Blasphemy! (Weekend Poll)

By: wheatmeister
May 10, 2014

Is blasphemy a thing?  If so, what is it exactly?

Which of the following are blasphemy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Discuss.

12 Responses to Blasphemy! (Weekend Poll)

  1. lastlemming on May 10, 2014 at 4:34 PM

    This should be a “check all that apply” poll.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  2. Frank Pellett on May 10, 2014 at 5:05 PM

    aren’t “being angry with God” and “Cursing God” two different things?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  3. Duke of Earl Grey on May 10, 2014 at 5:51 PM

    I’d like to add one: Claiming to speak on behalf of God when you don’t.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  4. NewlyHousewife on May 10, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    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).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  5. Jettboy on May 11, 2014 at 6:23 AM

    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.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  6. dba.brotherp on May 11, 2014 at 6:52 AM

    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.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  7. alice on May 11, 2014 at 9:43 AM

    “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!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  8. Kullervo on May 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    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).

    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.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  9. Kullervo on May 12, 2014 at 11:28 AM

    It’s kind of ironic that those who claim blasphemy has occurred don’t give God a voice.

    Except that God has in fact spoken on the matter.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  10. New Iconoclast on May 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM

    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!”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  11. Kullervo on May 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM

    “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.

    Okay, but if you are applying the definition of blasphemy that broadly, every sin is blasphemy, and thus the meaning of blasphemy is swallowed.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  12. New Iconoclast on May 13, 2014 at 7:06 AM

    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.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting

Archives

%d bloggers like this: