I think Harold Bloom reads my posts

[MikeWaters]

Interesting article by Bloom that looks at Joseph Smith and the thread from him to the modern church. I wish it were longer.

I have been arguing against our movement towards traditional Christianity for a long time. I am the anti-Jay Santos. Jay sees the future as Joel Osteen. I see the future as the King Follett discourse.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazi.../145/18-19.pdf

I am reminded of the talk that a person in my ward gave. He started off by saying "We are not Christians. And we should be proud of it." It was a great talk. The point is that we should embrace that which makes us different. Because if we don't, we will not be different. And that will be the end of the church.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Interesting article by Bloom that looks at Joseph Smith and the thread from him to the modern church. I wish it were longer.

I have been arguing against our movement towards traditional Christianity for a long time. I am the anti-Jay Santos. Jay sees the future as Joel Osteen. I see the future as the King Follett discourse.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazi.../145/18-19.pdf
I am reminded of the talk that a person in my ward gave. He started off by saying "We are not Christians. And we should be proud of it." It was a great talk. The point is that we should embrace that which makes us different. Because if we don't, we will not be different. And that will be the end of the church.

As I have expressed previously to MW, I have some misgivings about the article but I thought the following was fun:

What he most distinctly was not was another American Protestant revivalist. Mitt Romney would not like my saying this, but if he truly followed Smith, Young, and Taylor, then he could not honestly present himself to the electorate as a Christian. If Joseph Smith was a Protestant, then Muhammad was a Catholic.

It is a cool turn of phrase. I wonder, though, if it is really true?

P.S

The article is only two pages long so the Sunstone smell won't even get on you if you read it.

[MikeWaters]

basically Bloom is saying that the teachings of Smith were revolutionary, so much so, that we are a religion apart.

But the current trend is to try and minimize our differences and hope for mainstream acceptance. I HATE this.

So it comes down to whether you think Smith was revolutionary or not.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Interesting article by Bloom that looks at Joseph Smith and the thread from him to the modern church. I wish it were longer.

I have been arguing against our movement towards traditional Christianity for a long time. I am the anti-Jay Santos. Jay sees the future as Joel Osteen. I see the future as the King Follett discourse.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazi.../145/18-19.pdf

I am reminded of the talk that a person in my ward gave. He started off by saying "We are not Christians. And we should be proud of it." It was a great talk. The point is that we should embrace that which makes us different. Because if we don't, we will not be different. And that will be the end of the church.

That's hardly an original argument, Mike. There was an entire book on it by O. Kendall White, Mormon neo-Orthoxy: A Crisis Theology

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That's hardly an original argument, Mike. There was an entire book on it by O. Kendall White, Mormon neo-Orthoxy: A Crisis Theology

Sure, and The Angel and Beehive: THE MORMON STRUGGLE WITH ASSIMILATION by Armand L. Mauss makes a similar argument from a sociological perspective as compared to White's theological perspective. Still, I think Bloom's framing of the issue is pretty good and different than White or Mauss.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That's hardly an original argument, Mike. There was an entire book on it by O. Kendall White, Mormon neo-Orthoxy: A Crisis Theology

Like Joseph Smith "discovered" gnosticism, I discovered this argument.

It was self-generated in my case, not from reading the thoughts of others.

[pelagius]

Okay, MW, I am going to take a shot at a more substantial commentary on the article. I certainly agree with Bloom when he says, "What [Joseph Smith] most distinctly was not was another American Protestant revivalist." So, yes, I do see Joseph Smith as a revolutionary. Also, I really don't care that much if people consider me Christian. It doesn't bother me if the label is used to refer to those who accept creedal Christianity and excludes people like me who simply accept Jesus as the Messiah but do not accept the 4th century creeds.

I think that Bloom overstates the gulf between Joseph Smith's theology and creedal Christianity. Sure, there are some substantial and even revolutionary differences, but Bloom overstates the gulf (misunderstands the gulf?) in my view when he paints Joseph Smith as henotheistic. Sure, Joseph Smith believed in deification (other forms of Christianity have notions of deification) and some people suggest he believed in an infinite regress of Gods (although I am honestly not sure that is true). Still, I don't think Joseph Smith ever really rejected something like trinitarianism (it seems to be me there is strong correlation between social trinitarianism and Joseph Smith's thought). Sure, you can argue for henotheistic elements, but if you do so to the exclusion of other more traditional Christian elements then I think you distort the true distance between creedal christianity and Joseph Smith's theology. Furthermore, it really exaggerates the difference between Mormon Theology today and Joseph Smith's theology.

[MikeWaters]

Our theology is closing down, and not expanding like it was in Joseph Smith's era.

The light of theological revelation really ended after Joseph.

Can any arguments (historical not polemic) that subsequent prophets were "visionary men"?

Pelagius I think you are arguing that multiple Gods doesn't play a large practical role in Mormon religion. I grant that it doesn't play a day-to-day role. But the fabric of that doctrine, God as man, men as God, introduces a far richer fabric of the universe than what exists in Christianity, and I think that is what enchants Bloom. And of course, many believers.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Pelagius I think you are arguing that multiple Gods doesn't play a large practical role in Mormon religion. I grant that it doesn't play a day-to-day role. But the fabric of that doctrine, God as man, men as God, introduces a far richer fabric of the universe than what exists in Christianity, and I think that is what enchants Bloom. And of course, many believers.

MW, I wasn't really trying to argue that. I do think deification is an important doctrine. It's important to me. I would be sad to see it lost. I'm arguing that I don't think that deification implies henotheism and it is not an accurate reflection of Joseph Smith conception of God and I think it cloud's Bloom's analysis. I think Blake Ostler describes things reasonably well when he describes Joseph Smith's and Mormon Theology as Kingship Monotheism. He says, "There is a Most High God who is king over others of the same kind who give the Most High obeisance in gratitude for his great gifts. Kingship monotheism is consistent with social trinitarianism to the extent that the king can have a successor by adoption or a co-ruler by permission." This is clearly different than traditional Christianity, but more recognizable than I think Bloom admits and I also think you can still describe Mormonism this way.

Our theology is closing down, and not expanding like it was in Joseph Smith's era.

I think I agree here, but I will have to think about it more. At the very least the rate of increase has drastically slowed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Our theology is closing down, and not expanding like it was in Joseph Smith's era.

The light of theological revelation really ended after Joseph.

Can any arguments (historical not polemic) that subsequent prophets were "visionary men"?

Pelagius I think you are arguing that multiple Gods doesn't play a large practical role in Mormon religion. I grant that it doesn't play a day-to-day role. But the fabric of that doctrine, God as man, men as God, introduces a far richer fabric of the universe than what exists in Christianity, and I think that is what enchants Bloom. And of course, many believers.

It would be hard to argue that visions, policies and theologies continued past Joseph Smith. We have a leadership of businessmen, administrators, seminary teachers, physicians, accountants, actuaries, and insurance people.

Gone are the theologians, the philosophers and the visionaries. Perhaps in leading millions vision is no longer necessary, but the vision was gravitas needed to get the rough stone rolling. Our current leaders are caretakers, not motivators.