America (for example) have not done so, and appear unlikely to do so.

Comment by RalKab on 11/17/11 at 9:44 am

RalKab - the same could be said of the Talmud, which 98% of Americans + many Jews do not regard as inspired scripture. I think the writer was right to question Bloom’s arrogant attempt to classify the contemporary LDS Church as just another Protestand church (which the Community of Christ has become) because it is not identical in every respect to Joseph Smith’s. Basically, Bloom is criticizing Mormons for a claim that we have never made.

Comment by John D. on 11/17/11 at 9:55 am

Dear Mr. Paredes:

In pointing out, even superficially, the obvious disconnect between the spiritual movement started, at least in part, by Joseph Smith and the monolithic LDS Church of today, Professor Bloom has gored perhaps Mormonism’s most sacred ox.  Is the best we, as Mormons, can do in response is engage in ad hominem attacks, make vague references to an “authenticity” that is not apparent to any objective outsider, and resort to the hackneyed (and absurd) defense that “religion is off limits”?

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 10:15 am

Mr. Dedalus (a Joyce fan, I presume?)- I’m sorry, but I don’t see any “obvious disconnect” between Joseph Smith’s movement and the LDS Church of today. I’ll bet that most Mormons agree with me. My reference to “authenticity” was not vague - we have apostles, prophets, and bishops guiding us today, we buld temples, etc. We have not mainstreamed as has the Community of Christ.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 11/17/11 at 10:29 am

I reject the notion that my attack was an ad hominem one—witness the comparisons to ancient Judaism and to the Jewish idea of the resurrection. The only sacred ox that has been gored here is the desire of some liberal writers (Maureen Dowd, Bloom) to cloak their dislike of Mitt’s conservative politics in an anti-Mormon screed. If you think that you can do a better job of refuting Bloom’s arguments, by all means send me your article.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 11/17/11 at 10:30 am

Dear Mr. Paredes:

I don’t think I can do a better job.  Professor Bloom’s point regarding Mormonism’s total departure from its roots is valid and, I think, incontrovertible.  I disagree that aspects of your argument is not ad hominem, but we can agree to disagree on that. 

Given the character limit, I will just cut to the chase.  You and I belong to an organization that has strongly advised its members that some aspects of the Church’s history, although true, are “not useful” and should be avoided.  Certain members, including D. Michael Quinn, have been excommunicated, at least in part, for disturbing those “useless” aspects of Church history.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 11:00 am

Professor Bloom is just shaking the same tree - pointing out that, at least from an outsider’s perspective, the Church has evolved from a simple frontier religion to a monolithic corporation that insists its members pay 10 percent of their annual income in order to participate in the most sacred rituals of their faith.  Over the course of that evolution, the Church has discarded key doctrines - polygamy, reservation of the priesthood from blacks, eternal progression (?) - that a cynic may view as simply having becoming inconvenient.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 11:01 am

To me, the defenses of “well, it’s the same priesthood authority” and “hey, buddy, no fair pointing out the apparent absurdities of my religion” are wholly insufficient to address Bloom’s point.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 11:02 am

A lot of jabbering back and forth about how the church is somehow different from the church Joseph Smith founded.

Duh… any country, any organization, any church, any person is different with age and time. Look to our own country, our constitution. Has it not changed? And why? But does it mean that the constitution was false? or bad? or invalid at it’s root?

Comment by Andrew on 11/17/11 at 11:50 am

A lot in advancement of human understanding has happened since our constitution, the founding of this country as well as the restoration of the Christ’s church through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Continued revelation ( the “rock” that Jesus spoke of in the New Testament) through “prophets” the means which God indicated revelation would be given to His children on Earth (Amos 3:7) is still the “rock” today. The foundation of the church in Joseph Smith time and today is Apostles and Prophets. If you look at the 13 Articles of Faith ( 13 precise statements of the foundational beliefs of the LDS church), nothing has changed. Mr Bloom and the rest are “straining at gnats” here.

Comment by Andrew on 11/17/11 at 11:52 am

Mr. Dedalus - Total departure from its roots? Hardly. I think you’re mistaking us for the Community of Christ.FYI, the LDS Church has discontinued, not renounced, polygamy. Also, denial of priesthood to blacks was not a doctrine, and eternal progression is very much taught today. Are you sure that you’re LDS? Final point: every religion has certain aspects that, when viewed from the outside, seem absurd. Bloom’s objective here is to discredit Mitt, but he attempts to do it by ridiculing his religion. It’s hard to see how people of goodwill from any religious background can support this.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 11/17/11 at 12:04 pm

The unique doctrines of Mormonism that Bloom credits to Joseph Smith’s genius are well intact in the LDS Church today. Polygamy and the status of blacks in the church are convenient hot button topics for today’s culture (Try to find one negative article on Mormon’s view of blacks prior to 1970), but are not critical doctrinal points.  The doctrines that are unique are things like eternal progression, the afterlife (spirit prison and paradise), degrees of glory in the resurrection, the purpose of temples.  All of these concepts are tightly coupled with Smith’s interpretation of the Bible.  This is why Bloom was enamored w/ Mormonism. And all of these things are part of LDS doctrine today.

Comment by Brian on 11/17/11 at 12:37 pm

Dear Mr. Paredes:

I’m not mistaking us for anyone.  I am quite sure that I am LDS, from Utah, married in the temple and hold two degrees from Brigham Young University.

I agree with you that, officially, the LDS Church has merely discontinued polygamy.  That said, I think you would be hard pressed today to find a General Authority taking a firm and official position that polygamy is still necessary for entry into the Celestial Kingdom.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 12:43 pm

I disagree that withholding priesthood from blacks was not a doctrine.  The Official Declaration-2 expressly recognizes that the priesthood was officially withheld.  How is that not doctrinal?

I think I agree with you that eternal progression is still doctrinal - I think it’s essential to Mormonism.  But certainly there have been attempts by Church leaders, including Presidant Hinckley (notably in 1997) to downplay the doctrine to the media.  Isn’t that the very kind of overture to mainstream Protestantism that Professor Bloom is referencing?

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 12:49 pm

As for there being no criticism of the LDS position on blacks and the priesthood prior to 1970, I’ll just reference the “Black 14” incident of October, 1969.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 12:52 pm

Ok,  1969 then.  The point is, prior to the civil rights movement, no mainstream American (left or right) had any issue with the policy, or any other segregated policy of America.  There were simply black churches and white churches, and the LDS Church was largely a white church (although it had some black members and many Pacific islanders).

Comment by Brian on 11/17/11 at 1:06 pm

Sir, that is just patently false.  Plessy v. Ferguson was contested in 1896.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 1:14 pm

I’d agree with most of what Mr. Dedalus states re: LDS hierarchy de-emphasizing certain aspects of its history. Some of these episodes (blacks & priesthood, ceasing polygamy, temple ordinances) are so great as to warrant a charge of altering fundamental LDS theology for political expediency.

Even if those charges are accurate, Bloom was still aware of them when he wrote his material praising Smith and the Mormons. So what changed? Is the LDS church more corporate/dominionist/threatening now than it was in the 90’s when Bloom published? What happened in the last 20 years that made Bloom change his mind?

Comment by Reese on 11/17/11 at 1:34 pm

Reese, I think the answer is obvious: a Republican Mormon now has a chance to be president. This is a political attack by Bloom, pure and simple.

Comment by Sarah on 11/17/11 at 2:58 pm

Plessy v.Ferguson may have been contested in 1896, but it was upheld until 1954.

Comment by Brian on 11/17/11 at 3:42 pm

If Mitt were Jewish and someone said Jewish people can’t be president, I wonder how many people here would be highly offended.

Changes in Mormon practices?

