Harold Bloom on "Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed"

[_Yahoo Bot]

Even then, they become angry when they discover that their god did not "avenge the blood of the prophet." It amounts to the same thing.

Nope; never heard that to be the case. I've heard the theory that the Civil War exacted retribution on Jackson County, the theory that God worked his vengeance on the Fancher party, and the theory evident from the Reed Smoot papers is that God's vengeance is eternal -- something in the future. But I've not heard any statement from a general authority supporting your position, that God hasn't done his vengeance thing.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Looks like a bunch of anonymous cowards to me.

Any way to paint it, you're one.

[_Buffalo]

Looks like a bunch of anonymous cowards to me.

Any way to paint it, you're one.

Gazelam: anonymous coward.

[_sock puppet]

As was explained by many during the Smoot hearings this was not an oath to overthrow the country. It would seem that the full Senate agreed by refusing to unseat Smoot even though he had taken this oath.

But Smoot lied to the Senate committee about whether he took it -- claiming he didn't recall ever taking it, and, incredibly, also claiming that he (an apostle!) did not remember such an oath/prayer being a part of the endowment ceremony.

Yes, but at least he lied under his own name. Unlike Joseph Smith


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _Covenants

Code names for people

Ahashdah: Newel K. Whitney
Alam: Edward Partridge
Baneemy: originally Lyman Wight, reinterpreted by Orson Pratt as "mine elders" in 1876, perhaps corrupt Hebrew for “my sons”; also claimed as a title by Charles B. Thompson
Baurak Ale: Joseph Smith, Jr.. This is a very clear Hebrew for barakh 'el (ברך אל) “blessed [of] El,” i.e., God.
Enoch: Joseph Smith, Jr.
Gazelam: Joseph Smith, Jr. (cf. Gazelem)
Horah: John Whitmer
Mahalaleel: A. Sidney Gilbert
Mehemson: Martin Harris
Olihah: Oliver Cowdery (see -ihah)
Pelagoram: Sidney Rigdon
Shalemanasseh: William Wines Phelps (cf. Shalmaneser, Manasseh)
Shederlaomach: Frederick G. Williams (cf. Chedorlaomer, Shedolamak)
Zombre: John Johnson

And don't forget the secret names of JSJr's sexual conquests other than Emma. In private, they were called "spiritual wives" (even though they were doing the physical duties). But then when convenient, 4 weeks before his death, he proclaimed in public during the Sunday sermon aboard the Maid of Iowa of 5/26/1844, in responding to Walmart Law's accusations that JSJr had "seven wives", that he could find but one. History of the Church, Vol 6. So "spiritual wives" was their collective code name.

It's a marvelous work and a wonder.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Keeping the doctrine of plural marriage a private doctrine is, really, a far different thing than slandering real people with an anonymous name and avatar. Both are serious matters, and in my view, indefensible, but are unrelated.

Just because somebody was abused as a child does not justify that someone going out and molesting children on his own. Just because a child of mine was the victim of a hit-and-run accident doesn't mean I can go out and run down a child in the street on my own. Just because one of my published pieces was plagiarized by another person does not mean I can go out and be unprofessional in my published works.

Similarly, merely because you take exception to the secrecy of certain early Mormon marital practices does not justify you being a slanderous, unprofessional coward.

[_Buffalo]

Keeping the doctrine of plural marriage a private doctrine is, really, a far different thing than slandering real people with an anonymous name and avatar. Both are serious matters, and in my view, indefensible, but are unrelated.

Just because somebody was abused as a child does not justify that someone going out and molesting children on his own. Just because a child of mine was the victim of a hit-and-run accident doesn't mean I can go out and run down a child in the street on my own. Just because one of my published pieces was plagiarized by another person does not mean I can go out and be unprofessional in my published works.

Similarly, merely because you take exception to the secrecy of certain early Mormon marital practices does not justify you being a slanderous, unprofessional coward.

Translation: it was okay when Yahoo Bot's favorite sex offender did it.

[_Darth J]

Looks like a bunch of anonymous cowards to me.

Any way to paint it, you're one.

Follow the prophet!

