Is blasphemy a thing? If so, what is it exactly?
[poll id=”328″]
Discuss.
Agency, Anti-Mormon, Apostasy, Christian, Church Policy, Doctrine, Faith, Freedom, Morality, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Uncategorized, weekend poll
Agency, Anti-Mormon, Apostasy, Christian, Church Policy, Doctrine, Faith, Freedom, Morality, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Uncategorized, weekend poll
Is blasphemy a thing? If so, what is it exactly?
[poll id=”328″]
Discuss.
This should be a “check all that apply” poll.
aren’t “being angry with God” and “Cursing God” two different things?
I’d like to add one: Claiming to speak on behalf of God when you don’t.
I consider blasphemy an abuse of the priesthood authority. Such as not giving a blessing when asked (and if unable to, refusing to get someone who can).
Outside of Temple discussions, Mormonism really doesn’t hold to the concept of blasphemy. I suppose “apostate” comes closest, but even that is less a reflection of teaching than actions or attitude.
Blasphemy is a human construct akin to offending one’s “honor” or in prison terms, “not showing respect.” While honor and respect are human to human offenses, blasphemy is a human to god offense. It’s kind of ironic that those who claim blasphemy has occurred don’t give God a voice.That is how does one know that God really was offended? Do you really think the an all powerful, all knowing being can be offended by a human? That would be like a human being offended over the babbling of a new born baby. To me, claiming blasphemy has occurred is blasphemy itself.
“I’d like to add one: Claiming to speak on behalf of God when you don’t.”
That one would certainly have my vote! Altogether too much of that in contemporary American life across the entire cultural and political landscape!
Where do you get that definition of blasphemy? It sounds like you’re just saying “well, blasphemy is bad, and abuse of the priesthood authority is bad, so abuse of the priesthood authority is blasphemy.”
Except that God has in fact spoken on the matter.
Re #9, that verse doesn’t define blasphemy; it simply specifies the penalty for a particular act of blasphemy. “Blasphemy” is the act of insulting or showing lack of reverence toward god or something sacred, so I suppose that misuse of the priesthood would count.
I’d think that the person involved would need to actually believe in the sacredness of the thing or god involved to be guilty of it; that only seems fair. Thus Kullervo, as a non-Mormon, isn’t blaspheming if he denies the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood and I couuld hardly be said to blaspheme by using an expression like “Holy cow!”
Okay, but if you are applying the definition of blasphemy that broadly, every sin is blasphemy, and thus the meaning of blasphemy is swallowed.
That’s the dictionary definition of blasphemy. If you’ve got a better one, as opposed to simply citing the specific case in Mark 3 (which ends up being circular reasoning), let’s hear it.
To the person who knows of the existence of God, I suppose you could argue that “every sin is blasphemy,” but in reality, what you’re saying simply isn’t true. There is a difference between our constant human and Christian struggle to become better, even though we don’t always make it (i.e., we sin), and an open attitude of irreverence and rebellion against God. Splitting theological hairs aside about our inability to think and fully examine our attitudes before we act, that’s a common-sense distinction most humans could be on board with.
If that’s a better working definition of “blasphemy,” then we’ve accomplished something.