Harold Bloom: An anti-Mormon?

[_Ray A]

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.")

Yes, they would, because they feel that they are bringing members into a "truer faith", one based on "facts". But in the end it's difficult to reconcile (for the average member) what the prophets taught, and what the facts are. They wonder why the Prophets got it wrong, and why they have to be corrected by scholars (hence Meldrum's immense popularity). And the scholars don't necessarily have it right, either, not judging by what, for example, all the experts on Mesoamerica have said.

It could well be, in my opinion, a case of the blind leading the blind. So the questioning member asks: Who do I believe? The Prophets, or FARMS?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.")

Yes, they would, because they feel that they are bringing members into a "truer faith", one based on "facts". But in the end it's difficult to reconcile (for the average member) what the prophets taught, and what the facts are. They wonder why the Prophets got it wrong, and why they have to be corrected by scholars (hence Meldrum's immense popularity). And the scholars don't necessarily have it right, either, not judging by what, for example, all the experts on Mesoamerica have said.

It could well be, in my opinion, a case of the blind leading the blind. So the questioning member asks: Who do I believe? The Prophets, or FARMS?

With all that in mind, Ray, I am curious about your opinion on the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Do you think that the apologists, in effect, "ordered" or "persuaded" Michael Watson to reject his Chapel Mormon views?

[_Daniel Peterson]

With all that in mind, Ray, I am curious about your opinion on the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Do you think that the apologists, in effect, "ordered" or "persuaded" Michael Watson to reject his Chapel Mormon views?

Put on your tinfoil hat, Scartch. And don't let the aliens or the people in the black helicopters get you.

[_Mister Scratch]

With all that in mind, Ray, I am curious about your opinion on the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Do you think that the apologists, in effect, "ordered" or "persuaded" Michael Watson to reject his Chapel Mormon views?

Put on your tinfoil hat, Scartch. And don't let the aliens or the people in the black helicopters get you.

Then why did Watson revise his statement? You have never provided an adequate explanation for this.

[_Ray A]

With all that in mind, Ray, I am curious about your opinion on the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Do you think that the apologists, in effect, "ordered" or "persuaded" Michael Watson to reject his Chapel Mormon views?

I still have question marks over this letter. What is not in doubt is that since the late 1980s the Church has felt a strong reliance on FARMS, I believe, to the extent that they would be willing to trust what FARMS says, because it's "loyal to the Church", and they depend on "reliable scholarship". I don't believe anyone "ordered" Watson or the FP to reject their "chapel Mormon views", but I do believe that since the late 1980s FARMS has wielded considerable influence on the Church leaders. Theoretically, in my mind, Watson and the FP may well have been prepared to reconsider their views about Book of Mormon geography at the "say-so" of FARMS. Their level of trust in FARMS had ascended great heights, because they knew that come hell or high water, FARMS would never betray them. I wouldn't call this "ordering", but an agreement that they were both interested in "specific outcomes".

Edit: late 1990s to late 1980s.

[_Mister Scratch]

With all that in mind, Ray, I am curious about your opinion on the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Do you think that the apologists, in effect, "ordered" or "persuaded" Michael Watson to reject his Chapel Mormon views?

I still have question marks over this letter. What is not in doubt is that since the late 1980s the Church has felt a strong reliance on FARMS, I believe, to the extent that they would be willing to trust what FARMS says, because it's "loyal to the Church", and they depend on "reliable scholarship".

Huh. That's very interesting. DCP and other apologists have always denied up and down that the Church has anything "official" to do with apologetics, but do you really believe that to be true, Ray? Would it perhaps be more accurate to assert the reverse---i.e., that apologetics "officially" has something to do with the Church?

[_Ray A]

Huh. That's very interesting. DCP and other apologists have always denied up and down that the Church has anything "official" to do with apologetics, but do you really believe that to be true, Ray? Would it perhaps be more accurate to assert the reverse---i.e., that apologetics "officially" has something to do with the Church?

Scratch, I refer you to the Maxwell Institute Mission Statement:

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to:

* Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship
* Provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world
* Build bridges of understanding and goodwill to Muslim scholars by providing superior editions of primary texts
* Provide an anchor of faith in a sea of LDS Studies

Does the Journal of Biblical Archaeology have a "mission statement" which includes "defending" something? How many professional journals have a "mission statement"?

[_Phaedrus Ut]

With all that in mind, Ray, I am curious about your opinion on the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Do you think that the apologists, in effect, "ordered" or "persuaded" Michael Watson to reject his Chapel Mormon views?

Put on your tinfoil hat, Scartch. And don't let the aliens or the people in the black helicopters get you.

I'm not a fan of the over zealous attacks directed at you. I'm surprised you tolerate it.

In my opinion, there is something not quite right about the missing "2nd Watson Letter". I believe that Hamblin later indicated it wasn't as much a letter as it was a "correspondence" of some sort. Maybe it was a email, a post it note, or a comment on a birthday card. I know you've seen it was on First Presidency letterhead? Is it better to quote a abstract from a missing letter then publish the whole thing and invite more scrutiny?

Phaedrus

//Maybe the 2nd Watson letter is hiding somewhere with the Mar Saba letter?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not a fan of the over zealous attacks directed at you. I'm surprised you tolerate it.

So am I, frankly. It's really pretty ridiculous.

In my opinion, there is something not quite right about the missing "2nd Watson Letter". I believe that Hamblin later indicated it wasn't as much a letter as it was a "correspondence" of some sort. Maybe it was a email, a post it note, or a comment on a birthday card. I know you've seen it was on First Presidency letterhead?

That's how I recall it (though it's now been quite a few years, and, unless I'm mistaken, I only saw it once). It was a letter, on letterhead.

Is it better to quote a abstract from a missing letter then publish the whole thing and invite more scrutiny?

It wasn't missing at the time. Our production editor and our source checker examined it independently.

And the text published in the Review represents the entirety of the letter, as I recall, minus signature and salutation.

Maybe the 2nd Watson letter is hiding somewhere with the Mar Saba letter?

Naahh. Morton Smith's Greek was good enough for him to have created Pseudo-Clement, but I doubt that his Utahn was up to forging the second Watson letter.

[_consiglieri]

Hi, everybody!

I actually went and bought the book "The American Religion" and read it through some years ago.

I thought Harold Bloom was very nice to Mormonism and to Joseph Smith, considering he refers to himself as an agnostic Jew.

One thing that did strike me, though, is that he called Joseph Smith a "religious genius" for clueing into some really weak things regarding ancient Enochic literature.

It left me wondering what kind of sommersaults he would do if he actually saw how strong those connections are.

Anyway, if anything, I would consider Bloom a pro-Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri