Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[Duncan]

Only partially true. The quote in question reads: "34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? 35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men. (D&C 121) The two general reasons why they are not chosen is that they "aspire to the honors of men," and having one's heart "set so much upon the things of this world." And who can deny that of all the things of in this world that can distract the children of men in their duty to God, sexual immorality -- the misuse of the sacred powers of procreation -- is among the most pervasive, pernicious and provocative of this fallen world's allures?

but this is where the Church is great at, what not to do but what can you do? what isn't sinful? if you go to close to the fire you burn to death but if you go too far back you freeze to death and let me tell you there are frozen Mormons out there-I once went out with a girl who was hyper ventilating into a bag when I was holding her hand, she is still single and never married to this day (mind you I am divorced but I never ever did anything that would jeopardize my recommend before or after the marriage)

[Stone holm]

but this is where the Church is great at, what not to do but what can you do? what isn't sinful? if you go to close to the fire you burn to death but if you go too far back you freeze to death and let me tell you there are frozen Mormons out there-I once went out with a girl who was hyper ventilating into a bag when I was holding her hand, she is still single and never married to this day (mind you I am divorced but I never ever did anything that would jeopardize my recommend before or after the marriage)

If you look at the Word of Wisdom, it is clear we are better at don't than do.

[Calm]

but this is where the Church is great at, what not to do but what can you do? what isn't sinful?

Do they teach specifics about what isn't allowed these days? It was very vague when I was young...at least from my teachers.

[Duncan]

Do they teach specifics about what isn't allowed these days? It was very vague when I was young...at least from my teachers.

no idea! other then the stake president saying that M...led to murder is the only thing I have heard recently

[Calm]

no idea! other then the stake president saying that M...led to murder is the only thing I have heard recently

I am glad that has never happened to me because I think I would not have been able to prevent myself from having a very loud episode of snorting.

[Duncan]

I am glad that has never happened to me because I think I would not have been able to prevent myself from having a very loud episode of snorting.

oh I know what you mean! I was more in shock and everyone I talked to about it was like whatever.... I was tempted to email him and say my life is in jeopardy because I live across the street from a High School!!!!

[canard78]

In the list you provide, much of Corianton's wrongdoings have their genesis in his lusting after the harlot; and the sin of boasting in his own strength likely gave the adversary of Corianton's soul the opening to entice him with the fleshly lusts that caused him to abandon his ministry. By the way, Alma was not the only one who placed sexual sin in order of severity next to murder. In 1942, the First Presidency proclaimed: ""The doctrine of this Church is that sexual sin--the illicit sexual relations of men and women--stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under His solemn and awful condemnation"

And where did they get that phrase? What taught them that paradigm? Alma 39.

And here is the way it has been distilled for the youth: "...sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost."

A catch-all category with no nuance. At the very least the SOTY also specifies in the same page 'sexual relations.' You need two people for 'relations.' Despite this I was taught as a youth that I could also have 'relations' with myself or with images in a magazine.

[jim_mason]

To suggest that a non-consensual party to a act is guilty of committing the act, seems terribly heartless and a denial of accountability; IIRC, there are Apostle(s) statements which state that a victim is not guilty or sinful being a victim.

On to Alma:

Canard, I like your distilling of the verses 2 - 4. Corianton is accused by his Father as committing numerous wrongs. Which wrongs did his Father single out as being the "next to murder"; the verses are not clear. What is more clear is that taking verse 5 to mean a reference to sexual acts outside of marriage is strecthing the verse perhaps too far; as one must deny that many other acts, of which not tending to the ministry is mentioned more than once.

[Calm]

To suggest that a non-consensual party to a act is guilty of committing the act, seems terribly heartless and a denial of accountability

Perhaps teddy can clarify what he meant, I assumed he meant that one committing the act of rape (nonconsensual sex) was guilty due to the context of my question in the other thread.

[Darren10]

And where did they get that phrase? What taught them that paradigm? Alma 39.

