Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[Darren10]

I think folks are getting the message messed up. Alma 39 teaches that denying the Holy Ghost is unpardonable but that a murderer may receive forgiveness, howbeit difficult to obtain it. Corianton later repented and continued his missionary labors as he should have had he ignored the lusts of his heart to begin with. That implies that whatever he did, even sexual sin, is more easily forgivable than murder. The official LDS teaching of sexual sin is that it is "abominable" and only murder is more abominable under the category of forgivable sins. The official LDS teaching is also that sexual sin is forgivable and that those involved in sexual sin should actively seek forgiveness and se their lives straight in part through their priesthood leader (their bishop or branch president). Apparently that's what Corianton did.

So far as there being more sin involved with Corianton and Isabel than just sexual sin, I'm fine with that interpretation. But think of that the Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 39: that there is more to sexual sin than sex itself. Are our bodies not the temple of God? Are we not defying God's temple by committing sexual sin? Are we not simply following after the vain things of the world in order to commit sexual sin? I say categorically yes to all. I think that's the essence of Alma 39. Sexual sin is not a "private matter" when it comes to who the culprits are hurting. They are, in the nature of the sin, hurting God and really others. While murder is an outright destruction of God's temple, sexual sin is the outright defamation of it. While the latter does not per inanely destroy a Tempe of God, it does pervert it.

There's also the question of pain and suffering. I'd say that there is no more higher level of pain and suffering in the world, even on small children, than from sexual sin save it be murder. While there is enormous suffering from things not murder and not sexual, in terms of raw numbers, I cannot think of anything that's been so destructive upon the world's societies than that from sexual sin. Levels of distrust, divorce, assault, abuse, physical and emotional s arming, huge numbers of abortion, etc,; would, it seems, be dramatically reduced by simply following God's commands regarding sex.

[Duncan]

I think folks are getting the message messed up. Alma 39 teaches that denying the Holy Ghost is unpardonable but that a murderer may receive forgiveness, howbeit difficult to obtain it. Corianton later repented and continued his missionary labors as he should have had he ignored the lusts of his heart to begin with. That implies that whatever he did, even sexual sin, is more easily forgivable than murder. The official LDS teaching of sexual sin is that it is "abominable" and only murder is more abominable under the category of forgivable sins. The official LDS teaching is also that sexual sin is forgivable and that those involved in sexual sin should actively seek forgiveness and se their lives straight in part through their priesthood leader (their bishop or branch president). Apparently that's what Corianton did.

So far as there being more sin involved with Corianton and Isabel than just sexual sin, I'm fine with that interpretation. But think of that the Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 39: that there is more to sexual sin than sex itself. Are our bodies not the temple of God? Are we not defying God's temple by committing sexual sin? Are we not simply following after the vain things of the world in order to commit sexual sin? I say categorically yes to all. I think that's the essence of Alma 39. Sexual sin is not a "private matter" when it comes to who the culprits are hurting. They are, in the nature of the sin, hurting God and really others. While murder is an outright destruction of God's temple, sexual sin is the outright defamation of it. While the latter does not per inanely destroy a Tempe of God, it does pervert it.

There's also the question of pain and suffering. I'd say that there is no more higher level of pain and suffering in the world, even on small children, than from sexual sin save it be murder. While there is enormous suffering from things not murder and not sexual, in terms of raw numbers, I cannot think of anything that's been so destructive upon the world's societies than that from sexual sin. Levels of distrust, divorce, assault, abuse, physical and emotional s arming, huge numbers of abortion, etc,; would, it seems, be dramatically reduced by simply following God's commands regarding sex.

all true and forgivable but Alma is saying also that because they saw Corianton's behaviour they wouldn't believe his words , so Alma 39 is damage control

[Stroopwafel]

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....

So if two individuals make and keep the same promises made at a marriage, but without ever going through the ceremony itself nor having someone with any authority binding them together, would they still have divine approval?

[Darren10]

all true and forgivable but Alma is saying also that because they saw Corianton's behaviour they wouldn't believe his words , so Alma 39 is damage control

I think there's truth to that as well. That, I think, is one more reason sexual sin is abominable. It will lead people. Including the individual culprit, away from God. That's what I get from Alma 39 as well as from the Strength for Youth publication.

[teddyaware]

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?

Then by all means, start a thread to address the important things on which we're taking our eyes off by discussing only symptoms.

[CV75]

I will teach my children chastity. But I will not use Alma 39 to do it. Like the old, now removed, 'coins' in a chapter heading, I think 39's heading has also got it wrong.

Just wondering, in case the question comes up, what kind of sexual sin would be second only to murder?

[Calm]

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

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

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

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

But there were many ancient faiths that used sexual activities as part of their worship practices. If this was one of them, I don't see how you can say the sex doesn't matter, instead it seems to me to add an extra dimension of perversion in the mind of the Nephites (to turn what is a sacred private interaction into a public profane---in their view because they would have seen other faiths as pagan, I believe---perversion embedded in other pagan worship activities, creating a cycle of perversion that leads to it being called an abomination and second only to murder.