Jews: Unless they are sacrificing lambs, oxes, and such and you tell me Israel has a prophet giving council on Palestinian issues, you are nothing like the Jews of your own Bible.

Christians: who gave you the right to stop the perpetual covenant of circumcision made with Abraham and baptize Gentiles? The Man who was circumcised and only preached to Jews? Statues of saints? Come on!

Jewish and so called Christians are as much Mormons as Mitt Romney as far as religions that change drastically from the original.

Shame on you!

Comment by Eduardo on 11/17/11 at 3:52 pm

As for him saying wonderful things about Mormonism 20 years ago and being stupid to this point now I just have one thing to say: Mr. Bloom cannot point his finger at Mitt Romney on flip-flopping. Thank Goodness!!!!

Comment by Eduardo on 11/17/11 at 3:56 pm

Brian,

Your representation was that no “mainstream” American had any issue with American segregation until the Civil Rights movement.  That’s simply false.  As demonstrated by Plessy, segregation was being challenged, albeit unsuccessfully, half a century before the Civil Rights movement gained momentum.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 4:51 pm

Finally, anyone who thinks Bloom has suddenly turned on Mormonism either has not been paying attention to what he has been saying for years or is being disingenuous.  Bloom has been interested in and enthusiastic about Joseph Smith and the early Mormon Church for years.  He has repeatedly called Smith a religious genius and does so again in the NYT piece.  As to today’s LDS Church, however, Bloom has consistently been critical of its centralized and corporate nature.

Comment by Mr. Dedalus on 11/17/11 at 4:55 pm

Mr. Dadalus. Plessy was defeated almost unanimously.  That is mainstream.  Segregation was a mainstream practice.  It certainly was not unique to Mormonism.

As for deemphasizing certain doctrines.  That’s simply not true.  Eternal Progression is still taught the same way it always has been.  Certainly not with the same gusto of BY, but it’s there.  In fact, the concept of “Heavenly Parents” (i.e. Heavenly Mother) has been more prominent as of late.

Comment by Brian on 11/17/11 at 5:38 pm

As for the corporate nature of Mormonism, how exactly is that different than at Smith’s time?  Smith established settlements and they included schools, businesses, and Smith even tried to establish a bank (which failed miserably).  So, the Mormons when they got to Utah, were resourceful and successful, and moved from a frontier business structure to a modern corporate structure.  Yet, churches are still set up with branches, wards and stakes and run largely at the local level albeit with centralized oversight.  None of that changes doctrine, only practice.

Comment by Brian on 11/17/11 at 5:42 pm

I would think that if Bloom were critical of the corporate “greed” aspects of Mormonism he would be happy with some of the recent changes in financing, like temple and chapel budgets coming from the central authority rather than from local congregants, and a flat cost for missionary funds regardless of cost of living expenses.  These changes essentially make all members equal in terms of financial support regardless of the wealth or poverty of a region or individual.  (This does not even take into account the welfare and education programs of the church)

Comment by Brian on 11/17/11 at 5:53 pm

What the heck is anyone doing trying to find out about the religious beliefs of prospective candidates? You do not do this with your doctor, do you?  The doctor is so much more important to you personally, but all you care about are her or his skills.  The same should be true of our discussion of Presidents.  In any case, being Governor of Massachusetts is enough to establish Mr. Romney as not being a religious nut case.

Comment by A bit bemused on 11/17/11 at 6:37 pm

Actually a full read of Harold Bloom’s early book on American religion would reveal that this article is not breaking new ground.  He was then angry at Mormons for being heavily conservative in politics, and for some of them having worked for the FBI and such. 

