Having seen blasphemy raised as an issue on blog posts over the last week, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the topic, and our varying attitudes towards it. Reported in the news today, Coptic Christian teens in Egypt have been sentenced to 5 years in prison for insulting Islam, the maximum sentence for religious blasphemy in Egypt.
Example 1: Taken from comments on Mormon Heretic’s recent post here on W&T.
Nate commented:
“Scripturally, God IS racist and sexist, or more accurately, tribal and hierarchal [sic]. I imagine that some of the brethren might even prefer to exercise a bit more affirmative action in this regard, but are kept from doing so for some reason. Whether this is because of God’s will, or because of cultural entrenchment, who knows. I think that cultural entrenchment IS God’s will in a sense, because an all-powerful God could EASILY fix this problem and make His will known. But He doesn’t, so ultimately, all of this is His fault.”
To which MH responded:
“Nate, I find your comments blasphemous and offensive.”
Later adding:
“As for Nate, I am frankly disgusted that he would say “God IS racist and sexist…” No God is not. Man is racist and sexist, and to apply these false labels is blasphemy. If God is good, then He cannot be racist and sexist. His followers certainly can be and are.”
Example 2: Taken from comments on “A Change Within Reach: Women as Witnesses”, a recent post on the feminist Mormon housewives blog.
anita commented:
“Another reason which hasn’t been addressed here is that with a male sealer and two male witnesses, the three men represent the Godhead who are bestowing/blessing the ordinance. I don’t see that likely to change…”
To which Kevin Barney responded as part of a broader comment:
“… Symbolism creep. By this I mean the idea expressed above that the officiant and two witnesses represent the Godhead. (Something I personally have never actually heard.) This seems to me like an idiosyncratic (and possibly blasphemous) notion that some temple worker just came up with out of whole cloth. …”
Resulting in a warning then issued by anon:
“As Kevin Barney said below, this idea may not just be original doctrinal extrapolation, but may be actual blasphemy, so a caution to people reading this to be careful about repeating things someone said somewhere.”
Indeed, I have myself wondered at some point in the past, whether something or other might not constitute blasphemy, and likely commented to that effect on the relevant post. I don’t recall specifics.
Still, different people appear to have different triggers, to what they consider to be blasphemy. Reactions range from suggesting the possibility, through confident assertion, to threat and violence. For some, anything they consider blasphemous is not to be tolerated. In many countries blasphemy breaks the law protecting the established religion, and in some states it is a capital offence. In England the death penalty for blasphemy was abolished in 1676 (much later in Scotland), and in 2008 the law relating to blasphemy abolished. In a pluralist society it would seem to be more straight-forward to come down in favour of free speech, rather than favour one religion over another, or attempt to protect every religious view-point.
A dictionary definition describes blasphemy as:
“The action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk”
It could be argued that sacrilege has to be intended on the part of the offender.
- Do you have a view on the particular examples given?
- What is your reaction when faced with something you consider to be blasphemous?
- Do you respond, and if so, are you confident or more tentative in your response?
- Are you more tolerant of remarks made by those outside your faith than those inside?
- Are accusations of blasphemy helpful?
- Does intention matter to you?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
How can there be blasphemy beyond a legal construction for the defense of control of thought? In either a state or a church, the function is the same: to remove (or punish) people who speak against the accepted order of the community. For some people, a protester burning a US flag elicits a disgust so similar to a sense of blasphemy that I can’t really see the difference.
In other words, the concept of blasphemy is a means of utilizing social control, another way of saying, “I am offended that you have threatened me by calling into question that which I consider so important as to be sacred, and I’m going to try to use the accepted/our common religious tradition to retaliate.” That’s why I find the charge dubious at best. Isn’t it more useful to tell someone that you think they’re wrong/dangerous for making that argument than trying to tie it up with a bow and bring down the social hammer on them? If they really are “blaspheming,” isn’t it enough to point out they’re wrong?
Are we talking about blasphemy in a civil law construct, or in a context of sin? Blasphemy is sin, and is unwelcome among believers, but it might not be punishable under the civil law.
I could say that blasphemy is when one person says something about God that another person doesn’t like, but that statement is blasphemous by its own definition since it implies blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder and not objectively definable by God, which I’m sure would offend some.
On the idea that temple workers symbolize the god-head, I have heard similar statements about other sets of three men (bishopric, presidencies) and while I don’t think it is doctrinal, I also don’t see why it is blasphemous since the temple workers are doing nothing profane or obscene.
I do see why MH thought Nate’s comments were blasphemous, but I took Nate’s comments to be about racism and sexism of the imperfect writers of scripture, not about God, so I didn’t see it as blasphemous myself.
But for some reason, I’m not actually bothered by blasphemy, so perhaps I’m desensitized.
I agree with Rockwell that blasphemy is “in the eye of the beholder.”