[Calm]

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?

Christ did not condemn those who healed or cast out devils in his name even though they had not received authority from him, I see no reason to see marriage as being in a different category...as long as the couple follows what their culture teaches is the divine or appointed way, it would be acceptable to him. By the fruit one learns of the source. If the marriage yields a happy couple with healthy and happy children who make the lives of those around them better, it would seem to me evidence that the Lord has blessed the marriage no matter what ceremony they went through because of the love or care that they for each other. Edited July 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

But there were many ancient faiths that used sexual activities as part of their worship practices. If this was one of them, I don't see how you can say the sex doesn't matter, instead it seems to me to add an extra dimension of perversion in the mind of the Nephites (to turn what is a sacred private interaction into a public profane---in their view because they would have seen other faiths as pagan, I believe---perversion embedded in other pagan worship activities, creating a cycle of perversion that leads to it being called an abomination and second only to murder.

But don't we also see it as a form of sacrament?

[Stone holm]

Christ did not condemn those who healed or cast out devils in his name even though they had not received authority from him, I see no reason to see marriage as being in a different category...as long as the couple follows what their culture teaches is the divine or appointed way, it would be acceptable to him. By the fruit one learns of the source. If the marriage yields a happy couple with healthy and happy children who make the lives of those around them better, it would seem to me evidence that the Lord has blessed the marriage no matter what ceremony they went through because of the love or care that they for each other.

Really? You think that a civilization which practiced the reverse of our earlier for of poligamy would be acceptable to Him?

[DBMormon]

But there were many ancient faiths that used sexual activities as part of their worship practices. If this was one of them, I don't see how you can say the sex doesn't matter, instead it seems to me to add an extra dimension of perversion in the mind of the Nephites (to turn what is a sacred private interaction into a public profane---in their view because they would have seen other faiths as pagan, I believe---perversion embedded in other pagan worship activities, creating a cycle of perversion that leads to it being called an abomination and second only to murder.

Agreed, not trying to say the sex is not a big deal, it just isn't the center of the issue but rather according to Nibley, Idol Worship was.

[bdouglas]

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.

To me the church does seem to focus unduly or excessively on sexual sin. I found Elder Bednar's statement in conference that "how we use this power will largely determine our happiness in this life and our destiny in the other" (paraphrase) a little bit troubling. In my experience, 95% of the people (those in the church who are full participants and who are struggling to keep their temple covenants) who run foul of the church's mandates re: sex do so not because they are deliberate willful sinners but out of weakness. They have been victims of past abuse, they are in unhappy impossible marriage, mental illness, feelings of low self-worth, addiction--the list could go on and on.

I agree 100% with Hugh Nibley in "Approaching Zion" where he attributes the church's preoccupation with sexual sin at the expense of all others to a case of "switched villains". The real villain (i.e. sins) is that which keeps us from building a literal Zion here on earth, and when the church largely abandoned that effort, they put a dummy villain (sex) in place of the real villain.

I am paraphrasing Nibley poorly here. If you want to understand this idea you should read his essays "Approaching Zion" and "We Will Still Weep For Zion". I find his ideas convincing, especially the bit about switched villains.

Edited July 5, 2013 by bdouglas

[Buzzard]

So if two individuals make and keep the same promises made at a marriage, but without ever going through the ceremony itself nor having someone with any authority binding them together, would they still have divine approval?

No. What part of "legally and lawfully" don't you understand? Next question.

[Buzzard]

Obviously, there is a hierarchy of sexual sins, as well. A normal teenager imagining what another might look like without clothing, while not commendable, is not the same as two adulterers destroying two families through their selfishness and shortmindesness. But when you look around and see the poverty, the broken families, the children growing up without the direction of loving parents, all the debris left behind in the wake of societies current abandonment of the family, and when you remember that the whole point of our mortal existence is to prepare for and form and shape marriages (not same sex ones, either) that will last for eternity, I think we can at least partially grasp why Heavenly Father has placed such an importance on keeping our passions within the bounds that he has set.

[Calm]

But don't we also see it as a form of sacrament?

Not following your question....

[Stroopwafel]

No. What part of "legally and lawfully" don't you understand? Next question.

I think I understand both terms pretty well, thank you very much for asking.

Certainly you understood that it was a rhetorical question on my part expressing what I thought Questing Beast's answer could mean, and implicitly expressing the desire that he/she would clarify his/her statement. Next useful comment.

[Calm]

Really? You think that a civilization which practiced the reverse of our earlier for of poligamy would be acceptable to Him?

Again, not understanding the question, could you clarify please.

[Calm]

Agreed, not trying to say the sex is not a big deal, it just isn't the center of the issue but rather according to Nibley, Idol Worship was.

The first great commandment is to love the Lord. They were also likely violating in the view of the Nephites the first three of the ten commandments. Any lesser commandments would have simply further compounded the sins and contaminated the participants and tied them tighter to their evil in the view of the Nephites, I suspect.

[teddyaware]

Obviously, there is a hierarchy of sexual sins, as well. A normal teenager imagining what another might look like without clothing, while not commendable, is not the same as two adulterers destroying two families through their selfishness and shortmindesness. But when you look around and see the poverty, the broken families, the children growing up without the direction of loving parents, all the debris left behind in the wake of societies current abandonment of the family, and when you remember that the whole point of our mortal existence is to prepare for and form and shape marriages (not same sex ones, either) that will last for eternity, I think we can at least partially grasp why Heavenly Father has placed such an importance on keeping our passions within the bounds that he has set.

Bullseye!

[Stone holm]

Again, not understanding the question, could you clarify please.

We consider sex as a kind of sacrament or ritual and that does not mean we are perverts, so why would incorporation of sex into the rituals of other religions render it perverted. And by the way it is frequently part of religious rituals. You said if the marriage practice was accepted by a culture the okay, I then asked if the culture was more like that of fish with one female and many males how would you feel?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Stone holm

[thesometimesaint]

There are a few matriarchal societies. I wouldn't say they are perverted, but they definitely aren't the norm.

[Teancum]

The reason sexual sin is next to murder is because of the steps of repentance, one of which is to make restitution. As you cannot give back someones chastity you cannot make proper restitution therefore making repentance more difficult. It's not meant to equate it with murder, it's more about the ability to repent than the seriousness of the crime. And yes I agree it should be taught better because it seriously messed me up during my teenage years!

There are many sins or laws one can break where restitution is impossible. Can Bernie Madoff restore all the money he stole? Nope. Can an arsonist restore a house he has burned down? Nope. If I run a red light or speed can I reverse the broken law? nope. None of these are equated with murder. And what of the sexual sinner who has lost chastity already. Are there acts of sex there still as bad since virginity is lost?

And if it is not meant to equate sex sin next to murder then why do church leaders and manuals constantly do so?

[Stone holm]

There are many sins or laws one can break where restitution is impossible. Can Bernie Madoff restore all the money he stole? Nope. Can an arsonist restore a house he has burned down? Nope. If I run a red light or speed can I reverse the broken law? nope. None of these are equated with murder. And what of the sexual sinner who has lost chastity already. Are there acts of sex there still as bad since virginity is lost?

And if it is not meant to equate sex sin next to murder then why do church leaders and manuals constantly do so?

Do you equate virginity as chastity and lack of virginity as lack of chastity?

[Bikeemikey]

Do you equate virginity as chastity and lack of virginity as lack of chastity?

If we could make full restitution for a sin it would be a sin we would not need the savior to overcome and therefore not sin as it would not require forgiveness.

The atonement is necessary as we are unable to right the wrongs we make.

[canard78]

I think folks are getting the message messed up. Alma 39 teaches that denying the Holy Ghost is unpardonable but that a murderer may receive forgiveness, howbeit difficult to obtain it. Corianton later repented and continued his missionary labors as he should have had he ignored the lusts of his heart to begin with. That implies that whatever he did, even sexual sin, is more easily forgivable than murder. The official LDS teaching of sexual sin is that it is "abominable" and only murder is more abominable under the category of forgivable sins. The official LDS teaching is also that sexual sin is forgivable and that those involved in sexual sin should actively seek forgiveness and se their lives straight in part through their priesthood leader (their bishop or branch president). Apparently that's what Corianton did.

So far as there being more sin involved with Corianton and Isabel than just sexual sin, I'm fine with that interpretation. But think of that the Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 39: that there is more to sexual sin than sex itself. Are our bodies not the temple of God? Are we not defying God's temple by committing sexual sin? Are we not simply following after the vain things of the world in order to commit sexual sin? I say categorically yes to all. I think that's the essence of Alma 39. Sexual sin is not a "private matter" when it comes to who the culprits are hurting. They are, in the nature of the sin, hurting God and really others. While murder is an outright destruction of God's temple, sexual sin is the outright defamation of it. While the latter does not per inanely destroy a Tempe of God, it does pervert it.

There's also the question of pain and suffering. I'd say that there is no more higher level of pain and suffering in the world, even on small children, than from sexual sin save it be murder. While there is enormous suffering from things not murder and not sexual, in terms of raw numbers, I cannot think of anything that's been so destructive upon the world's societies than that from sexual sin. Levels of distrust, divorce, assault, abuse, physical and emotional s arming, huge numbers of abortion, etc,; would, it seems, be dramatically reduced by simply following God's commands regarding sex.

All wife beating hurts the victim

All muggings hurt the victim

All burglary or robbery hurts the victim

All child abuse hurts the victim

Some sexual acts hurt the victim. But not all.

Healthy, positive, long-term (but unmarried) relationships do not create a victim.

In fact, often, the way we teach sexual sins (as being elevated to murder) causes a victim.