Harold Bloom: An anti-Mormon?

[_Blixa]

Hey, my pleasure, Blixa. I find that there are many, many parallels between Borges and Mormonism. For example, does Borges's "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" remind you of, say, Book of Mormon geography?

Stop it! You're killing me!

And I've got work to do...but...I should dig up my reading of that Givens preface because, while problematic in its own right, it takes a far different approach to secular scholars treatment of the Book of Mormon and would make an interesting comparison...maybe I'll try to find it...

Oh I just remembered something of tangential interest connected to Bloom's apparent endorsement of reading summaries over the actual text of the Book of Mormon: Sir Richard F. Burton has an appendix in The City of the Saints that consists of "chapter summaries" of the Book of Mormon. I have to say they were a sheer pleasure to read.

[_Ray A]

We should admire Bloom's frequently insightful comments on Mormonism. We can be grateful that others have noted the achievements of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. We can also say that Bloom hasn't gone far enough. Bloom fails in reading the Book of Mormon; although he prides himself on being a revisionist, he is a tragically conventional reader when reading the central text of Mormonism. Bloom should go further, should accept the extraliterary concerns he has rejected, or accept that they might exist even if they are beyond the range of his experience, or accept that they might be enabling devices for strong readers and their absence disabling devices for weak readers. Bloom is hypnotized by gnosis—knowledge—and doesn't notice that the Latter-day Saints haven't gone about to build gnosis, but to build a house: of prayer, of fasting, of faith, of learning, of glory, of order—a house of God. Bloom thinks that because he is a gnostic, everyone else must be also. The house Joseph began and the one we Latter-day Saints should be continuing construction on isn't simply a house of learning (although it is certainly that), but a more complete house than the one sparkling in the evening light with the breaking of the ground vessels.

Bloom is no anti-Mormon, and I didn't see anywhere in the review that Alan Goff directly suggested this (unless I'm mistaken), but one could certainly read that into his commentary. As Kevin noted earlier, at least Bloom has done something that most others won't do - take the Book of Mormon seriously - even if he thinks it's "tendentious".

But this is a sad fact we all have to face up to: Anyone who rejects the Book of Mormon as "literal history", is an "anti-Mormon". We must choose, and there's "no middle ground". No wonder RFM is flourishing.

It's sort of like the car salesman who says, "you can't buy parts of the car, you have to buy the whole car".

I remain in the Joseph Campbell camp. I don't think the Book of Mormon is a fraud, any more than I think Santa Claus is a fraud. Unless you take it all literally.

Perhaps most will not understand this, but you have to be a literal believer to be truly disappointed. Once I got rid of that literal belief, disappointment was beyond me.

[_Mister Scratch]

You know, in the end, there are two things which really stick with me about Goff's review. One is his weird hang-up over Bloom's mention of the more conspiratorial aspects of Mormonism. Let's face facts here: there is a great deal of secrecy in Mormonism, whether we're talking about Church finances, or F Vault, or the temple, or whatever else. This kind of secrecy naturally raises suspicion. So, why is Goff getting so bent out of shape over this?

The second thing is Goff's weird defense of the Bible/Book of Mormon parallelisms. Honestly, this takes up nearly a third of the whole article. It raises the question: was this actually meant to be a "book review", or was it merely an exercise in apologetics? The FARMS writer's guidelines, after all, are pretty emphatic about staying on topic. I guess we are meant to understand, in the end, that FARMS is trying to dissuade readers from reading Bloom's book?

[_Mister Scratch]

We should admire Bloom's frequently insightful comments on Mormonism. We can be grateful that others have noted the achievements of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. We can also say that Bloom hasn't gone far enough. Bloom fails in reading the Book of Mormon; although he prides himself on being a revisionist, he is a tragically conventional reader when reading the central text of Mormonism. Bloom should go further, should accept the extraliterary concerns he has rejected, or accept that they might exist even if they are beyond the range of his experience, or accept that they might be enabling devices for strong readers and their absence disabling devices for weak readers. Bloom is hypnotized by gnosis—knowledge—and doesn't notice that the Latter-day Saints haven't gone about to build gnosis, but to build a house: of prayer, of fasting, of faith, of learning, of glory, of order—a house of God. Bloom thinks that because he is a gnostic, everyone else must be also. The house Joseph began and the one we Latter-day Saints should be continuing construction on isn't simply a house of learning (although it is certainly that), but a more complete house than the one sparkling in the evening light with the breaking of the ground vessels.

Bloom is no anti-Mormon, and I didn't see anywhere in the review that Alan Goff directly suggested this (unless I'm mistaken), but one could certainly read that into his commentary. As Kevin noted earlier, at least Bloom has done something that most others won't do - take the Book of Mormon seriously - even if he thinks it's "tendentious".

But this is a sad fact we all have to face up to: Anyone who rejects the Book of Mormon as "literal history", is an "anti-Mormon". We must choose, and there's "no middle ground". No wonder RFM is flourishing.

Yes, you're quite right, Ray. Most interesting is this:

Bloom should go further, should accept the extraliterary concerns he has rejected, or accept that they might exist even if they are beyond the range of his experience, or accept that they might be enabling devices for strong readers and their absence disabling devices for weak readers.