Perhaps I have been too provocative in my language and said things about God which offend other people. Generally, my disagreements with MH center around the question “who to blame?” When something bad or incomprehensible happens within the church, MH and LDS progressives like to blame people: LDS leadership, etc. But I don’t like to blame people. I’m somewhat of a determinist who believes that people in general are trying to do the right thing. If there is a problem, I look to God. Why did God allow that problem to happen? He is all-powerful and could have stopped it, but He didn’t, so I have to blame Him. He must “desire” it on some level.
If this is blasphemy, then it is blasphemy in the service of people. I love people and I don’t want to judge them as much. But God is all-powerful, so He can take my blame. Is He diminished if I take His name in vain? Can He even be bothered to be disappointed? I don’t really think so. These are all such anthropomorphic projections that we place on Him.
stricklj, an interesting viewpoint. Certainly in Europe obselete blasphemy law has often been replaced by laws relating to hate speech, which it could be argued have a similar purpose. The difference being, it’s argued that it centres around respect for the individual person, as opposed to deity.
ji, in answer to your question, both. I would ask can a non-believer be blasphemous? I know often, as in the recent case in Egypt, they have been found so, but from a religious perspective perhaps it is only the believer who is truly disrespectful?
Rockwell, I like your suggestion about it being in the eye of the beholder too. It certainly involves making judgements about the person one might consider to be guilty.
Nate, I find it interesting that you prefer to lay blame on God rather than humanity. I do agree with you that many are trying to do the right thing, and God certainly lets things happen, though it could be argued we are all culpable in that case, since we believe we all agreed to the plan in which these would be some of the consequences.
Relevant to both comments Nate and Rockwell, I tend not to be disturbed by people, but more so by ideas perhaps. So I think my responses fall more in the Kevin Barney style than than MH’s.
In a civil law construct, yes, a non-believer can be guilty of whatever that society considers as blasphemy.
In a construct of sin, yes, anyone can sin. Some might sin without fully knowing they are sinning — and some might do it with less culpability before God than others. We generally understand that a sinner can repent, and hope that all persons who sin by speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things will repent.
Hedgehog, comment #6, wrote: “Nate, I find it interesting that you prefer to lay blame on God rather than humanity.”
So do I. And I agree with what you quoted from Nate in the OP, “God IS racist and sexist, or more accurately, tribal and hierarchical.”
This is simple logic. Some postulations…
-God speaks to the latter-day prophets. (or at least the Church says that)
-The current ones (remember the 15 are all prophets, seers, etc.) recently admitted that the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood from 184x to 1978 was not a doctrine from God, but, rather, leaders’ cultural bias. In other words, not a revelation from God.
-The wholesale exclusion of an entire race is, by definition, racist.
-God knew it was occurring and had the ability to make it stop (revelation, inspiration, whatever).
-These “prophets” (at least the majority) were “in tune” enough to hear if God spoke up.
–Therefore God chose not to speak up. He chose to allow nearly 130 years of racism to be practiced.
–Therefore,
1. He is either racist and wanted that impact on all those black people, OR,
2. He determined that it was for our “good” (underlying assumption of that motive on His part). Or,
3. He isn’t there, or not paying any attention, and we are on our own
Either way He bears most of the fault (which is not to condemn all of us, personally, as racists since we had no ability to change the policy even though we may have found it abhorrent.
A similar logic can be used regarding sexism, and our ignorant and backward teachings regarding birth control prior to sometime in the 1980s, and our current policies regarding homosexuals. He must want it the way it is–including the VERY long time it always takes the church to come to its senses on these types of issues. If He wants these cultural failings and has the ability to change them, then is He not at “fault?” Or is obedience and mind control the underlying definition of righteousness?
If blasphemy is a sin, is the KJV Old Testament blasphemous when it says many times that God repented?
I think it’s about making sacred things common.
Blasphemy Scale:
Low High
OMG!Smash finger with hammer.|Kill, coerce etc claim it’s from God.
stricklj,
your description of what blasphemy is really establishes why it must be addressed/punished in the way that it is. As you say in your comment: “in either a state or a church, the function is the same: to remove (or punish) people who speak against the accepted order of the community. ”
So, since this is what it is, the only way to address it is through the social hammer. You can’t just “point out they’re wrong” because that wrongness is defined primarily as the accepted order of the community, as demonstrated by the social hammer being brought down.
Different communities or different eras will have different accepted orders. Certainly, within a community, there will be internal justifications for why certain things are taboo, but at the end of the day, if you just don’t accept the community’s order, then there’s no real way to pursuade you that that’s in your best interest.
Interesting post Hedgehog. You ask “What is it?” but you never give any hint of an answer. Sure, here are some examples, and it seems like it is a vote to determine. And then strickj comes up with a really weird definition: “the concept of blasphemy is a means of utilizing social control”
Well if I’m trying to exert social control on Nate, I’ve failed miserably. He is still posting here at W&T, and his latest salvo “If this is blasphemy, then it is blasphemy in the service of people.” He might as well as said “so what?” If I’m exerting social control of him, it hasn’t worked.
So let’s answer the question, “What is it?” Of course there are several definitions. Even if we go with something strickj is going with
Rarely enforced means it is a poor means of social control. In my case, I used blasphemy with this definition in mind.
