Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[Calm]

I don't know of any religious rituals that involved rape, but possibly there were.

There were religious rituals that involved prostitution or at least rumours of such things. Does that work for you?

And if the women were required by law to participate, does that count as rape in your view?

Edited July 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

We as humans cannot survive without culture and families. Imagine an infant alone in the desert and you will instantly understand what I mean.

That which undermines the social structure of the family endangers all of society. Without the family, we would all be infants in the desert, metaphorically and perhaps actually.

So behaviors which lead to the destruction of the family are behaviors which, if everyone did them, would lead to the death of humanity. That sounds exaggerated but if you think it through, I think you will find it is right. It is a step on the path toward the downfall of civilization.

Remember your mom asking "what if EVERYBODY did that?"

Good old mom was right on the money.

[canard78]

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

I don't think I'll ever use the comparison when discussing sex and chastity with my children.

I would however agree that murder is peobably the worst of all crimes. Second to that there is a group of abusive certain crimes that include sexual crimes. But that would be a separate conversation.

[Stone holm]

There were religious rituals that involved prostitution or at least rumours of such things. Does that work for you?

And if the women were required by law to participate, does that count as rape in your view?

Yes. If it was involuntary it would be rape according to my modern views. So given over much of recorded history marriages were arranged with little or no consultation with the women married off . Further it was the duty of women in those times to submit sexually to their husbands. We're all those women being raped? And how was that more righteous than the holy prostitute?

[Calm]

Yes. If it was involuntary it would be rape according to my modern views. So given over much of recorded history marriages were arranged with little or no consultation with the women married off . Further it was the duty of women in those times to submit sexually to their husbands. We're all those women being raped? And how was that more righteous than the holy prostitute?

Is anyone here claiming that a woman forced against her will to engage in sex is righteous?

[Stone holm]

Is anyone here claiming that a woman forced against her will to engage in sex is righteous?

But they were legally and lawfully married, and until recently that was a complete defence to the charge of rape.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Can't give a rep point on my iPod touch, so I'll simply say bravo to this.

[Scott Lloyd]

We as humans cannot survive without culture and families. Imagine an infant alone in the desert and you will instantly understand what I mean.

That which undermines the social structure of the family endangers all of society. Without the family, we would all be infants in the desert, metaphorically and perhaps actually.

So behaviors which lead to the destruction of the family are behaviors which, if everyone did them, would lead to the death of humanity. That sounds exaggerated but if you think it through, I think you will find it is right. It is a step on the path toward the downfall of civilization.

Remember your mom asking "what if EVERYBODY did that?"

Good old mom was right on the money.

I'll give you a bravo and a virtual rep point as well.

Our civilization is beset with enormous social costs today that are the direct consequence of the free-wheeling attitudes of the sexual revolution that began in the sixties.

I'll venture to say that in an ideal world there would be state-imposed penalties for any sex outside of marriage, given the cost to society.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[MorningStar]

The way I always viewed it is that murder is most serious because you take a life and sexual sin is serious because you might make a life, denying a child of the family they are entitled to have. More children are born to unwed mothers now than are born to wed mothers. Very sad statistic.

[Storm Rider]

I guess I have never been keen on trying to differentiate the gravity of one sin over another. The gravity of sin is relative to the individual. If I serve all my life and walk in unison with the Spirit and then one day decide to do something not in keeping with the sin, it is possible that that act is more grave than a similar action by someone that has never desired to walk with the Spirit. Having said this I would encourage others not to get too hung up on is one sin worse than another. The object is not to focus on what sins I commit, but in how often I abide in Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it important to recognize that while the scripture says sexual sin is the most serious next to murder, it doesn't say it is as bad as murder or even close. It could be that there are many degrees of seriousness between the two.

[canard78]

The way I always viewed it is that murder is most serious because you take a life and sexual sin is serious because you might make a life, denying a child of the family they are entitled to have. More children are born to unwed mothers now than are born to wed mothers. Very sad statistic.

