Temple worship is one of the most emotionally and socially complicated aspects of Mormonism.¬† It is generally spoken in the most sacred and spiritual terms, and there is no doubt that it is pinnacle of Mormon ritual life.¬† That said, many active, believing Mormons struggle with the temple experience (this is based anecdotal evidence, but I’ve heard enough stories to know that it’s not an isolated phenomenon, at least within the U.S.).
I believe that one of the reasons why we don’t hear many of the negative or at least ambivalent experiences is because it is considered blasphemous to expose details of temple ceremonies.¬† This is reinforced by powerful ritual oaths of secrecy sworn in the same edifice.¬† This designation of blasphemy restricts Mormons from talking about elements that seem problematic, and serves to discredit those who do bring such items to light.¬† From my perspective (especially as a scholar of religious ritual), this designation is both a form of social control and censorship.
Ironically, I’m trying hard not to divulge specifics.¬† I’m encourage the conversation to focus on blasphemy as a general concept, rather than on the details of the Mormon temple ceremony.
The Mormon temple is just one example.¬† Another relatively recent example is the publishing of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.¬† I’m sure that you can think of many more.¬† It bothers me in particular that the world’s great religions claim to have special insight into the nature of existence and then restrict avenues for critiquing aspects at the heart of each tradition.
I have a series of questions that underlie this musing.¬† What exactly is blasphemy?¬† If you accept that some things can be ‘legitimately’ labeled as blasphemy, then can such labeling be abused?¬† At what point does blasphemy cross the line into censorship?
7 responses so far ↓
1 Jeff // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Hmmm…I don’t think “blasphemy” exists, but I do believe that we have a duty to be respectful of other’s beliefs and feelings. I think there is a profound distinction between the two. Blasphemy assumes that the one being offended is God. If there is a God out there, I don’t believe that he or she is easily offended. Look at the variety on the earth, and it is easy to see that God would love us all in spite of our foibles. I think that it is impossible to offend God and, therefore, impossible to blaspheme.
That being said, I believe that respecting others is one of the greatest things we have to learn in this life. So, I think the point of my rambling is to say that we respect religious beliefs not for fear of offending God, but because we love and respect other people and their beliefs.
Does that make sense?
2 Johnny // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I agree that banning certain expressions and representations is a form of social control. I think, however, that it is an open question whether or not it is inappropriate.
Reading Foucault opened my eyes the many, many forms of social control. However, it seems to me that there are some forms of social control that are necessary, and others that though not necessary are relatively innocuous.
I am not a religious studies expert, but it seems to me that ‘taboo’ or ‘the sacred’ often imposes certain forms of behavior. It seems that without these community constraints ritual would not be possible at all. So I guess, I don’t see all forms of ritualistic constraints as negative, nor do I know if these particular examples are.
On the mormon note, it seems to me that there is much more social pressure to report a ‘positive’ experience with the temple which constrains people to share their negative experiences.
3 amelia // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:54 pm
just a quick comment: i think that where the temple is concerned, the question of whether discussing experiences that are less than positive or discussing concerns about the temple, whether these things are blasphemous has more to do with the rhetoric of the discussion–the audience, the tone, the intent, etc.–than with the question of having the conversation at all. i base that assessment on my own experience with discussing concerns regarding the temple with other mormons.
4 Elaine Frei // Mar 27, 2007 at 7:53 pm
On the temple specifically…I never got any farther than going as a teenager to do baptisms for the dead. That creeped me out enough that I never, ever had any desire to become a “Temple Mormon”. That means, of course, that all I know of other temple ceremonies is second, third, or fourth hand. However, the versions are uniform enough that I have confidence that they are largely accurate. None of it appeals to me.
As far as blasphemy goes, I have long believed that one can only blaspheme something one believes in. I would never go out of my way to offend someone who is a believer (in whatever they believe) by, for example, using what I know or suspect that they might consider blasphemous language. That would be rude. However, I don’t think anyone really has a right to determine what someone else can and cannot say for that reason.
I have a huge problem with the assumption, all too common today in our culture, that there is a “right” to not be offended, that is not to have to hear or see anything an individual finds personally offensive for political or doctrinal reasons. For example, some folks that argue that evolution should not be taught in schools because it “offends the sensibilties” or certain Christians. That’s just ridiculous, as far as I’m concerned.
So, yes I do think that accusations of blasphemy can be and are used as a form of social control, and that this is an abuse of the concept. I guess I look at it this way…an individual can decide what is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden, for him or herself to say, based on what they believe. I don’t believe he or she has the right to decide that others don’t have a right to say those things.
5 mel // Mar 28, 2007 at 12:43 am
Yes, the concept and use of the word “blasphemy” is censorship. It carries not merely the weight of social punishment but the threat of divine displeasure and retribution. For this reason it is a most severe form of censorship. It even has the power to silence the non-believer out of respect for the fear of the believer. This is the most extreme kind of censorship I can imagine.
What makes something so “sacred” (a prerequisite for blasphemy) that secrecy and fear must be attached in order to preserve it? I say it is a strong indication that the thing lacks sufficient virtue to sustain human awe.
I mean, look at human sexuality and spousal relationships just as a counter example; something I would readily classify as sacred. Look how it endures the most barbaric attacks. Look how we can speak openly about it, laugh about it, even debase again and again yet generation after generation worship at its alter and recognizes its virtue. So-called blasphemies against it cannot diminish its sactitity.
But where would the Mormon Temple ceremony be if treated to such open and profane deliberation as is directed at human sexuality? I dare say it would cease to exist in but a moment. This is the nature of all false gods…of all gods…for such fickle beings as those created by the human mind must censor the minds of their patrons in order to sustain and control their dominions.
At least that’s the take of an apostate mormon turned atheist, for what it’s worth. And there are no doubt many who will want to censor such blasphemy and disrespect for beliefs that others hold sacred. But this proves the point.
And yet, I still cannot bring myself to speak openly about the Mormon Temple Ceremony. Isn’t it odd?
6 John White // Mar 28, 2007 at 5:26 am
I have very strong negative reactions to social control, and I definitely see “blasphemy” as a severe form of social control.
7 Miko // Apr 1, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I agree with many of the opinions here: Jeff’s “blasphemy assumes that the one being offended is God” and the oft-noted blasphemy=social control.
The concept of the “sacred” is a difficult one for me because I feel that most things that are “sacred” are in need of a goodly injection of blasphemy to remind people to get over themselves. When I enter a dojo, a bookstore/library, or (less often) a house of worship I definitely feel and am in awe of the sacredness inherent in those places. But when I find people unable to discuss something because it’s sacred, it makes my blood boil (really, it doesn’t take much to set me off…).
Human sexuality, as noted above, is one thing whose sacredness, in my mind, is incontroverable. But I think that means that it should be discussed openly, respected & admired like one might religious art, and taught (in a not-creepy way) to children. The fact that it’s become taboo (which is, I like, what blasphemy is blaspheming against, not the sacred, but the taboo) is baffling to me. And look where it’s got us.
The issue with the Danish cartoons is an example: depictions of Muhammad are taboo. The depictions in question were insensitive (but funny, I like the one about running out of virgins) but they were only blasphemy because of the taboo. Most political cartoons are insensitive, and ones involving religion often are the most touchy because of the taboos involved.
It’s still social control. Religion is one ****** powerful method of social control.
Leave a Comment