Harold Bloom on the Mormon Menace

Earlier this week, an essay appeared in the New York Times by Harold Bloom titled, Will this Election Be the Mormon Breakthrough?  I noticed it was cited on a blog and so I left a comment there.  My reply to his most recent rejoinder was too long to fit in his comments section so I have posted it here.Readers might find it to be easier to follow if they read John's blog comments first.

John:

When I first read Bloom’s essay, I was disappointed at several factual errors; but had not considered whether or not it was an “anti-Mormon diatribe.” I am inured to anti-Mormon propaganda and find it generally entertaining—so I rarely think of any of it in the context of a diatribe; however, as a result of your reply to me, I went back to re-read it. I don’t think it is anti-Mormon as much as it is anti-American Religion with a healthy dose of condescending ignorance.

I do consider myself conversant with anti-Mormonism; and consequently, as I noted above, I’m more likely to be entertained than offended by it.  That is not the case in this essay: it is incredibly offensive.

You provided a list of 5 points that you take from Bloom’s piece, which you suggest make up the thrust of his essay.  Generally, a good essay states the premise at the beginning, submits evidence for that premise in the body of the essay and concludes by re-stating the premise as having been established.  His essay consists of uninformed assertions followed by additional uninformed and bigoted assertions, ending in a final fear that Republican politics are little more than an a choice between a theocracy led by zealots and a theocracy led by ignoramuses.

Bloom’s hostility towards people of faith (limited here to American religions; but it likely extends to all branches of Christianity) is clear in his description of “omens that will darken” as they’re arrayed against Obama’s quest for a second term.

To explain this looming disaster, Bloom writes that Mitt Romney is “deep within the labyrinthine Mormon hierarchy.” That assertion is laughably false.  Romney served—seventeen years ago—in the temporary,  local leadership positions of Bishop and Stake President.  But seriously, “labyrinthine?”    Aside from local leaders of congregations, the LDS hierarchy consists of the president with two counselors, 12 apostles and an additional two quorums of 70 men each to assist them. Those “deep within” the quorums of 70 serve only temporarily. An additional 3 bishops oversee the administration of church finance and property concerns.  Romney never has been in that hierarchy—deep or otherwise.

The next big blow to Bloom’s credibility comes when he claims that Mormon leaders are “plutocratic oligarchs” while referring to America’s “supposed democracy.” As is typical with many professors, he falsely denigrates both America and Mormon leaders.  Leaving aside his swipe at America’s constitutional republic, he either knows nothing about actual Mormon leaders; or he has no concept of plutocratic oligarchies. While it’s true that Mormon leadership is confined to a small group of about 150 men, they could hardly be considered plutocrats—ruling by virtue of their wealth. The current president, Thomas Monson, worked as a book publisher before being admitted to the Quorum of 12 Apostles. Until very recently, he lived in a modest home in my middle class neighborhood in Salt Lake City. His predecessor and those before him could hardly have been considered plutocrats. For the most part they have been businessmen of modest means, teachers, attorneys and a physician.

This brings me to the first item you took away from Bloom’s essay:

 1. Mormonism "was as much a departure from historical Christianity as Islam was and is." But then, SO ARE MOST OTHER AMERICANIZED CHURCHES.  

 Well, that’s pretty much the premise of Mormonism isn’t it? Mormonism is predicated on the position that historical Christianity is a vestige of a pristine Church that fell into apostasy.  As far as Islam being a “departure from historical Christianity,” It’s apparent that Bloom has no firmer grasp on Islamic history than he has on Mormonism. 

2. Mormonism is uniquely American precisely because we have made a cottage industry of reinventing the church.

Honestly, Bloom’s essay is pretty bad when it comes to logical thought; but that non sequitur had to come from somewhere else.

3. American religion, like American culture, is centered upon the denial of death [literalizing an ancient Christian metaphor.]

You left out the part in brackets; but its context is essential to see what Bloom is claiming. 

According to Bloom, only American Christians actually have the temerity to believe in a literal resurrection—and as a result “deny death?”  Likewise, historical Christians only looked on the idea of the resurrection of Jesus as a metaphor? That's nonsense. American Protestants aren't the only Christians who believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I’ve talked with a significant number of European Catholics who believe in a literal resurrection; and I would submit that it is the central theme of Christianity worldwide. Belief in a literal resurrection certainly is the central theme of Mormonism; but it could hardly be classified as “denial of death.”

4. Our religion is shaped by individualism, "freedom," and the American Jeezus.

Our religion is shaped by its tenets found in scripture. While the freedom to choose is basic and explained in 2 Nephi 2, that freedom is possessed by all the descendants of Adam and Eve—not just Americans. As far as the “American Jeezus” goes, I was unfamiliar with the concept and went to the Urban Dictionary for a definition. It seems to be a romanticized idea of what a politically correct Jesus would embrace. It claims that this “Jeezus” hates gays, doesn’t allow women to end pregnancies from rapists, believes in guns, hatred of others, and social Darwinism.” I’m pretty conversant with Mormon theology and that is a categorically false caricature of American Christianity in general and Mormonism specifically.

5. The LDS is evolving into just another Americanized Protestant sect.

Evidence supporting such an assertion would be interesting to assess. Since Bloom provides no evidence I would point out that a wide doctrinal gulf separates the LDS from Protestantism; and it isn’t disappearing in some mythical evolutionary process. Mormonism differs radically from Protestantism (and so-called Christian orthodoxy) today and historically. Their irreconcilable differences include diametrical opposition in their views of the nature of God, scripture, man, sin, soteriology, creation, revelation and the afterlife. There isn’t one particle of these tenets that has evolved since the time of Joseph Smith; and they separate us absolutely. Bloom’s assertion is little more than wishful thinking. He would do well to become informed about these subjects before making such wild and speculative claims in the future.

Bloom's essay seems to serve as a warning to America against a possible Romney presidency. It's hard to see any connection with reality.