As I said before, let me state it again. If God is good, then He cannot be racist and sexist. To call God racist and sexist is to call God “not good”. This is PROFANE and CONTEMPTUOUS speech, and frankly, to call God racist and sexist is to take the name of God in vain. It is breaking one of the 10 Commandments. Nate’s given his justifications for his position. I frankly find his reasoning not only proposterous, but self-contradictory. Pretty much everything Nate writes is either grossly offensive, or causes me to roll my eyes due to the self-contradictions his posts exhibit. Words are basically meaningless to Nate, which is why I usually avoid him. Simply, he speaks jibberish 90% of the time, and in the 10% of the time he makes sense, he’s stereotypically offensive.
As for Kevin Barney’s use of the word, I agree that this is symbolism creep. I’m not sure I would agree that this is blasphemy. In looking for another definition that fits Kevin’s use, perhaps this applies
Still, I think it’s a stretch. Kevin can speak for himself as to how he thinks this applies, but yes I agree that was symbolism creep. People often find symbolism in strange ways, and some of this symbolism is of questionable quality (as in this case.)
fbisti, it is a perspective I can have sympathy with. Still, I don’t think God likes to have to tell us everything, when we ought to be capable of working it out for ourselves first. Does this have horrible consequences? Yes, but I gather we were aware of that when we agreed to the plan.
Rockwell, an awful lot of horrible stuff gets attributed to God in the OT. I guess it’s not much further of a stretch to describe Him as having repented. I do recall reading somewhere though that the use of ‘repent’ in those passages doesn’t mean quite as we’d mean it today however. Unfortunately I don’t recall the details off-hand.
What would sit in the middle on your scale Vinz?
Andrew, great point. Thank you.
MH: “You ask “What is it?” but you never give any hint of an answer.”
Well I did include a brief dictionary definition MH. Blasphemy laws are still a means of social control in some countries. That’s no longer the case in the West, and citizens of western nations aren’t going to take such attempts at using it as such so seriously I think. As I mentioned in my reply to stricklj obsolete blasphemy law has often been replaced by laws relating to hate speech.
“Is God good?” may well be another topic for discussion or debate. Not everyone will agree with you that He is. One of the documents I linked in the OP discusses to what extent blasphemy law, and indeed laws relating to hate speech impinge on the right to free speech, and open discussion, and what the appropriate balance might be.
(sorry to derail the topic, Hedgehog, but I’m going to just put this here)
MH,
Yeah, I think if you’re trying to exert social control on Nate, you’re not really all that effective at it. Nate comes across as pretty gracious and your attacks come off as a bit unhinged. But that’s none of my business (*sips tea*)
Your entire argument against Nate involves defining good separate from God. Which, to be fair, is something that atheists like to do a lot (especially to critique the concepts proposed of God) and I am not necessarily opposed to this (since I am an atheist)…but whereas you say that Nate speaks gibberish, I see this as being simply two people speaking from two different starting positions, and I have to say that if you can’t recognize that someone could come to very different conclusions from different starting positions without dismissing it as gibberish, then I can’t really help this.
In my evaluation, in fact, I would take Nate’s POV as being more indicative of where theists should be committed. Arguing morality *against* God makes sense for a disbeliever, but this is not really something from a theist’s toolkit (or rather, to the extent a theist uses it, they betray a weakness about their deity. And I think it’s fair to say that in some forms of Mormonism, God is defined in such a way that he is not the final arbiter of morality.)
But when you say:
Who the hell gave you any authority to speak for what “good” is???
Let’s apply some choice scriptures
“Where were you when [God] laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?”
The scriptures often say that God’s ways are not man’s ways and God’s thoughts are not man’s thoughts. Humans look like insignificant specks to God. God creates humans for his own purposes.
So, who are YOU to speak?
Another set of scriptures from Isaiah:
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
those who are nothing but potsherds
among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
‘The potter has no hands’?
10 Woe to the one who says to a father,
‘What have you begotten?’
or to a mother,
‘What have you brought to birth?’
When theists get to the scriptures, you have to seriously confront that God is not a conventional fellow. God doesn’t seem to do things by normal rules. And the scriptures further engage that faith is mostly about *dealing with that*, learning to submit to the ways that God scandalously fails to mesh with what is nice from a secular context, even if it really chafes against your sensibilities.
If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine. As an atheist, I determine that I’m not willing to submit to that and I’m not willing to deal with that.
But you know what? I accept that if there is a God, he will have the ultimate say. If that is eternal hell, then so be it. I can’t just assert that I am right or that I know better about morality. By definition, if I go against him, I am wrong. I am just more OK with being ultimately wrong than with violating my own sense of conscience.
MH, maybe some of what I write sounds like jibberish because we are both working under very different assumptions about the nature of God. For you, God is good “a priori,” and any suggestion to the contrary is an offence. To you, God is the very definition of goodness, so calling God a racist is tantamount to saying that racism is good, and obviously, that is an offensive notion.
