On Solemn Mockeries

In analyzing (and condemning) the practice of baptizing infants, Mormon gives us a clear example of a kind of sacrilege he calls “solemn mockery.” The practice of baptizing infants is a mockery in that it turns baptism into a farce. He gives plenty of reasons: “little children are whole,” “they are not capable of committing sin,” repentance and baptism are only for those who are “accountable and capable of committing sin,” infants “cannot repent,” and as such, infants are already “alive in Christ.” (Go read Moroni 8 to get the context for all of these quotes). Ergo infants need neither repentance nor baptism.

But Mormon’s qualifier of “solemn” deserves consideration as well. By calling the practice a “solemn” mockery, Mormon recognizes that the people who practice it typically do not believe they are mocking God. In fact, people who practice infant baptism typically practice it with the utmost of respect and solemnity for God and religious ceremony. I’m positive that well-meaning anxiety and concern for the heavenly welfare of everyone prompted both the institution of infant baptism in Catholicism and Catholicism’s recent reassessment of the status of unbaptized children (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm).

Now, I can think of a few “wise purposes” the Lord may have had in mind when He prompted Moroni to include Mormon’s treatise against baptizing infants in the Nephite record. Certainly, the most obvious one is as a preemptive argument for the more than one billion Catholics in the world today who (heaven forbid they actually) learn about the restored Church and why they need to be baptized as a post-age-eight person by someone with restored priesthood authority. Think how especially useful this is as the Church spreads through Central and South America (among the primary audience Mormon and Moroni intended the Book for).

Perhaps not as obvious, but certainly possible, is this purpose: Moroni gives us an EXAMPLE in infant baptism of a KIND of solemn mockery. If we apply Moroni chapter 8 ONLY in terms of infant baptism, perhaps we are missing additional applications to ourselves. I submit, therefore, that there are other solemn mockeries with which we should probably be concerned.

Again, a solemn mockery is an assertion that fill these two criteria: (1) it is a farce of an essential Gospel principle perpetuated by (2) people who are convinced it is God’s will based (most likely) on other less vital principles. Such mockery is mockery by virtue of a reordering of spiritual priorities.

Consider again infant baptism.

Assertion: infants need baptism
Justification: nobody can enter heaven without baptism
Principle it violates or ignores: no SIN can enter heaven (baptism merely makes sinless those who have sinned)
Why: infants CANNOT sin ergo they do not need remission of sin even through baptism
Reconciliation: people who die as infants go straight to heaven, for they are sinless

Consider these other solemn mockeries presented in the same manner

Assertion: We should avoid the things that LOOK like they’re evil
Justification: Paul and Nephi teach us to (respectively) abstain from or shake at the appearance of evil.
Essential principle it violates or ignores: “the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7
Why: based on a misinterpretation of Paul and Nephi
Reconciliation: see earlier essay on this blog “On Avoiding (the Appearance of) Evil”

Assertion: we must set numbered baptism goals (i.e. our ward will baptize twelve people this year)
Justification: goal-setting exercises faith. If prayerfully set, the goal (which may seem unattainable) will be accomplished with the Lord’s help
Essential principle it violates or ignores: agency of others
Why: “A missionary cannot baptize five persons this month without the agency and action of five other persons. A missionary can plan and work and do all within his or her power, but the desired result will depend upon the additional agency and action of others.” Dallin H. Oaks
Reconciliation: “Consequently a missionary’s goals ought to be based upon the missionary’s personal agency and action, not upon the agency or action of others.” Dallin H. Oaks (both Oaks quotes are from “Timing,” BYU devotional address, January 29, 2002)

Assertion: vulgarity (i.e. a word like the F-bomb) is the same as taking (or using) the Lord’s name in vain
Justification: Vulgarity is “profane” and using the name of the Lord in vain is “swearing” – “profane” and “swearing” are the same, ergo vulgarity and breaking the Third Commandment are the same.
Essential principle this violates or ignores: Taking (or using) the name of the Lord in vain actually means using an appellate of Deity in an authoritative manner when in fact such authority is absent, as in D&C 63:60-62, “Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips—For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority.”
Why: Confusing profane and swearing is a basic error of confusing synecdoche for synonym. To “swear” (in a negative sense) used to mean to use the name of Deity in a purposely inappropriate manner – which actually is literally using the name of the Lord in a vain manner. “Profane” used to mean that which is unholy, unhallowed, desecrated, pagan, etc. The F-bomb (a VERY old word) was originally profane in the sense that its usage implied a desecration of a sacred act (i.e. procreation). Using the name of the Lord in vain was also profane, for it desecrated the sacred act of invoking God’s authority. The umbrella concept (at least the way culture uses it) is “profane”. “Using the name of the Lord in vain” is profane, but not all that is profane is “using the name of the Lord in vain.” Eventually, sometime several centuries ago, people began interchanging “swearing” for “profanity” which, as I mentioned, are scripturally synecdochic – not synonymic.
Reconciliation: Language is essentially communicative. Some words in certain cultures communicate hurtful or demeaning messages. Don’t hurt or demean (which means, by and large, don't use the F-bomb - but notice this is different justification than saying people should not be vulgar because it's the same as using the Lord's name in vain). The flip side of this is that it might be possible to profane in a genuinely beneficial way – like profaning that which is already profane, i.e. making or identifying as unsacred that which is already unsacred. I’ll write another complete essay just on this idea later, but the basic idea is an exploration of the question, “what is more profane – the F-bomb or the cultural conceit which keeps the procreative act shrouded in vulgarity?”

Perhaps I’ll also post more solemn mockeries later. These could include:

- denying the beggar to encourage self-reliance, when in fact everbody is a beggar and everything belongs to God (see Mosiah 4 and Hugh Nibley’s “Work We Must but the Lunch is Free”)
- seeking personal wealth to help the Church (think what Jesus could have done with a big house)
- preparing as a Church congregation for a natural disaster with more fervency than preparing to meet the Son of God

We could come up with more, but the point of all of this is this: learning about one solemn mockery in the scriptures (e.g. infant baptism) should alert us to other practices or mindsets we may have that disorder principles and make farces out of essential Gospel principles.