It is the usual tendentious elitism and clannishness that one finds in Mopologetic arguments: the only way you will ever "get it" is if you have a testimony, and if you submit fully to the doctrine and demands of the LDS Church. It does not matter how smart you are, nor how many degrees you have, nor how influential your scholarship is. You simply have to pay your tithing, hold a TR, and live the word of wisdom. *That* is what will make you a "strong reader!"

Ironically, FARMS consistently disses people who clearly fit the criteria for Goff's "strong reader." (And by the way: Goff is completely warping Bloom's definitions. It seems as if Goff is completely unaware of the basic thesis of Bloom's most important work of literary theory: The Anxiety of Influence.)

Perhaps most will not understand this, but you have to be a literal believer to be truly disappointed. Once I got rid of that literal belief, disappointment was beyond me.

Ray:

Do you get the impression that FARMS is looking to attack or disable "literal belief" in some way? Or, at least in the way that it has been traditionally understood within Mormonism?

[_Ray A]

It raises the question: was this actually meant to be a "book review", or was it merely an exercise in apologetics?

The latter, obviously.

The FARMS writer's guidelines, after all, are pretty emphatic about staying on topic. I guess we are meant to understand, in the end, that FARMS is trying to dissuade readers from reading Bloom's book?

It didn't stop me. You have to bear in mind, too, that Bloom was quoted by a General Authority in General Conference, because this GA hadn't read the "fine details". That is what Goff was trying to point out, that beyond Bloom's apparent praise of Mormons, lay an insidious doubt about the authenticity of the whole thing.

[_Mister Scratch]

[

The FARMS writer's guidelines, after all, are pretty emphatic about staying on topic. I guess we are meant to understand, in the end, that FARMS is trying to dissuade readers from reading Bloom's book?

It didn't stop me. You have to bear in mind, too, that Bloom was quoted by a General Authority in General Conference, because this GA hadn't read the "fine details". That is what Goff was trying to point out, that beyond Bloom's apparent praise of Mormons, lay an insidious doubt about the authenticity of the whole thing.

Right, and thus an attempt to dissuade readers, yes? And I think you're right to say, "It didn't stop me." This is a basic problem that the Church has never been able to solve: How to prevent the membership from encountering "anti" material? Sure, the apologists would like to deny that the Church does this, but that is complete rubbish, of course.

[_Ray A]

Ray:

Do you get the impression that FARMS is looking to attack or disable "literal belief" in some way? Or, at least in the way that it has been traditionally understood within Mormonism?

FARMS is doing what all "apologetic scholars" have done for the last two centuries -trying to bring belief into harmony with science. Joseph Smith did it to some extent in Helaman, when he tried to "explain" that the sun didn't actually "stand still", but "the earth moveth backwards", so that it "appears" that the sun stands still. This is, perhaps, the earliest scriptural attempt at giving a "rational explanation" for Joshua's account.

There is no question that FARMS is trying to dismantle "literal belief", and bring belief into a "more rational sphere". They are, perhaps, the only recourse left for people who can't believe that men "can live in the sun", as Paul Osborne does.

Meldrum will be addressed, sooner or later, because what he believes doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, so it's a case of only the scholars can save Mormonism, because the Prophets have failed. All of their "inspiration" didn't match the "facts".

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wow. I learn the most interesting things here! It had never before entered my mind that Harold Bloom is or might be an anti-Mormon.

But I'd better get down to business:

The following is a standard response:

Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. A particular focus of his hatred is the FARMS Review, which I founded and edit.

The FARMS Review has been appearing, now, for very nearly twenty years. The entirety of every issue of the Review is available on line, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Anyone interested in inspecting the FARMS Review for himself or herself, without Scartch’s defamatory spin, without Scartch’s hostile selection and editing, without looking through the distorting Scartchian lens, is entirely welcome to do so.

I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time -- especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

[_Ray A]

Right, and thus an attempt to dissuade readers, yes? And I think you're right to say, "It didn't stop me." This is a basic problem that the Church has never been able to solve: How to prevent the membership from encountering "anti" material? Sure, the apologists would like to deny that the Church does this, but that is complete rubbish, of course.

Perhaps that explains why I'm no longer a practising Mormon. I very much empathise with Mormon ideals, but the question remains, for me, how much of our intellect, resoning and logic do we have to "sell" to obtain this?

The Church doesn't want members doubting. Simple as that. And FARMS is there to help "protect" from those doubts.

In my case - it failed.

I still have much thinking to do about this. I've supported Mormons because they are such "good people", but I'm really wondering if the price of "goodness" is worth so much of the bigotry I see. And that includes the recent email I received from my long-time Mormon friend. She basically said she didn't know what she "really thought" about the issues surrounding gay marriage, but felt a deep desire to "follow the leaders". She really hadn't thought this out, but automatically thought that her leaders could not be wrong. I find that type of thinking kind of, scary.

[_Mister Scratch]

There is no question that FARMS is trying to dismantle "literal belief", and bring belief into a "more rational sphere". They are, perhaps, the only recourse left for people who can't believe that men "can live in the sun", as Paul Osborne does.

And yet, Ray, don't you feel that apologists would object to the suggestion that they are "dismantling belief"? (And let's face it: "dismantling belief" is a synonym for "destroying faith.")