But my view on God is much different than yours. When I look at the God of the Old Testament, I take Him at face value. That genocidal, racist God really WAS God, God as He revealed Himself to the people of that time, as He was understood by them. God could EASILY presented Himself differently. He did not. Why not? That is the question I scream at God. It is the same question that millions have people have screamed at God in various guises regarding the problem of human suffering throughout time. In my mind, and in the mind of millions of others, that problem has not been adequately answered, not by God, not by the church, not by anyone. When I blaspheme God, I speak on behalf of millions throughout time, who have looked at the creation and beheld that in fact “it was NOT good.”
I believe in God, I have heard His voice and felt His love. I believe in His ultimate love for mankind. But I also believe in His terror. This may seem a contradiction to you, but to me, I see it as unavoidable. In every struggle, in every suffering, in every question, we go back to the central, unanswered problem of creation: the problem of the Book of Job: why suffering? Why create a “natural man” and then make it your enemy?
Andrew, it’s kind of funny to hear a black atheist try to argue via theist scriptures (for example) that God is a racist. Seems like a hollow argument that you and I both agree on, and is a case of devil’s advocate.
While I can appreciate that Nate is trying to reconcile the racist, sexist Old Testament god with the New Testament “good” Jesus, I simply think his approach is all wrong. The two are not reconcilable by saying that God is a racist. That’s blasphemy (at least Nate owns it. So to answer Hedgehog’s question: Blasphemy: what is it? The answer is Nate’s comments are blasphemy. Even he agrees, so I think we’ve come to a consensus. Yes Nate’s a blasphemer. Maybe I can send him to striklj for some social ostracization, because clearly I suck at it. j/k)
It is clear to me that biblical prophets spoke with limited light and knowledge. Surely mankind has learned and progressed in 6000 years. While I am happy to look at the 10 Commandments as God-inspired, I also am happy to look at slavery in the Bible as prophets who spoke with limited understanding. I don’t try to reconcile the two. Yes, some could call me a cafeteria Mormon. So is everybody else. Biblical references to slavery are an anathema to the idea of the Golden Rule. Given the choice of reconciling irreconciliable differences in scripture, I am more than happy to use 6000 years of enlightenment to “do unto others as they do unto you.” I wouldn’t want to be a slave. I don’t think it’s really that hard to argue that God wants me to be a slave. The golden rule is godly. Slavery cannot be. Prophets who claimed slavery was godly were speaking the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. They weren’t speaking scripture. There’s nothing to reconcile. Slavery was and is wrong.
God’s ways are not man’s ways can also be applied here. Scriptures that promote slavery are not God’s ways. They are man’s way.
As for the jibberish (or gibberish) of Nate, I don’t think it can be simply written off as him coming at this from a different angle. Stating things such as “The Tea Party is dead” is demonstrably false (see Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio for a counter-argument.) Such a statement IS jibberish. It is demonstrably false. I can’t get behind a post when he says something so blatantly false. I know he lives in the UK, and even though he’s American, I guess he must not have his pulse on the life of the Tea Party. If that’s the case, pick another topic. Clearly this is a ridiculous statement, and he should stick to topics of which he has more expertise. (He’s made demonstrably false statements such as this more than once.)
But my bigger issue is, as he just admitted on his most recent post “I sometimes am guilty of extending definitions and meanings.” Sometimes? How about every single post. He uses words such as “empirical” when he is talking about a clearly “subjective” experience of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Maybe this statement isn’t quite as demonstrably false as his Tea Party statement, but he extends definitions beyond usefulness. I still think back on his posts “conservatives are liberal”, “liberals are conservative”, and I get the feeling that up is down, black is white, and I just can’t read this jibberish anymore. It is self contradictory, and the loose meanings are so loose that nothing makes sense any more.
I usually don’t comment on Nate’s posts, but when he goes into blasphemy on my post that “God is racist and sexist”, I simply find that offensive. He may be a (as Andrew said) “gracious”, and self-described blasphemer, but I still find it offensive. Timothy McVeigh is a self-described terrorist. What he did reprehensible. I’m glad both admit it, but I would be just as “unhinged” (as Andrew characterized) if I met an offensive terrorist Timothy McVeigh as a blasphemer like Nate. I don’t care how gracious they are, it is still offensive.
I could say with a smile, the n-word and no matter how polite I am, even if I brought Andrew his favorite treat, and I think he would find it offensive, even if I meant it in jest. Maybe that’s not true, maybe Andrew wouldn’t be offended, but I wouldn’t dare take that chance. I mean Howard Cosell was fired for calling Art Monk a “monkey” praising his athletic ability. He didn’t mean it offensive, but it still was offensive and racist.
So Nate, if you want me to try to better understand your position, you can’t be like Howard Cosell and be a gracious blasphemer. It’s not going to go over well, and I will probably get a bit unhinged.