[_Darth J]

Keeping the doctrine of plural marriage a private doctrine is, really, a far different thing than slandering real people with an anonymous name and avatar. Both are serious matters, and in my view, indefensible, but are unrelated.

Just because somebody was abused as a child does not justify that someone going out and molesting children on his own. Just because a child of mine was the victim of a hit-and-run accident doesn't mean I can go out and run down a child in the street on my own. Just because one of my published pieces was plagiarized by another person does not mean I can go out and be unprofessional in my published works.

Similarly, merely because you take exception to the secrecy of certain early Mormon marital practices does not justify you being a slanderous, unprofessional coward.

So your take would be that secret, illegal serial adultery in early Mormonism is on equal moral footing with posting your opinions about Mormonism on the internet.

Thanks for sharing that, Yahoo Bot.

Similarly, I think that your choice to post under your real name here is on equal footing, common sense-wise, as posting semi-naked self-portraits on My Space.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The TBMs over at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue have been blowing multiple gaskets over this article:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/562 ... ge__st__20

Interestingly, they posted a link to this angry response from Joanna Brooks:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... Mormonism/

She dismisses Bloom's article as being "bloated and platitudinous," though her own piece is pretty badly misshapen and unclear. That is, she's rather vague as to what she's objecting to, exactly. In part, she seems outraged that Bloom would complain about Mormonisms evolution into something that is far more corporate and bureaucratic:

For those who tell the Mormon story best know that there is nothing exceptionally peculiar in Mormonism’s transition from renegade frontier religious movement to bureaucracy. Its mainstreaming and bureaucratization is as American a story as its origins. Intoning darkly the most sensational aspects of Mormon belief, a rhetorical tactic in which Bloom borrowed much from Hitchens—they tithe! they don’t allow non-Mormons (or less observant Mormons, in fact) in LDS temples! they believe they might become like God! very spooky!—only serves to alienate and antagonize Mormons.

So, what is she getting at here, exactly? At other points in her piece, she seems to actually be defending the milquetoast, "edgeless" banality of the contemporary LDS Church:

Indeed, what makes contemporary Mormonism powerful is not the imaginative whimsy of its original doctrines but the sense of order and stability it offers to 14 million members around the globe.

If this is really what she believes, you have to wonder why she seems so baffled that Bloom (and others) would feel threatened or disturbed at the prospect of Romney assuming power. Mormonism's brand of "order and stability" is threatening to a lot of people. Does she really not understand that?

Her piece wraps up with a rather bizarre segue into a comment on Romney's allegedly unscrupulous handling of some financial matter, which renders Brooks's commentary even more scatter-brained.

In the end, it seems almost as if she wrote this just to make the fulminating TBMs on MDD feel a little better. Speaking of MDD, this was absolutely hilarious:

I expected better of this man. I fear that all too many people will accept his statements at face value simply because he is an academic intellectual. That must mean that he knows what he's talking about, right?

Rofl! Better tell the eggheads at the M.I. that the TBM rubes are starting to catch on....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Calling people liars, huh? On what basis -- simply because you don't agree with them?

Here are relevant portions from the transcript of Reed Smoot's testimony before the Senate committee on this issue (bold mine for emphasis):

Mr. Worthington: When you were married to your wife, were you married according to what is known here as the celestial ceremony?

Sen. Smoot: I was. In the temple at Logan.

Mr. Worthington: Did you at that time pass through the ceremony which is called taking the endowments?

Sen. Smoot: No, sir; I did not. I will state, however, that I took the endowments before, in the early spring of 1880. I was then 18 years old. My father was going to visit the Sandwich islands for his health, and he asked me to go with him. I, of course, was very pleased, indeed, to accept the invitation, and before going my father asked me if I would go to the endowment house and take my endowments. I told him I did not particularly care about it. He stated to me that it certainly would not hurt me if it did not do me any good, and that, as my father, he would like very much to have me take the endowments before I crossed the water or went away from the United States. …

Mr. Worthington: Did you take any oath or obligation when you became an apostle?

Sen. Smoot: I did not.

Mr. Worthington: Do you recall the ceremony or parts of the ceremony through which you went when you took your endowments?

Sen. Smoot: I could not remember it if I wanted to.

Mr. Worthington: Do you mean that you do not remember anything about it or that your recollection is vague?

