(a) the dictates of etiquette are stricter with regard to people with whom there is some distance. Both the substitute teacher and God operate from a greater distance than other authority.

(b) With a substitute teacher, there is no concrete notion of consequences, so that you can conceivably get into trouble, but it’s not in any immediate predictable way. With God, it’s the same way, so that sinning does not cause bankruptcy or leprosy (ok, well, it used to cause leprosy, but it doesn’t any more).

I could probably think of more, but that’s all for now.

And incidentally, you needn’t worry about getting struck down from above–Zeus is the guy with the lightning. Heavenly Father tends to prefer more earth-bound penalties like she-bears. But your implications about lightening remind me of something that Bertrand Russell said that contains, I think, a pretty prototypical example of how I think people conceive of blasphemy (I’ve been quoting him a lot lately. Perhaps it’s been too long since I actually picked up and read something that he wrote.)

When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, the clergy, both in England and America, with the enthusiastic support of George III, condemned it as an impious attempt to defeat the will of God. For, as all right-thinking people were aware, lightning is sent by God to punish impiety or some other grave sin-the virtuous are never struck by lightning. Therefore if God wants to strike any one, Benjamin Franklin ought not to defeat His design; indeed, to do so is helping criminals to escape. But God was equal to the occasion, if we are to believe the eminent Dr. Price, one of the leading divines of Boston. Lightning having been rendered ineffectual by the “iron points invented by the sagacious Dr. Franklin,” Massachusetts was shaken by earthquakes, which Dr. Price perceived to be due to God’s wrath at the “iron points.” In a sermon on the subject he said, “In Boston are more erected than elsewhere in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God.” Apparently, however, Providence gave up all hope of curing Boston of its wickedness, for, though lightning rods became more and more common, earthquakes in Massachusetts have remained rare.

But a substitute teacher?

I’m glad that “inapt” is only almost a back formation and almost an insult. I didn’t intend it to be insulting, and I’ll have to chalk any cleverness up to the language and not to myself.

Kevin, Wow. That’s a pregnant etymology.

Some sins are so severe that they preclude the sinner from being a generally moral person. An easy example of a sin this severe is mass murder. An easy example of a sin that is not so severe is failing to do home teaching, because I believe that there are many people who are quite moral but do not regularly do their home teaching (I, of course, am not one of them ;) ), even though we are obliged by covenant to do home teaching insofar as it is building the kingdom of God.

There are quite a lot of these severe sins. For example, if you are an active con-man or bank robber, most people would agree that you are not a generally moral person. If you are a compulsive liar, many would consider you to not be a generally moral person, but this is getting into the grey area. There are obviously controversial examples like porn viewing. (This tendency of severe sins to trump all other righteous acts is, no doubt, the reason that the 10 commandments are so heavily weighted on the “thou shalt not” side.)

Then there are things like alcohol which cut both ways. Most people who drink do so responsibly, and it has no bearing on their morality. But jails are full of people who committed crimes during a lapse in judgment due in no small part to inebriation.

This kind of thing comes and goes with fashion. For example, most people nowadays believe that one can cuss like a sailor and still be a man of sterling character. Some amount of paternalistic racism was fairly acceptable 50 years ago, but just about any amount nowadays is enough to tarnish even the brightest souls.

But whether they come and go with fashion, there are a great many sins that one may commit and still be esteemed a man of sterling character. In addition to the home teaching example, Nephi’s sin of getting angry with his enemies is an easy example.

So my point with my examples on the blasphemy thing is that it seems to be on par with not performing home teaching or breaking the Word of Wisdom or getting angry at one’s enemies, and not on par with murder or thievery. (of course, God can tolerate no uncleanliness at all, but that doesn’t invalidate this as an exercise in casuistry).

Fair enough. But this kind of rebellion is a pretty trivial affair. If Hitler or Charles Manson or Ted Bundie had confessed God’s hand in his life would that have made him a better person? Are John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russell or David Hume reprobates because they denied God’s existence? In the scheme of things, I can’t see how it’s even as bad as drinking a glass of iced tea.