MH,
If we agreed, you’d be an atheist. But what I’m pointing out is that you choose to ignore scriptures, past prophets, current prophets, past leaders of other religious traditions, current leaders of religious traditions, to insist that God fits your comfortable 21st century moral values. On the other hand, I recognize that that accumulation of scripture, religious teaching (across multiple religions), etc., etc., cannot be so easily dismissed. These are the artifacts and evidences we have of God. The people who believe themselves most in communion with God, who believe themselves most devoutly following God, all say these things. This entire body suggests either that God doesn’t exist, God doesn’t care, or God doesn’t fit 21st century moral values. I have to consider the third option seriously, even if in fact, I take the first.
But when we talk about blasphemy, since this is a primarily *social* pronunciation and God doesn’t seem to keen on speaking on his own behalf, then we can assess that blasphemy is something socially based. And in this case, your choosing to ignore or throw scriptures, past prophets, current prophets, other leaders of other traditions, other scriptures in other traditions, etc., holds a stronger social case for blasphemy. Nate, after all, will be OK with his comments in *any LDS ward*.
I mean, you have these big ticket items, but *on any given issue*, you can find someone who disagrees.
It looks obvious that restricting the priesthood was discriminatory, therefore racist, therefore incorrect and immoral, and therefore not of God (but keep in mind that your own religious leaders still will NOT admit that. They will never say that the priesthood ban was not of God. Only that “we don’t know” and that it disavows *theories*). Is it obvious that restricting the priesthood to men is discriminatory, therefore sexist, therefore incorrect and immoral, therefore not of God? Is it obvious that restricting church membership from those in same sex relationships is homophobic, therefore incorrect, therefore not of God?
At what point can religion suggest or implement standards that, yes, may be profoundly unpopular with the external society?
Is the fact that there are *any standards at all* which therefore limit church membership or participation or availability of blessings to at least some portion of the population discriminatory, therefore incorrect and immoral, therefore not of God?
How can you reconcile continuing membership in a religion that not only continues to discriminate on these and other paths, not only does not apologize for its past actions, but argues (unlike you) that such discrimination is justified by God? Why “Mormon Heretic” and not “anti-Mormon apostate”?
Andrew, just wanted to say I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement with Mormon theism from an outside perspective.
Thank you for your constructive contribution to the discussion Andrew. Great comments.
Nate: “God as He revealed Himself to the people of that time, as He was understood by them. God could EASILY presented Himself differently. He did not.”
Well, I think there might be something to be said for God presenting Himself in a way that the people at the time were able to understand and accept. I like to think that was far from the ideal.
MH, well… I don’t consider Nate’s comments to be blasphemous. I think it is legitimate to consider the questions he raises, coming as they do from scripture. To shout them down as blasphemy doesn’t help constructive discussion, in my view. A very blunt hammer. If on the other hand he was mocking, which I didn’t observe, that would be different. And I agree with Andrew, that you were definitely coming over as unhinged.
ji, sorry. I must have missed your #7 earlier. I gather you’re defining sins (including blasphemy) as absolutes, rather than circumstantial or knowledge-based.
Hedgehog, #13: “I don’t think God likes to have to tell us everything, when we ought to be capable of working it out for ourselves first. Does this have horrible consequences? Yes, but I gather we were aware of that when we agreed to the plan.”
Actually, I agree. That is how I have to come to understand God. However, I continue to be very chapped off that our leaders unceasingly teach us that they are led by God, He inspires (and according to Elder Nelson’s recent defense of the November Policy change) and reveals information/decisions to the prophets. One cannot have it both ways: It isn’t God’s fault, it is ours as imperfect humans–but he told me to do it!
Over the course of many decades of personally hearing, researching what I didn’t hear, and otherwise observing all the (Mormon) information purported to about God and his relationship with man, I can only conclude that He is completely, or nearly completely, uninvolved with our GAs (past and current). Otherwise my logic would lead to the conclusion that He does not exist and human emotion explains all spiritual experiences.
Andrew, I think you do a better job channeling an evangelical or Calvinist than a conservative racist Mormon. Some things that jump out of me that are just off: “Nate, after all, will be OK with his comments in *any LDS ward*.”
I can’t tell you how strongly I disagree with this statement. If Nate got up in *any LDS ward* (with the possible exception of Cliven Bundy’s ward or a Mormons for Donald Trump convention), and bore his testimony that “God is racist and sexist”, I can guarantee that the next 5 people up would bear testimony of just the opposite. Nate would probably end up in the Bishop’s office for counsel. Furthermore, the Brethren already responded to something similar when Randy Bott said “God has always been discriminatory” and then said “black males couldn’t hold the priesthood was because they weren’t ready; like a father denying car keys to a young child.” The LDS Church didn’t wait 24 hours to issue a scathing rebuke. Bott was fired (technically forced retirement), and the Church has distanced itself quite strongly from Bott’s much milder comments than Nate’s. So in no way would Nate’s comments get by in *any LDS ward.* I think most would be appalled and indignant.
But who is to say that 600 BC or 2000 BC morals were correct? I’m not the only one ignoring scriptures. When was the last time you heard an LDS prophet promote the idea that “Women should be silent in church” or “be kind to your slaves” or “set your slaves free after 7 years and if they want to stay a slave, just pierce their ear that the slave is yours forever?”
LDS Prophets aren’t just ignoring Mosaic scriptures, they ignore modern scriptures. “Men will be punished for their own sins, not Adam’s transgression.” That one has been ignored for a century: blacks were cursed by Ham or Cain or the pre-existence—Oh yeah, now in 2015 the church issues a statement “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life….”
Church members seem to be ignoring current prophets too. I don’t know if you’re following the medical marijuiana debate here in Utah, but the Utah Senate just passed a bill a few days ago AGAINST the LDS Church’s Public wishes. (The bill goes on to the House for their ratification, which I think is unlikely.) Conservative Mormons don’t like the LDS Church’s position on immigration, and routinely tell the church to “get out of politics” (to say nothing of liberals who don’t like the church’s stand on gay marriage.) So yeah, I’ve got good company in ignoring scriptures, current and past prophets. Catholics routinely ignore the Pope on contraception too, so this isn’t all that unique.
In your previous comment, you said “Who the hell gave you any authority to speak for what “good” is???” Let me ask you Andrew, “Who the hell gave you any authority to speak for what “good” is???” Who gives anyone authority to speak for what good is? I mean I don’t know what answer you want me to give you here. I use scriptures, inspiration, revelation, reason, logic, persuasion, etc. What do you use? What does anyone use to decide what “good” is? I do just what everybody else does. I study it out in my mind, ask God if it is right, and then decide. Perhaps you leave out the asking God part, but I suspect my decision making process is quite similar to yours. I believe this whole process is called epistemology, right?
I don’t consider Nate’s comments to be blasphemous.
Help me out here Hedgehog, are you saying God is racist and sexist? I don’t think so, because you’ve been pretty vocal about sexism in the past. Help me understand why calling God a racist and a sexist does not meet the definition of blasphemy in your mind.
If on the other hand he was mocking, which I didn’t observe, that would be different.
I don’t think he was mocking either, but I don’t follow you here. If I sincerely said that stay at home women are lazy, are natural nurturers, should always wear dresses to church, and should be silent in church, does that make it ok? In other words, if I sincerely believed this, you’d be fine with me advocating such positions so long as I was nice and not mocking?
MH, you are correct, that I would never in a million years say anything this provocative at church. I say stuff like this only in groups like this blog, where people are more open-minded and less likely to be offended.
But just because someone is open-minded, doesn’t mean they don’t have passionate feelings about right and wrong. And even here on this blog, one should be careful not to offend or trample on people’s sacred beliefs. I probably shouldn’t have written what I wrote on your post, knowing how you feel about God. You believe in moral absolutes and in the free agency of man, and it is natural you would be offended by my views.
But me, I’m somewhat of a moral relativist, and a determinist. I still do believe in right vs wrong, as well as free agency. It’s just that I think we sometimes misinterpret right vs wrong, and that our free agency is much more limited than we imagine it to be. This is why I defend the prophets when they present racist or sexist policy. They honestly believe (they “know” in LDS parlance) that what they are doing is right. When someone does something, and they really think “they are doing God a service,” then like Jesus, I will always say “forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Jesus, in the guise of Jehovah, had commanded the Pharisees to kill blasphemers. Then Jesus blasphemed. He got what He asked for. But Jesus forgives them, because that’s what God set them up to do! “They who kill you think they are doing God a service.” Like Paul, they are just saying “Lord what wilt thou have me to do? Kill Christians? OK. Preach Christianity? OK, I can do that too if you really want.”
Jesus was a blasphemer? If blasphemy is a sin, and Jesus was sinless, it makes it hard to reconcile those statements.
Now I agree that Jesus was accused of blasphemy by people who felt he wasn’t divine. If I felt Jesus wasn’t divine, then blasphemy would be a Proper term. However, no Christian can claim Jesus was a sinless blasphemer, or else the atonement would be void, having been filled by a sinner.
Andrew, *This entire body suggests either that God doesn’t exist, God doesn’t care, or God doesn’t fit 21st century moral values. I have to consider the third option seriously, even if in fact, I take the first.*
I do think there are other options, because I don’t subscribe to any that you’ve listed. 4-God did care but usually allows or free agency to Trump his will.
Hedgehog,
I do believe speaking sacreligiously about God and sacred things is sin: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain… However, I won’t argue with a contentious person on whether a certain statement in a certain context is or is not blasphemy. I recognize it when I hear it, I suppose imperfectly, but I’m content to let God judge these matters. My only concern is that we conclude that blasphemy is not sin, and so teach others — that would be error.
Freedom of speech in a civil law construct is wonderful, and citizens in many countries are free to say what they want. However, Galations 6:7 applies beyond the civil law. A person’s civil government might not punish a blasphemer, and rightly so in free-speech countries, but his or her family, friends, and neighbors might reasonably be offended withdraw their fellowship. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Oops!
…be offended and withdraw…
re 24,
MH,
No one is going to say “God is racist and sexist,” Because they legitimately do not think that the sexes having different roles (and different obligations and responsibilities) is sexist. This is a claim made by feminists to which the church simply rejects that framework. (Similarly, the claims that the priesthood ban was racist is made out of a certain framework.)
And as far as racism, to this day, everyone can’t conclude that the priesthood ban was racist. At best, the church disavows *theories* and *speculations* to the origins or to the implications for black people, but will not say the ban itself was racist. See also Randy Bott — Bott got fired for speculation….but the church STILL will not say that the ban itself was racist.
The definition of blasphemy requires a defintion of “disrespectful language” and what is “sacred.” Both are social constructs (even if that social construct is believed to have been divinely mandated).
Christ was considered blasphemous because he declared himself equal with God, a clear case of disrespecting God (a mortal claiming equality with divinity!) to the Jews. From Christ’s viewpoint, however, he *was* God (according to my belief), so therefore it was not blasphemy. It all depends on your point of view, what you believe is sacred, and what you believe is appropriate speech.
So in the Mosaic culture of the Old Testament, where there was *one* law, *one* governing belief system, it was easy to determine blasphemy based on that society’s definition. Blasphemy was punishable by death and that punishment could be enforced by the citizens. In a pluralistic society where the definition of what is sacred is relative, blasphemy is nearly impossible to enforce legally.
Intention does matter. Intentionally mocking someone’s beliefs just for the sheer fun of it is distasteful and mean-spirited. Attacking someone’s beliefs out of anger and frustration is a little more understandable, even if it still can be hurtful. My level of offense will depend on my emotional investment in the argument. If I’m more detached and looking at the intellectual merits of an argument (like on most of these posts), I’ll tend to let comments like that slide and respond in an intellectual vein. If I’m more invested emotionally, though, it’s more difficult to stay civil.
The definition of blasphemy requires a defintion of “disrespectful language”….
I’m not so sure I agree with that. The first definition I listed in 12 does include “The act of reviling, ridiculing, OR being disrespectful or irreverent”, but the 2nd definition (that I prefer) says nothing about being disrespect, but rather “profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine.” And I think Kevin Barney agrees with me–the person who said witnesses were like the Godhead wasn’t ridiculing or being purposefully disrespectful, but that symbolism creep was perhaps unintentionally irreverent. Furthermore, I think it’s hard to argue that when Jesus was accused of blasphemy that he was intentionally being disrespectful or mocking.
It’s also hard to ascertain motives. If in fact that Jesus was sinless, and if in fact he admitted to mocking Pharisees, then we are either going to have to re-interpret sinless, or re-evaluate his sinless atonement.
For this reason, I don’t think intention is a requirement of blasphemy. Certainly if someone intentionally ridicules, it’s easy to see blasphemy, but I think it’s easy to misinterpret intentions.
“Help me out here Hedgehog, are you saying God is racist and sexist? I don’t think so, because you’ve been pretty vocal about sexism in the past. Help me understand why calling God a racist and a sexist does not meet the definition of blasphemy in your mind.”
MH, Nate stated: “Scripturally, God IS racist and sexist”
And he’s right, going by what is written in the OT. Now I don’t like that God, I don’t like racism or sexism, but I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that He doesn’t come across that way in scripture. “Scripturally” was for me the significant word you appeared to miss in your response to Nate, and it’s that which provides the context for his remark and the discussion which followed. In that context I do not regard his statement as blasphemous.
I’d go further, and say it is precisely because of the scriptural depiction that some people have difficulty in envisaging a loving God, particularly women. All I can say is I hope He isn’t racist and sexist. I don’t want Him to be racist and sexist. But where’s the evidence…?
“If I sincerely said that stay at home women are lazy, are natural nurturers, should always wear dresses to church, and should be silent in church, does that make it ok? In other words, if I sincerely believed this, you’d be fine with me advocating such positions so long as I was nice and not mocking?”
MH, If it was your sincere belief, I would respect your right to your opinion. I wouldn’t agree with you, and I wouldn’t do it (wear dresses and stay silent in church), and I would expect you to be able to provide cogent reasons for your belief in the context of a discussion.
ji, thanks for responding. As Mary Ann pointed out, now we’re getting into definitions of sacrilege. On the face of it I wouldn’t disagree with your statement, but for me context and attitude would determine whether there was sacrilege or no. So in a forum discussing ideas, for instance, as this is, I don’t think I would say something is off the table because it would be sacrilege otherwise. I would however think it interesting to discuss whether or not a particular idea might constitute blasphemy, such as Kevin Barney raised in the example given in the OP. Though I’m sure there probably are things I wouldn’t be prepared to discuss, so it’s not a free-for-all. Certainly, I would agree that mockery is a bad thing. But again different people may define this differently, in nuance. So that a person can be accused of mockery, where that was far from their intention.
Mary Ann, great comment. Thank you for fleshing out the social construct idea. I agree with you that intention does matter.
“And I think Kevin Barney agrees with me–the person who said witnesses were like the Godhead wasn’t ridiculing or being purposefully disrespectful, but that symbolism creep was perhaps unintentionally irreverent.”
Well, I’d certainly agree that elevating people to the position of God could well constitute blasphemy (mockery intended or otherwise). And it would be interesting discuss whether that elevation was the case here, or whether something else was intended. Certainly it’s an idea that has no scriptural backing, so far as I am aware – as Kevin Barney described it, an “idiosyncratic (and possibly blasphemous) notion that some temple worker just came up with out of whole cloth”. And that would be where this idea would differ from Nate’s idea.
I prefer not to get into doubtful disputations on the definition of sacrilege. Like the U. S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart said regarding another matter, “I know it when I see it.” Context and attitude are important.
In the context of a discussion, one should not want to say anything that might be offensive to his or her own values, or to the values of his or her correspondent or interlocutor. If we practice charity with our family, friends, and neighbors, then blasphemy against God can almost never occur. Blasphemy is not a sin against another person — it is a sin against God. A charge of blasphemy against one’s correspondent or interlocutor is almost never productive, if the goal is meaningful discourse. It introduces or reinforces contention.
So yes, in my mind, blasphemy exists and is sin — and parents and other teachers should teach correct principles and always speak of God and sacred things with the greatest respect. But little good comes from weaponizing the term to use against one’s neighbor in contentious and doubtful disputations.
Hedgehog, whether one introduces the term with or without the term “Scripturally, God is racist and sexist”, I think both the Brethren, as well as most members would dispute the assertion. I can see Nate’s argument in support of the position, but (and this is where I don’t necessarily follow standard orthodox positions–hence the heretic label applies) when I look at the Old Testament, it is obvious to me that the ancient Jews were HEAVILY influenced by pagan beliefs and practices. It is why there is so much emphasis on why idolatry is bad.
But just as racism and sexism from surrounding society has crept into our modern day church, I don’t think it’s a stretch that pagan beliefs and practices crept into the ancient Jewish religion. Hence I don’t think it should be at all surprising that pagan sexist and racist beliefs are attributed to the Jewish/Christian god–even in the Bible! I mean circumcision was a pagan practice long before Abraham introduced it. If he could adapt a pagan practice into something godly, and then Paul can say that circumcision isn’t required for church membership, what other pagan practices did ancient Jews adopt? A veangeful, hateful, sexist, racist god? Absolutely! That’s why I simply reject such depictions as godly. They seem much too similar to a greek Zues, or a pagan Molech or Baal. These representations are corruptions of the god of goodness. Once again, if God is the source of all good, and Satan is the source of all evil, and if Satan is trying to mix the philosophies of men and mingle them with scripture, then this not only seems entirely feasible, but likely over the past 6000 years of Bible history.
So while my theory may be not exactly orthodox, I don’t think orthodox members would embrace the idea that “Scripturally, God is racist and sexist.” Frankly, I can’t imagine a testimony spouting that phrase to go unchallenged in *any LDS ward*.
Hence I think it is blasphemy to make such a statement, whether one is saying it with ridicule in mind or not. Once again, I don’t think Jesus mockingly said “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Mockery is not a requirement of blasphemy, although it may be simultaneously present in many cases.
I will also add that many Christians would find the idea that God is a female to be blasphemous, regardless of whether the person stating the opinion was sincere or mocking.
pres·ent·ism [ˈprezenˌtizəm]
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
https://www.bing.com/search?pc=AMAZ&form=AMAZWB&q=presentism
Here’s an interesting article on presentism, from an academic perspective:
https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2002/against-presentism
ji, I think we agree more than disagree. Particularly on this point “little good comes from weaponizing the term to use against one’s neighbor”.
Interesting link on presentism. I think it’s something we can all fall into, certainly. How would you apply it in the current discussion?
MH, “So while my theory may be not exactly orthodox, I don’t think orthodox members would embrace the idea that “Scripturally, God is racist and sexist.” Frankly, I can’t imagine a testimony spouting that phrase to go unchallenged in *any LDS ward*.”
Well sure. I’d be *very* surprised to hear someone say that at church, albeit it might make a refreshing change. But isn’t that the point of blogs like these: we get to discuss the things that we wouldn’t normally be able to discuss in a church setting.
I would agree with you that *not all* blasphemy requires mockery. My reference to it (#21) was specifically in respect to Nate’s particular comment.
How would you apply it in the current discussion?
Nate seems to use presentism to judge God because of the past. Mormon Heretic seems to use presentism to judge past societies (and, in a different way, to judge God). Both judge others using today’s standards and values. In both cases, they judge others and find them failing based only on their modern sensibilities, thus seeming to set themselves apart as superior both to God and to past societies.
I think it is probably impossible to completely divorce ourselves from current paradigms ji. Even anthropologists find themselves surprised to discover something they thought they’d understood but hadn’t quite got the nuances of cultures readily observable that they can study now, never mind trying to work out what societies and cultures meant by what they recorded in the past. We can only try. Still I’d rather be living now than then.
Thinking about your links got me thinking about old films and tv series based on history or historical novels. Even though in theory they should be representing the past to us, and thus appear timeless, nevertheless they often do appear dated to the decade in which they were produced, even on something as basic as hairstyles sometimes.