Additionally some of Bloom’s claims in this piece could not have been made by someone who had read the Book of Mormon, but despite being a literary criqtique trying to understand Joseph Smith, he admits he has never done such.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 8:50 pm

My last comment did not really do the subject justice.  Here is a link to Alan Goff’s http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=5&num=1&id=114 review of Bloom’s book from many years ago.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 8:57 pm

John D,
  Bloom’s claim in the article seemed more extrme than that the LDS Church is just another protestant Church.  He seemed to be saying this occured at some point since 1988 or so.  That is a claim that is intriguing.  What has the Church done since than that makes it just another protestant Church.  If anything accelerated temple building by the Church since then has made it more distictive.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 9:27 pm

Although it is true that President Hinckley did not mention Lamanites or Children of Lehi in the dedicatory prayer in North Dakota, he did a year earlier at Monticello.  Here are the links http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/bismarck/prayer/ 
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/monticello/prayer/

Monticello Temple is in a county with a Native American majority population, and at the time was the closest temple for most of the Navajo Reservation as well.  On the other hand in North Dakota Native Americans constitute 6% of the population, and under 10% in South Dakota. 

What next is someone going to complain about a lack of mention of Jews in the Manhattan Temple dedication?

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 9:35 pm

The reasons for Quinn’s excomunication have not been made public.  They may well have primarily related to sexual issues.

Quinn has misrepresented the past by ignoring that words have meaning changes. 

However his excommunication also shows one more thing.  The Church has a set of core beliefs and will excommunicate those who seek to undermine those core beliefs.  Excomunnication is a way the Church maintains its doctrinal integrity.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 9:42 pm

The issue of blacks being ordained to the priesthood was never a “key doctrine”.  The failure to do so always stood against the revelations that every man would hear the gospel in his own tongue and for his own people.  Beyond this, Joseph Smith did ordain black men to the priesthood, so this is not a case of moving away from Joseph’s teachings.

Tithing was in the 19th century the only requirement of temple attendance.  The tithing rules are by no means new.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 9:49 pm

The issue in Plessy was government mandated segregation, which is far different than wilfull seperation of Churches or segration of Church services.

As I said before Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood.

Joseph Smith as mayor, lietenant general of a militia, and planner of the city of Zion plat, may not fit Bloom’s idea of him.  Bloom focuses on the ideas of Joseph Smith, with less focus on how they were implmented.

It is true that those surprised by Bloom’s venon generally have not read his work, but this is a result of being exposed only to his quotes on Joseph Smith, and I would avoid calling anyone disengenous.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 9:57 pm

A reading of the Gospel Principals manual, the basic manual of the Church, will reveal that it has not discarded the doctrine of eternal progression.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 10:01 pm

No one ever taught that polygamy was neccesary to enter the celestial kingdom.  There was some strong rhetoric on the subject, but it needs to be read in light of federal attempts to deny Mormons the vote, to send Mormons to prison and the like.

The “politcal pressures” connected with the end of polygamy was prison terms for “unlawful cohabitation”, that is every instance of living in plural marriage, along with the Supreme Court upholding an Idaho resolution that denied all Mormons theright to vote, just because they were Mormons and the Church taught in favor of polygamy.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/17/11 at 10:07 pm

This piece is a precise dissection and accurate discernment of what Dr. Bloom has written and is of the highest quality, and I appreciate the effort it must have taken to accomplish that.
Regarding Bloom’s idea that empiricism requires the rejection of revelation because revelation is supernatural indicates Bloom does not believe the Bible, as the only way Moses, Paul, or any other to whom God revealed himself could reject what he saw, was to reject empiricism.

Comment by John Zimmerman on 11/18/11 at 12:14 am

Regarding the Mormons being covenant Israel and having the presiding high priest, since this is a Jewish site, I will add that we also recognize the Jews as His covenant people – in 1879 President Wilford Woodruff, who became the fourth President of the Church, said to the Jews: “You are the royal chosen seed, and the God of your father’s house has kept you distinct as a nation for eighteen hundred years, under all the oppression of the whole Gentile world.” While the Jews as a whole do not accept the Mormon high priest, we need not make too much of that as they have a royal high Priest in heaven who has not forgotten His people.

Comment by john Zimmerman on 11/18/11 at 12:16 am

When everyone gets through checking into each candidates will they also please give us a list on the depth of each ones belief?

I know that Mitt Romney is a true believer and a humble man, but can others be so sure of what each candidate believes about his own professed religion?  Nominal, for the sake of the little women,born into and socially important, or heartfelt and practiced for spiritual uplift and guidance?

What, a religion practiced for uplift and spiritual guidance?  That ought to scare secular America.  The are used to following Mammon - the norm of the baby boomers and forward.

Comment by lillith on 11/18/11 at 12:51 am

Professor Bloom may not have gotten it right, and I believe he didn’t, but to call him incompetent and anti-Mormon is abit harsh. Though his analysis may have missed the mark he definitely gave me food for thought.

Comment by Jim on 11/18/11 at 8:36 am

Why not apply the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article Six: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Second Amendment states: ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

Comment by Larry Linn on 11/18/11 at 5:18 pm

There is the law, and the ideal.  And then there is actual practice.  Mitt can’t be disqualified for his religion but bigoted people can vote however their fear leads them. Churches are by law are to lose their tax exempt status if they mix politics and theology in their churches but who ever checks?  The democrats speak in the black churches in the south every campaign.

Laws? Laws and cheaters? Wink, wink?

Comment by lillith on 11/18/11 at 9:43 pm

Blooms claim about Mormon Church use of the term genetile is both wrong and misleading.  The term “gentile” has not been used as a term meaning someone not a Mormon in general conference, a centralized preahing meeting of the Church, since 1981.  There is was in an old story, and almost centrainly did not include any Jews.  Before that you have to go back to 1944, and there the use involves the phrasing “Mormon, Jew, Gentile”.

On the other hand in colonial New Mexico gentile was consistently used as a term for Pueblos and Apaches who had not been baptized Catholic, so Bloom is unnescearily trying to pin use of a term on Mormons that has been used by many groups other than Jews.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/18/11 at 9:58 pm

Bloom is correct, of course, in ascribing religious genius to Joseph Smith in the invention of his Mormonism. It’s always been a puzzle to me why the Mormons would consider this a positive statement worth quoting in their own behalf. In any case, I put Smith in the first ranks of religious genius, in the company of Paul and Muhammad.

Comment by Shelama on 11/19/11 at 2:46 am

@Shelama - Mormons see it as a positive because it affirms his prophetic calling. To them, Smith genius is a misinterpretation of him being tutored by God and angels as to how the Gospel works, and because it mirrors Biblical verse is simply a side effect of truth coming from the fountain head of God.  He didn’t interpret the Bible.  God told Smith the correct interpretation and expanded upon it through Smith.

Comment by Brian on 11/19/11 at 10:47 am

RE: “For the record, Latter-day Saints and other Christians don’t deny death, but affirm a belief in an afterlife.”

Mr. Paredes, if you believe in an afterlife, then you are denying death. The essential function of this notion is to allay fears of our mortality with the belief that an eternal life awaits us beyond the grave.

Comment by John on 11/20/11 at 6:11 pm

I’m not sure how someone trotting out D. Michael Quinn can even pretend to have a valid argument.

Comment by Veronica on 11/30/11 at 3:56 pm

A careful reading of Bloom’s 1992 book “The American Religion”, written in 1991, especially pages 91 and following to the end of the chapter, will show that Bloom’s outlook was formed well before the current campaign season. Quoting:

“Only the question of the Kingdom seems to me a potential vexation for most other Americans, and even that will not be an overwhelming problem for another third of a century or so. Yet the problem will come, and it will be very real. On that basis, I will devote the remainder of this chapter to the Mormon vision of the Kingdom of God.”

Comment by Desi Erasmus on 12/28/11 at 7:21 pm

“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. Much of the Tea Party fervor merely repeats this gladsome frolic.”’

Except for the Tea Party reference, the substance of this quote is found in the 1991 book from which you ‘used to’ quote. Read more carefully.

Comment by Desi Erasmus on 12/28/11 at 7:43 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories