Posted on 09/09/2012 8:00:06 PM PDT by NorthernCrunchyCon
This work was originally published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, Fall 1994, pp. 117-194. The paper received considerable notice, and in 1995 the Mormon History Association recognized Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection with its annual award for the best article in Mormon studies. [snip]
The one thing about which we might all agree concerning Joseph Smith is that he was not the usual sort of person. He did not approach life itself--or his religious commitment--in a usual way. Yet the character of our historical investigation of Joseph Smith and his times has been primarily traditional, unimaginative, and lacking in any effort to find or create an epistemological methodology revolutionary enough to deal with the paradox of our movement. The irony of our position is that many of our methods and interpretations have become so traditional that they can only reinforce the fears of yesterday rather than nurture the seeds of tomorrow's dreams.1
More than two decades have passed since those words were penned, years marked by a veritable explosion in Mormon studies, and yet Edward's challenge "to find or create an epistemological methodology revolutionary enough to deal with the paradox" of Joseph Smith remains a summons largely unanswered. Revolutions are painful processes, in measure both destructive and creative. The imaginative revisioning of Joseph Smith's "unusual approach" to life and religion, demands a careful--though perhaps still difficult and destructive--hewing away of an hundred years of encrusting vilifications and thick layerings of iconographic pigments, masks ultimately false to his lively cast. Smith eschewed orthodoxy, and so eventually must his historians. To that end, there is considerable value in turning full attention to the revolutionary view of Joseph Smith provided by Harold Bloom in his critique of The American Religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at gnosis.org ...
Isn’t the Kabbalah part of Jewish Mysticism ? (as well)
And since the dude in the WH is an avowed communist I am sure you will be posting about that soon too....no?
And the anti-religionist in the WH is not a legit concern???
And can we not in the religion forum point out that the WH is occupied by a God hating communist???
Since you brought it up... (not trying to divert the thread, but your comment posed an interesting question regarding politics)...
How many Mormons are Democrats ?
I always log in to "freerepublic.com." This thread came up, and I responded. There was nothing in the message indicating that it was in the Religion Forum or that Methodists are excluded from responding to this thread. If you don't like my response, well, tough tamales!
Oh, my goodness.......nice dose not get you to heaven.
There is one way and one way only, and it is not being nice.
Sure ping when you post a thread about it.
Lots. That’s the simple.
There is nothing in mormonism that would preclude them from being liberals, which is why the mormon politicians are all liberal.
I have a (can u believe it?) related question.
Where did Joseph Smith come up with the name Mormon ?
I didn’t say nice, I said based on their behavior.
Though there is nothing wrong with nice.
Someone in their fantasy named Moroni.
Well.... now I've heard it all. And (didn't we do this before) you use such absolutes.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with nice, I said nice doesn’t get you into heaven.
Good thing that grammar and spelling aren't prerequisites for heaven or you'd be screwed.
: )
Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?
Oh, yea and what in my statement is an absolute as apposed to the truth?
Thank is just so cut
Moroni... an angel, correct?
Do you believe in angels?
Not in lds angels.
In order for me to put any belief into your statement, I would require that you had done a thorough study of Mormonism and Christianity (at a minimum) and various other religions and mythologies.
You have a powerful computer in front of you, with spellchecker and 10,000 online dictionaries, and yet you cannot spell 'opposed'.
Please explain to me why I or anyone else should give you any credibility. (and it's not the only grammar or spelling error you have made on this thread.)
You are my friend, but don't pretend to be 'above' others in your 'knowledge of the universe' or 'knowledge of the theological world' when you show an inability to master the English Language.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.