明中後期與清前期，圍繞着泰山女神碧霞元君信仰，曾產生巨大的爭辯。持異議者，認為元君之祀神非正神，祠屬淫祀，淩駕嶽帝，乾坤倒置，而由此產生的香會活動，更是傷風敗俗。支持者則多方論證，力辯碧霞是「正祀」，而非「淫祀」。也有一部分論者認為，元君信仰雖有淫祀性質，但應對其信仰者進行疏導而歸之於「正」。入清之後，面對激烈的爭論，清廷不能不正式表明態度，於是康、雍、乾三帝各有「元君論」昭示臣民。其中，乾隆帝首先認為古代祭祀中視地為母，名曰「富媼」，設為女像，碧霞元君即產生於此，為元君信仰的合法性找到依據。其次指出民眾之供奉元君，與國家之秩祀泰山神，其目的都是祈禱民安國泰，雖異而實同，從而使之超越了「正祀」、「淫祀」之爭。至此，終清一代，關於碧霞祠的爭辯基本休止。當代美國學者彭慕蘭提出，清嘉慶之後，碧霞元君失去了大多數菁英的供奉，而乾隆本人從未到過碧霞祠。本文則以大量的史料證明，嘉慶之後，碧霞元君並未失去大多數菁英的供奉，乾隆本人多次親祀碧霞祠，而清廷對於泰山碧霞祠的國家祭祀活動一直持續到1910年。

During the mid-late Ming Dynasty and the early period Qing Dynasty, there was enormous debate over the belief of Taishan goddess Bixiayuanjun. The dissenters believed that Yuanjun was not a formal goddess to be worshipped; its temples should be illegal worship places. To place Yuanjun above the Taishan Emperor was to overturn the order of heaven and earth. Moreover, they claimed that the rise in pilgrimage groups was corrupting public morals. Meanwhile, supporters searched various materials to prove that Bixia worship is a type of ”formal worship” rather than ”illegal worship”. At the same time, there were others that believed Yuanjun worship did in fact have ”illegal” status, nevertheless, its constituents should be allowed to acquire ”formal” status. Entering the Qing Dynasty, the Qing government had to formally express their stand against the intense debate. Thus, the three emperors Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong wrote their own ”Opinions on Yuanjun” in order to publicly declare their positions to their subjects. Firstly, Emperor Qianlong considered that the land was regarded as maternal figure in the ancient sacrifices, named as ”Fu'ao” and represented by a statue of a goddess. Bixiayuanjun was declared to have appeared thusly. As a result, Qianlong established the basis for the legality of the belief of Yuanjun. Secondly, he pointed out that the purpose of the worship of Yuanjun by the common folk and the sacrifice to the Taishan god by the nation, were both done to pray for the prosperity of the country and the peaceful livelihood of the people. They may seem different but are actually the same. Thus, the debate over the formality and legality of Bixiayuanjun was ended. The argument at Bixia Temple had basically carried on until almost the end of the Qing Dynasty. The contemporary American scholar, Kenneth Pomeranz, put forward that after Jiaqing of the Qing Dynasty, Bixiayuanjun worship lost its constituency amongst the elites, and even Qianlong himself never went to Bixia Temple. However, based on a plethora of historical material, this paper proves that after Jiaqing of the Qing Dynasty, Bixiayuanjun didn't, in fact, lose its elite constituency, and that Qianlong himself gave sacrifices several times at Bixia Temple. Furthermore, the national sacrifices of Qing Government in Taishan Bixia Temple lasted to 1910.