Sen. Smoot: I have not enough of the details to give the committee any information.

Mr. Worthington: Tell me whether or not at that time anything of this kind took place – that somebody said this which I am about to read, in substance, and that you assented to it: “That you and each of you do promise and vow that you will never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this Nation.”

Sen. Smoot: I did not, nor was there anything said about avenging the blood of the prophets or anything else on this Nation or on this Government. There was nothing said about avenging the blood of Joseph Smith, Jr., the prophet. And it seems very strange that such a thing should be spoken of, because the endowments have never changed, as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith, Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments. It would be very strange, indeed, to have such an oath to avenge his death when he was alive.

Yes, Smoot testified he had gone through the endowment just once over 20 years before, but he was an apostle, and given the unique nature of the "oath of vengeance," I do not find credible his claim that he had no recollection whatever of this being part of the ceremony. And, in fact, in his last statement above he was adamant that he never assented to a vow resembling the "oath of vengeance," even saying that such a vow would be absurd since the ceremony had never changed since Joseph was alive.

Smoot was later questioned by a different Senate lawyer concerning the "oath of vengeance." Below are relevant portions of that testimony (bold mine for emphasis):

Mr. Tayler: Senator, you testified respecting the endowment ceremony. Did you ever go through it more than once?

Sen. Smoot: But once.

Mr. Tayler: That was before you were married?

Sen. Smoot: Before I was married.
…

Mr. Tayler: You say you have no recollection of the ceremony in detail?

Sen. Smoot: I could not give it in detail.

Mr. Tayler: But I understand you to say positively that there was nothing at all in the ceremony about avenging the blood of the martyrs or prophets?

Sen. Smoot: I said so.

Mr. Tayler: You heard the testimony of Mr. Dougall here, a witness who was put on the standing by you?

Sen. Smoot: I did.

Mr. Tayler: You heard his statement that they were importuned to avenge the blood of the martyrs upon this generation?

Sen. Smoot: I heard him say so.

Mr. Tayler: You say there is nothing at all like that in the ceremony?

Sen. Smoot: I do not recall it, nor do I believe there is.

Mr. Tayler: I understood you to say a few moments ago that there was nothing in the ceremony anywhere like that. You said that positively – that there was nothing in the ceremony about avenging the blood of the martyrs or avenging the martyrs.

Sen. Smoot: You never asked me that, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. Tayler: I ask you now. Is there anything in the ceremony about avenging the blood of the martyrs or the martyrs?

Sen. Smoot: No; there is not.

That last statement by Smoot is pretty absolute, even though (as an apostle) he must have known it was absolutely false. It is from statements like this that I conclude Smoot lied to the committee about his knowledge of and participation in the "oath of vengeance."

At this point, the transcript contains a discussion about a legal case in Utah federal court around 1890, during which a Dr. Heber John Richards (who Smoot said he knew) testified about the procedure for a temple patron to take the "oath of vengeance" during the endowment ceremony. The Senate lawyer questioning Smoot wanted to use this case (which Smoot conceded he remembered but did not attend) to "refresh" Smoot's recollection concerning the "oath of vengeance." After a back-and-forth among members of the committee, it was decided that the Senate lawyer would simply ask direct questions of Smoot as to whether the procedure for the "oath of vengeance," as described by Dr. Richards (i.e., anointing the arm), was part of the endowment ceremony. Here is the relevant testimony on that point (bold mine for emphasis):

The Chairman: Why not ask the Senator the direct question if any ceremony of that kind was performed?

Mr. Worthington: Yes; I have no objection to that.

Mr. Tayler: If the chairman thinks that that is the proper course –

The Chairman: It will serve to refresh his memory, possibly.

Mr. Tayler: Does the question I have asked, Senator, refresh your memory?

Sen. Smoot: No, Mr. Tayler; it does not.

Mr. Tayler: Then you have no recollection of anything of the sort, said to have been testified to as having occurred in connection with anointing the arm during the early part of the ceremony?

Sen. Smoot: No, sir; I do not.

Mr. Tayler: Did any such thing occur at that point?

Sen. Smoot: Not as I remember.

Again, from my point of view, Smoot's position as an apostle makes his testimony utterly non-credible.