Doesn't that just strengthen Alma 39's heading as accurate? The heading reads as follows:

Sexual sin is an abomination—Corianton’s sins kept the Zoramites from receiving the word—Christ’s redemption is retroactive in saving the faithful who preceded it. About 74 B.C.

What's inaccurate about saying "sexual sin is an abomination"? And don't discount the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the first Presidency's declaration.

And here is the way it has been distilled for the youth: "...sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost."

A catch-all category with no nuance. At the very least the SOTY also specifies in the same page 'sexual relations.' You need two people for 'relations.' Despite this I was taught as a youth that I could also have 'relations' with myself or with images in a magazine.

What's wrong with teaching that sexual sin is the worst sin save murder and denying the Holy Ghost? I don't ever recall specific examples from scriptures or the LDS priesthood leaders (of the whole church) specifying what sins are second only to murder so in this case is it not incumbent upon us the individuals to pray, study, and to seek the Holy Spirit as to how apply the correct teaching of "sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost"?

Besides the argument I'm getting from you that The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is incorrectly teaching scriptures to its youth, I get the vibe that you simply think that teaching sexual sin is the worst for of sin next to murder and denying the Holy Ghost as something emotionally and spiritually brutal and thus should be avoided as a standard of teaching. Is that accurate?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Darren10

[Alan]

The answer to the OP is no, they are not.

In fact, hardly any are in and of themselves. To suppose that they are is wrong in my view and results from our misunderstanding of what Alma was teaching Corianton.

The issue was that Corianton had forsaken his mission to consort with a harlot. A lot of other people were too. But because Corianton was a missionary, and the son of the High Priest (and was therefore a poor example of the believers), a lot of people forsook the faith or refused to listen to Alma any more. This resulted in the spiritual death of those people.

Corinaton had not meant to destroy anyones faith, but it was a consequence of his actions. Not spiritual murder but spiritual manslaughter. The difference between murder and manslaughter in English law is predetermination.

So, although he had not meant to destroy anyones faith and cause spiritual death, he had done. The result was the same as if he had meant it. Just as someone who accidently kills someone is not guilty of murder, but the result, death, is the same.

So, in that sense, what Corianton did was the sin next to murder (because accidental spiritual death occured), but not specifically the consorting with Isobel.

[Darren10]

There is an extraordinary article by a BYU professor on this - he even talked a out how a harlot in biblical vernacular was often a prophetess which leads to the idea corianton may not have ever had sexual relations with her - I believe he stated the only way you arrive at the idea of sexual acts is a misreading of the word harlot.

Can't find the link but I found it via a thread a while back. Really worth a read.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=4 - It was Nibley

From DB's link, is this the portion in question?

6. One of the aspects of ancient American religion that archaeology is bringing increasingly to the fore is the dominance of the familiar Great Mother in religion: Where is she in the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon brands all non—Nephite cults as idolatry and does not go on to describe them—Nephi says he does not want to run the risk of conveying the details of such enticing abominations to posterity. But there is one broad hint. When Alma's youngest son wanted to misbehave with the harlot Isabel, he had to go into another country to do it (Alma 39:3). Parenthetically, Isabel was the name of the Patroness of Harlots in the religion of the Phoenicians.10 Remembering that this took place in a Mulekite setting, we have more than immoral behavior here—Corianton could have misbehaved anywhere. But we are also told that the lady Isabel had a large following. Others went over to join in the rites which Alma declared to be "most abominable above all sins" (Alma 39:5). In such a guarded manner Alma also refers to other hierodules (Alma 30:18).

If so, how is Nibley arguing that the sin may not have been sexual?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Darren10

[canard78]

While I do not want to detract from its seriousness, quotes of this type have tended to give sexual morality such prominence that all other forms of morality or immorality get little or no attention. This distraction I fear is part of the reason a greater and greater number of people assign so little credibility to religion. We are viewed as obsessed with the subject.

Indeed. Sex outside of marriage is not always an act of depravity, lust etc. It is often an expression of love. Sex within marriage is of course the appropriate gift. But much of our rhetoric about sex and even warnings towards the young women to not be 'walking temptation' to the boys is extreme and excessive. Especially as it is turned into a 'catch all' category that covers any sexually related sins when that's a clear misreading of the scriptures.

Attitudes among apostles in the 1800s to mid 1900s towards blacks was based on a misreading of the scriptures (BRM: "forget everything I and others have said about it")

If prophets can misread scriptures on black people they can with others. The FTSOTY handbook seem to have misread and over-simplified the message of Alma 39. Or at the very least have quoted it out of context.

It would be far more productive to teach the benefits of abstinence than create the fear of sex.

[canard78]

From DB's link, is this the portion in question?

If so, how is Nibley arguing that the sin may not have been sexual?

It certainly seems so.

Makes it very different to: "Levi lovin is second to murder"

[Calm]

It certainly seems so.

Makes it very different to: "Levi lovin is second to murder"

I don't know, from the way Nibley phrases it, it sounds to me that immoral, iow sexual, misconduct was included in Corianton's actions:

​we have more than immoral behavior here

"More than" tends to include what it is "more than" as well as additional behaviour. Another way of phrasing it would be "more than just _______". Use some specific behaviour instead of "immoral" to see what I mean: "it was more than drug addiction"...implies that drug addiction was involved.

add-on: I am not suggesting that one should therefore extrapolate that all sexual sin is akin to murder, etc.

Edited July 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Indeed. Sex outside of marriage is not always an act of depravity, lust etc. It is often an expression of love. Sex within marriage is of course the appropriate gift. But much of our rhetoric about sex and even warnings towards the young women to not be 'walking temptation' to the boys is extreme and excessive. Especially as it is turned into a 'catch all' category that covers any sexually related sins when that's a clear misreading of the scriptures.

Attitudes among apostles in the 1800s to mid 1900s towards blacks was based on a misreading of the scriptures (BRM: "forget everything I and others have said about it")

If prophets can misread scriptures on black people they can with others. The FTSOTY handbook seem to have misread and over-simplified the message of Alma 39. Or at the very least have quoted it out of context.

It would be far more productive to teach the benefits of abstinence than create the fear of sex.

What I was saying is that it has skewed our attention away from such things as greed which may be causing an equal or greater amount of misery and harm.

[teddyaware]

but this is where the Church is great at, what not to do but what can you do? what isn't sinful? if you go to close to the fire you burn to death but if you go too far back you freeze to death and let me tell you there are frozen Mormons out there-I once went out with a girl who was hyper ventilating into a bag when I was holding her hand, she is still single and never married to this day (mind you I am divorced but I never ever did anything that would jeopardize my recommend before or after the marriage)

That's a sad consequence of the strong firewall the Church has erected around sexual sin (it could also be a consequence of growing up in a joyless, messed-up family). I can see how it would seem quite strange, inconsistent and perplexing to some folks, especially girls, that the activity which is most abominable, save murder, in one situation can be freely enjoyed with abandon, without sin, in another. Surely, there are many gleefully sexually active married couples in the Church who can't keep their hands off each other -- just look at some of the large families. Perhaps one of the reasons sexual sin is so serious is because the Lord does allow us to freely enjoy our sexuality with His full blessing, but for many his gracious allowance and blessing to freely partake of the same in marriage isn't good enough; they do despite to the spirit of grace and want to misuse the sacred powers of procreation in ways not ordained of God. Anyway, it's truly sad that that hyperventilating girl will likely never know the joys (in this life) of keeping the blessed commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. My heart goes out to her and condemns those who may not have properly taught her of her right and blessing to partake of the righteous joys of sexual expression within the bounds the Lord has set.

Edited July 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Perhaps teddy can clarify what he meant, I assumed he meant that one committing the act of rape (nonconsensual sex) was guilty due to the context of my question in the other thread.

Now Cal, any moron in the Church who thinks this way deserves to be shipped off with a one way ticked to Afghanistan, where he and his Taliban brethren can together bask in the "joys" of their self-righteous delusion.

[Stone holm]

That's a sad consequence of the strong firewall the Church has erected around sexual sin (it could also be a consequence of growing up in a joyless, messed-up family). I can see how it would seem quite strange, inconsistent and perplexing to some folks, especially girls, that the activity which is most abominable, save murder, in one situation can be freely enjoyed with abandon, without sin, in another. Surely, there are many gleefully sexually active married couples in the Church who can't keep their hands off each other -- just look at some of the large families. Perhaps one of the reasons sexual sin is so serious is because the Lord does allow us to freely enjoy our sexuality with His full blessing, but for many his gracious allowance and blessing to freely partake of the same in marriage isn't good enough; they do despite to the spirit of grace and want to misuse the sacred powers of procreation in ways not ordained of God. Anyway, it's truly sad that that hyperventilating girl will likely never know the joys (in this life) of keeping the blessed commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. My heart goes out to her and condemns those who may not have properly taught her of her right and blessing to partake of the righteous joys of sexual expression within the bounds the Lord has set.

Or maybe focusing on other issues is politically uncomfortable and could get you crucified...oh wait...

[Calm]

Now Cal, any moron in the Church who thinks this way deserves to be shipped off with a one way ticked to Afghanistan, where he and his Taliban brethren can together bask in the "joys" of their self-righteous delusion.

Yes, it seems a quite obvious interpretation to me as well.

[teddyaware]

Or maybe focusing on other issues is politically uncomfortable and could get you crucified...oh wait...

Now Stone, I'm not at all obsessed with sexual sin. It's just that this thread focuses on the idea that sexual sin may be next to murder in gravity. If you want to start a thread on the sins you're focused on at the moment, I'll be glad to participate.

[Stone holm]

Now Stone, I'm not at all obsessed with sexual sin. It's just that this thread focuses on the idea that sexual sin may be next to murder in gravity. If you want to start a thread on the sins you're focused on at the moment, I'll be glad to participate.

Ah, but isn't that one of the implications of the gravity and focus of attention, it distracts us from thinking about other things which are uncomfortable to address politically, but actually might deal with causation so we spend time discussing symptoms?

[DBMormon]

From DB's link, is this the portion in question?

If so, how is Nibley arguing that the sin may not have been sexual?

Darren Nibley touches on the meaning of the Word Harlot and her being worshipped falsely. I know this is explained in more depth somewhere but I can't find it. There is more going on here then just fornication - according to Nibley

Parenthetically, Isabel was the name of the Patroness of Harlots in the religion of the Phoenicians.10 Remembering that this took place in a Mulekite setting, we have more than immoral behavior here—Corianton could have misbehaved anywhere. But we are also told that the lady Isabel had a large following. Others went over to join in the rites which Alma declared to be "most abominable above all sins

It was the false worship Nibley points to as the problem, not the sex

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stroopwafel]

From some of the things that have been said, I take it that 99.9% of everyone that ever lived on this earth have commited something only next to murder... this world, as we see, is certainly almost pure evil!

But moving on, there is something this thead makes me wonder. At first, by saying that sexuality is ok as long as it is within the Lord's parameter, I assume we usually have marriage in mind as that parameter. But what particular marriages have the Lord's sanction? Wouldn't marriage need to be performed by the proper authority to have it?

I've never really thought about this before, but what scriptures/doctrines would support the view that other religions' and secular marriages have divine approval even though they lack the priesthood? I guess my questioning stems from the idea that I always thought for some ritual to have any sort of validity in the Lord's eyes, it needs to be performed by His authority. And for using something we say is next to murder if it is not done within the proper context, wouldn't that be important? (But then again, Nephi didn't require any sort of administration from the priesthood to commit you know what... )

So really, what is required for a marriage to be divinely approved in order to use the power of procreation?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[Questing Beast]

...

So really, what is required for a marriage to be divinely approved in order to use the power of procreation?

Taken altogether, the statements in scripture, ancient and modern, point to fidelity, which is simply keeping the promises made to each other and having no secrets from each other, etc. This is not difficult to understand or to teach, a child can do it. So any pair of consenting adults that have an understanding between them and remain faithful to it are right before "God". Imho, of course....