2416 "I" St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 November 23, 1993 Professor Harold Bloom Department of Humanities Yale University, Trenton, NJ Dear Professor Bloom: Your book on The American Religion has now been in publication for more than two years. While I had read reviews of it, I have been in China for the past three years and had not had access until I recently returned to the United States. I'm sure you've received many comments on it, but I felt I had to send you my reactions -- plus a couple of observations which I recognize others may already have made. You have written a fascinating book. Indeed, I've never read anything like it. I am writing as a fifth generation Mormon and a somewhat desultory scholar of Mormonism. May I start by saying that your chapters on Mormonism have given me deeper insight into some aspects of Nauvoo Theology than I've come across in any Mormon author -- and I think I've read them all. I was especially enlightened by your comments relating Mormon theology to the author of the J manuscript (of which I know a little) and to Cabalism (of which I know virtually nothing). 1. On page 105 you assert that Joseph Smith never made explicit that God was a polygamist. Later on you acknowledge that Brigham Young had done so. But you do not seem adequately to recognize, as most students of Mormonism also fail to do, that Brigham never taught anything he had not personally heard Joseph preach. Leonard Arrington, prize-winning historian, and who was for a time Church Historian, has written tellingly of this failure of scholarship. Said Brigham Young in one of his early Journal of Discourses speeches (sorry, I don't have my JD on the hard disc of this computer, so I can't give you an exact reference and must paraphrase somewhat -- but you'd have no difficult locating it), "God himself visited the Garden of Eden bringing one of his wives with him" The Bible speaks of both. a "first" and "second" Adam. Mormonism considers Elohim the First Adam, of the heavens - spiritual. While (our) Adam, Michael, co-creator with Jehovah of the Heavens and the Earth, was the Second Adam, of the earth and earthly (again, unlike traditional Christianity which considers Christ to have been the "second" Adam). 2. Nor was it only Orson Hyde who preached that Jesus married Mary and Martha, as well as the "other Mary", This was generally accepted doctrine in the early Mormon Church. Indeed, when I went on my mission in 1949 I carried a typescript of an excerpt of a sermon given in 1920 by Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency (and who was thus senior to Hyde, who was only an apostle), quoting half a dozen earlier General Authorities in its support. I found it intriguing while working at the American Embassy in France 10 years ago (we're not only in the FBI and CIA) to read a just published book San Greal and Sang Real (sorry, don't recall the authors' names, but they were an historian, a linguist, and an anthropologist who ran into each other in the Biblioteque Nationale, discovered they were pursuing identical lines of research and decided to collaborate) which puts forward the same conclusion, i.e. that not only was Jesus married, but that he had progeny (see later comment below in re Joseph Smith's ancestry). Had no idea non-Mormons could entertain a thought so blasphemous to traditional Christianity. 3. You speculate whether Presidents of the Church have been made kings since the time of John Taylor, while assuming that's probably the case. Fact is that every Mormon priesthood holder is prospectively ordained such as part of his ceremonial endowment, as a step towards his eventually becoming a partaker of the divine nature. 4. At several points in your book you assert that followers of the American Religion, of whatever denomination, believe that their inherent self is uncreated and as old as God. Don't know if you've run across it, but this is explicit in Mormonism. D&C 93:29 reads: "Man also was in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." I have myself written on this theme, holding that Mormonism sees progression as consisting of four distinct stages: an initial unnumbered Estate -- that of uncreated intelligence (Joseph Smith said that sex exists even at this stage -- which you should find interesting given your understanding of the interrelationship of prophecy, sexuality, and religion); spirits begotten by the gods who lived in a pre-earthly estate; and a Second Estate, consisting of tabernacled beings such as ourselves (Brigham Young taught in the cited sermon that gods can not only beget spirit offspring, but, by ingesting terrestrial food, also beget beings of flesh and bone, as created not subject to death). This was his explanation of Adam and Eve, unquestionably expanding on a theme he'd heard from Joseph. Only after Adam and Eve themselves ingested inappropriate food -- the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- would they definitively enter their Second Estate and eventually die. And there is a final Estate consisting of resurrected beings (of three types, as you will know from your study of Mormonism: Celestial Beings, i.e. Gods and Administering Angels; Terrestrial Beings, the "honorable men of the earth" -- i.e. Catholic and Protestant Heaven ?; and Telestial Beings, the less honorable, but not damned. These are the three types of flesh spoken of by the author of Corinthians : "how are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? . . . God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him. . . . All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial. . . . There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. . . . So also is the resurrection of the dead." (Corinthians 15:35-42). 5. With regard to my next point, I hesitate to criticize one who has given Joseph Smith truly extraordinary recognition as an authentic prophet if ever there was one, but you say on p. 110 "Smith might be dwarfed . . . on the giant scale [only by] Muhammad because the Book of Mormon is spoken of only by an angel, while the Koran is the voice of God." Surely you overlooked the Doctrine and Covenants which consists, with a couple of administrative exceptions, of the direct voice of God to Joseph Smith and his successors. While The Book of Mormon is A New Testament of Christ, the Doctrine and Covenants is considered by the LDS to be a far more relevant and germane scripture since it is God's voice and directions for our times and our circumstances. Its very preface, which Joseph said was explicitly dictated by God, reads: "Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high . . . ." And Section 16, directed to Peter Whitmer (one of the eleven individuals chosen to view and handle the plates after the work of translation, but before they were returned to Moroni, begins, "Hearken my servant Peter, and listen to the words of Jesus Christ, your Lord and your Redeemer." Most of the 138 Sections of the D&C likewise reflect the direct word of God to Joseph Smith or his successors, certainly as explicitly as ever Allah spoke to Mohammed. Dwarfed indeed! 6. On page 110 you say that the rapture of the Kirtland temple was not repeated, because Joseph knew the time had come "to rely more on his authority as a revelator than upon peak experiences." I cannot challenge your interpretation, because despite its extraordinary claims to a restoration of the spiritual authority, uncorrupted teachings and incredible spiritual experiences and gifts of earlier Jewish and Christian history, Mormon leadership has always preferred to relay on the authority of its prophets rather than thrusting on the world its most sacred spiritual experiences. But I can inform you that similar experiences occurred at the dedication of the Nauvoo temple (despite its short use before the departure for the West) as well as at the dedication of the St. George, Manti, and Salt Lake temples. Some of these "rapturous" experiences were recorded in diaries at the time, but never made it into the D&C as did the Kirtland experience. But many were (exceptionally) recounted in various publications at the time of the celebration of the centenary of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple this spring. And I am aware of similar experiences at the dedication of others of the fifty more recent temples which now span the globe. 7. Nor was it just Brigham Young who taught that "God, Adam, and the Archangel Michael were the same personage." This is taught daily (and nightly) in each of the fifty Mormon temples around the world. Of course this Adam/God is not the Lord God, but the third member of the presiding trinity, the very Michael who assisted Jehovah in the creation of the world, later became its first man Adam, and who as archangel will stand up at the end of time as the Ancient of Days. 8. One of your more particularly brilliant insights which I've not seen in any other non-Mormon writer is on p. 115 where you note the peculiar Mormon doctrine of the non-culpability of God for the world's evils. There'd be fewer atheists who can believe there's a (misconceived) god who permits war, murder, rape, and child abuse, and fewer hopeless people who give up when their prayers aren't answered the way they'd wish, if an understanding of a (relatively) finite God seeking to encourage his offspring to promote His work and become like Him as co-creators of further dwelling places for new echelons of embodied intelligences, were more widespread. Joseph taught, "Man is that he might have joy." And God has declared, "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39). I've come to see God as a sort of catalyst, hurrying along, as a result of His experience and greater intelligence, the progress of us lesser intelligences through the four stages of existence. 9. If you'll permit a brief remark on another point on which I believe you are mistaken: On p. 116 you say that there is no foundation in Smith or Young for the current association of Jehovah and Jesus. Not so. That Joseph Smith had a clear understanding of this is reflected in the temple ceremony he introduced in Nauvoo and which has remained unchanged in all its essentials since his death. The sacred temple drama teaches this relationship in unquestionable manner. You of course could not be intimately knowledgeable about this, and I'm afraid your source Boyd Kirkland is either himself not knowledgeable, or hasn't paid much attention. 10. Re your speculation about who Joseph (and Brigham) considered themselves to be -- or to whom they might be compared in history -- it can be said that Joseph at least knew who he was. The Lord told him so. He was "the root of Jesse" (D&C 113:5-6), i.e. a direct descendant of Jesus through one of his wives, and thus entitles by inheritance not only to the crown of the Kingdom of David, but to rule over the Kingdom of God until the coming of the King of Kings. Spiritually, he is one of the seven dispensational leaders spoke of in John's Revelation , each of whom ushered in one of the seven periods of renewal after a previous falling away; and, as such, a close associate of Jehovah (Jesus) in the pre-mortal existence and in the creation. A couple of other associates have been identified in revelation, i.e.. Michael, who during earth life was Adam, and Gabriel, who during life was Noah. Let me say at this point how fascinated I was with your discussion of Enoch as Metatron. In Mormonism, Enoch is also one of the seven angels who introduced a new dispensation of revealed truth after the death of Adam and the sinking of most of his posterity into wickedness, In Mormon thought, Enoch is indeed a lesser Yahweh. As are Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Joseph. This is known, if not widely appreciated, in the Church. It is presumably what Joseph meant in your cited statement, "No man knows my history." Interestingly enough, the notion that Jesus was during his lifetime the eldest direct descendant of David, and thus heir to his throne (which knowledge the authors of Holy Blood and Holy Grail assert lay behind Pilate's willingness to see him put to death to avert civil strife in his province, as well as ensuing attempts cited by the authors to put his male descendants on the thrones of Europe from Merovis onward, is the bizarre burden of this book, almost as fascinating in its way -- though much more speculative -- then your own. 11. I personally believe that there is much less confusion in Mormon teachings regarding uncreated "intelligences", begotten "spirits", and resurrected "souls" in whom body and spirit are inseparably connected for Eternity, than is reflected in your treatment. See my D&C citations in para. 4 above. Nor did Joseph Smith deny salvation by grace, as you seem to believe. Per your Sterling McMurrin quote, Joseph Smith was simply, in a peculiar sense, a neo-Pelagian (as well as a neo-Arian). Mormons believe that, "As in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (! Cor. 15:22). To Mormons, this is the product of grace. "We [also] believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (Third Article of Faith -- from the Wentworth letter you quote) . This second step of salvation, which we call Exaltation is something beyond the grace of resurrection, and consists of the highest Degree of Glory previously described. See Philippians 3:12: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." And James 2:17 "Faith if it hath not works is dead: -- and 2:24 "By works man is justified and not by faith alone." A further word of interpretation on the Article of Faith quoted above: "Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" consists of accepting baptism, being loyal to Church leadership, dedicated to building up the Kingdom of God, and being actively engaged in righteous living (including temple work for the dead) -- thereby earning one a higher glory -- and possible godhood, beyond the "salvation by grace" which is free and unearned for all but the "Sons of Perdition", in Mormon teaching that handful who, having had a testimony of Jesus, betray it for worldly power or glory. If more Christians understood this distinction between Mormonism's concept of virtually universal salvation and that of earned exaltation, there'd be less antagonism. Generic Christians will have all the passive heaven of carefree, eternal rest for which they yearn. Nothing in Mormon theology or practice will deprive them of it. Mormons look for something beyond the grace of Jesus. Something neither Catholics nor Protestants nor non-Cabalistic Jews even conceive of. They want to be loyal working partners in Jehovah's leadership team, organizing and peopling other worlds, thus bringing background intelligence to the level of organized spirits -- and, eventually, materially embodied souls, thereby increasing the number of beings in the universe endowed with sentient joy -- which seems to be the whole purpose of God, man, and existence. 12. Finally, early in the Joseph Smith Section of your book, you say that the 1890 Manifesto was originally intended as a smokescreen for the continued underground practice of polygamy. The Church would of course deny this. You may sometime wish to look at a book called With the Prophet in Utah, long out of print and denounced by the Church as typical anti-Mormon literature. In fact, it was written by Frank Cannon, son of George Q. Cannon, Counselor to both Brigham Young, John Taylor, and until Cannon's death to Wilford Woodruff, the second to fourth Presidents of the LDS Church. The younger Cannon served for many years as the Church's attorney in Washington, D.C., carrying out faithfully many crucial projects for his father and the Presidents of the Church. Frank Cannon was instrumental in gaining statehood for Utah and was returned to Washington as the state's first senator. Frank Cannon eventually left the Church, not in anger nor repudiation of his roots, but because he found that the post-Manifesto leadership of the Church was in fact using the Manifesto just as you describe, bring opprobrium on his name and that of his brother -- an apostle who was caught out in a post-Manifesto illegal plural marriage and dismissed from the apostolate. Frank Cannon could not accept that his words of assurance to colleagues in the Senate that polygamy was over were now belied and his promises thrown back in his face. He left Utah and the Church, becoming a newspaper editor in Boulder, Colorado, where he lived out the rest of his life. Indeed, during the brief period Church archives were open to scholars, researchers found that plural marriages were occurring, including those of several apostles, well into the 1920s, with the knowledge and encouragement of the Authorities. So John Taylor's successors fought a more determined fight to preserve this unique distinction of Mormonism than even you give them credit for. The practice was not stopped until the "Second Manifesto", saying, in effect, "we really mean it this time"; accompanied, as already mentioned, by the excommunication of three apostles, including, Matthias Cowley, John Taylor's son John W., and Frank Cannon's brother Abraham, who Frank says was deliberately snookered into taking another wife [presumably as an example to lesser men intimidated by the strict application of federal anti-polygamy laws] and then sacrificed when his act became public knowledge. When President Joseph F. Smith was called before the U.S. Senate to give testimony, he apparently felt he had to jettison cargo to keep the Church afloat. Matthias Cowley's "blessings were restored" posthumously when his son was made an apostle in the 1940s. And John A. Taylor's son John W. has been working for his father's "restoration of blessings" for some years. There is in circulation a purported revelation to John Taylor, Third President of the Church (which his son Frank confirms) saying that children would be born under the covenant (of plural marriage until the coming of the Savior. The Church clearly finds itself between a rock and a hard place on this, and has consistently denied the validity of the revelation (indeed, even without such denial, with a living prophet unwilling to exercise his keys to solemnize them, no such marriage can validly be performed under Church law). Nevertheless, the fact is that Fundamentalist Mormonism, which relies on this revelation as its authority, has never been more active, nor widespread. A recent article in Utah Magazine asserts that there are more plural marriages in existence today -- virtually unnoticed, and certainly unopposed -- than at the height of the practice of Nineteenth Century Mormon polygamy with so exercised the national conscience. You've probably seen some such polygamous families from Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana being interviewed on recent TV talk shows. I think you're right, and that even if the Church doesn't make use of contemporary American "couldn't care less" attitudes towards alternative lifestyles to reintroduce polygamy, we seem to be entering an era of relative toleration towards schismatic fundamentalist groups. May I say once more how much I enjoyed reading your book. Sincerely,