Man in Sweater Holding a Menorah | Joseph Smith, Harold Bloom, & Jewish Gnosticism | Public Square Magazine | Harold Bloom Gnosticism | Harold Bloom Religion & Mormon Gnosticism

Joseph Smith, Harold Bloom, and Jewish Gnosticism

In light of Harold Bloom's passing, take a look back at his thoughts about Joseph Smith's restoration of Jewish Gnosticism.

This month America lost one of its greatest literary critics, along with one of its greatest admirers of the prophet Joseph Smith. 

Harold Bloom was known for saying that if he were born in 19th Century America, and if he were not a Jew, he’d be a Latter-day Saint. 

Why?

Bloom’s admiration, even affection, for Joseph grew from his appreciation of prophecy and poetry. 

Yes, he would write, Joseph was a religious genius. But, for Bloom he was even more. “Joseph Smith hovers in me,” he once divulged. “There cannot be too many Mormons who are as imbued with him as I am in my own odd way.”

You see, more than most, Bloom was steeped in the great literary revelators—Shakespeare and Dante; Homer and Virgil; Whitman and Blake. 

Bloom saw Joseph through this lens, and, well, he wasn’t alone. Brigham Young called Joseph  a poet, “and poets are not like other men,” he remarked, “their gaze is deeper, and reaches the roots of the soul; it is like that of the searching eyes of angels, they catch the swift thought of God and reveal it to us.” 

Bloom understood poets and a whole lot more. In one of the many recent tributes in the wake of his passing,  David Yaffe observed that he, “wrote books at the pace at which most people read them, and he read them at the pace at which most people watched TV.”

Although he was raised in an orthodox Jewish home where only Yiddish was spoken, Bloom came to a kind of Jewish Gnosticism (spiritual knowledge acquired through direct experience). The powerful and passionate God of Moses in the Torah was more appealing to him than the indulgent God of modern religion. There was a time in the late 1960s—a time of personal crisis— where he launched into a study of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah).

  Joseph Smith hovers in me. There cannot be too many Mormons who are as imbued with him as I am in my own odd way. 


He preferred being called a Jewish Gnostic than an atheist. When asked about God, he would lament that he couldn’t avoid Him. In his books, Bloom discussed “the path of poetic influence.” He studied the work of Gershom Scholem and attempted to use the structure of Kabbalah to map the path that poets took, building upon or reacting to the work of past writers. His masterwork was The Anxiety of Influence

Kabbalah is meant to lead the mystic through a journey of knowledge to the divine. This knowledge is gained individually and is not to be trusted to the world at large but only to those who qualify as both dedicated and righteous. In descent from the divine, there are 10 “sefirot” which could be considered as channels of divine creative life force or consciousness from God to man. They are Divine Will (Crown); Conscious Intellect (Wisdom, Understanding); and Conscious Emotions (Kindness, Discipline, Beauty, Eternity, Splendor, Foundation, and Kingship). These extend downward from the Infinite God to the material world and the initiate masters these channels upward until he understands what God knows.  

In 1992, Bloom published The American Religion. The book is “religious criticism” that focuses partly on the history of various American religions, but mostly on their spiritual values. He centers on the use of religion for Americans who have grown a culture that focuses on the individual. Thus, he looked not for communal paths to salvation but for the enabling of a one-to-one confrontation with the divine. He believed Joseph prevailed in his wrestle with the angel: “Smith’s insight could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius. …So strong was this act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies—Protestant, Catholic, Judaic—and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion. Smith’s radical sense of the theomorphic patriarchs and anthropomorphic gods is an authentic return to J, or the Yahwist, the Bible’s first author.”

Bloom had no access to the rituals of Latter-day Saint temples. If he had, he would have perhaps understood with even greater depth his own observation that “the great affinity between Judaism and 19th-century Mormonism is that each is the phenomenon not of a people becoming a religion but of a religion becoming a people.” 

Even so, he seemed to sense how Latter-day Saint temple rituals fastened themselves on ancient Merkavah (Chariot) Jewish mysticism. “I do not find it possible to doubt that Joseph Smith was an authentic prophet,” he would write, “Where in all of American history can we find this match? …I observe that his achievement as national prophet and seer is clearly unique in our history.”

The one [religion] that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the prophet, seer and revelator Joseph Smith.

Significantly, it was Joseph Smith’s rejection of death in which Bloom located Joseph’s full prophetic prowess. 

“What is the essence of religion?” Bloom asks. 

“Sigmund Freud said it was the longing for the father. Others have called it the desire for the mother or for transcendence. I fear deeply that all these are idealizations, and I offer the rather melancholy suggestion that they would all vanish from us if we did not know that we must die.”

“Religion,” he said, “rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins.”

Of all religions, however, “the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the prophet, seer and revelator Joseph Smith.”

With his recent passing, I can only imagine that Bloom now sees Joseph’s prophetic defiance of death in a new light.

About the author

Gale Boyd

Gale Boyd has been a teacher, poet, author, and editor and is currently the copy editor for Public Square Magazine. Born in D.C. and raised in L.A., she joined the Church at age 16, converting from Science, which was the religion in her home. She discovered her true heritage a few years later and began her deep dive into Judaism at that point. Fifteen years into her temple marriage, her then family of seven began their 14-year adventure in international living by moving to Israel, where they lived for 8 years, adding one more child and changing the trajectory of eight lives.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Equal Partnership Marriage in an Individualistic America

The idea of an “equal partnership” between a man and woman in marriage is hard for Americans to understand – involving as it does not a “sameness” of proclivities or skills, but instead a profoundly interwoven union that reflects common burden-sharing. 

Jacob Adriaensz. Backer Painting of David & Bathsheba | Bathsheba Draping over David | David’s Other Sin with Bathsheba | Public Square Magazine | David & Bathsheba Story

David’s Other Sin with Bathsheba

In addition to the clear violations against chastity, David’s behavior towards Uriah and Bathsheba reflects an ancient warning against the very exploitation of the powerless we continue to see around us today.

Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.