So if an infertile/sterilised but unwed couple have sex, with no chance of a child being conceived or if the 'sexual relations' are such that a conception is not possible... Are they still committing a sin second only to murder?

[canard78]

I think it important to recognize that while the scripture says sexual sin is the most serious next to murder, it doesn't say it is as bad as murder or even close. It could be that there are many degrees of seriousness between the two.

But the scriptures don't say sexual sin is most serious next to murder. The chapter heading does.

Second, would you really consider intimacy between an unmarried but committed couple to be a more grievous sin than domestic violence?

[Calm]

But they were legally and lawfully married, and until recently that was a complete defence to the charge of rape.

So what. It was also was legal to beat your wife, there were many who disapproved of it. I suspect if asked if it was righteous for a man to rape his wife, they would feel the same way about it. There are many legal laws that are still considered immoral.

[Tacenda]

The way I always viewed it is that murder is most serious because you take a life and sexual sin is serious because you might make a life, denying a child of the family they are entitled to have. More children are born to unwed mothers now than are born to wed mothers. Very sad statistic.

Yet, there are those couples that can't have children and are very grateful to adopt, what would they do if those babies weren't born? Think LDS adoption services, http://lds.adoption.com/ I'm sure that the LDS community encourages an unwed mother to give up her child and put it up for adoption. It may even be a situation that the mother would much rather keep the child but her bishop, family, friends in the LDS community would frown upon it. I think you can have a positive life experience too, for the baby if the mother decides to keep it. There is a girl in my neighborhood that got pregnant and she kept the baby and lives at home and has a wonderful family to support that. And she is a great mom. Her parents are incredibly supportive. I also know parents that weren't so supportive and how hard it was on a friend I had in high school when she wanted to keep the baby. So sexual sin can produce a life but it all depends on how that life is taken care of. It can be a great blessing too. I've never heard the statistic that more children are born to unwed mothers than married ones, do you have a reference? ETA: Here are some links to how the church encourages a mother to put her child up for adoption. https://itsaboutlove.org/ial/ct/pregnant/what-are-my-options/single-parenting?lang=eng If you go to the highlighted words you'll see that it would be very hard to keep the baby in the LDS community.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

Have always weighed the gravity of sin in terms of the damage it specifically does to others, and will probably always weigh it that way. I suspect that American society does as well so consensual sex between adults neither of whom is married tends to float to the bottom compared to murder and dishonesty. That way of weighing the gravity of sin is so engrained in our culture that I believe the Church is probably tilting at windmills in the efforts to realign it -- not that it and the social conservatives have not made a gallant effort to do so. Possibly, if society focused on the cause of the problem rather than the symptom they would see more progress.

[Scott Lloyd]

But the scriptures don't say sexual sin is most serious next to murder. The chapter heading does.

Second, would you really consider intimacy between an unmarried but committed couple to be a more grievous sin than domestic violence?

I see an oxymoron in the phrase "unmarried but committed."

[Calm]

That way of weighing the gravity of sin is so engrained in our culture that I believe the Church is probably tilting at windmills in the efforts to realign it

I don't see the Church as doing any such thing.

[Stone holm]

I don't see the Church as doing any such thing.

Meaning what?

[Scott Lloyd]

Meaning what?

Tilting at windmills.

The Church is doing what it has always done: preaching the gospel of repentance and inviting people to come unto Christ, be perfected in him and forsake all ungodliness.

(Sorry, calmoriah. You may respond if you like. That's how I would have responded had the question been put to me.)

Edited July 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

Yet, there are those couples that can't have children and are very grateful to adopt, what would they do if those babies weren't born? Think LDS adoption services, http://lds.adoption.com/ I'm sure that the LDS community encourages an unwed mother to give up her child and put it up for adoption. It may even be a situation that the mother would much rather keep the child but her bishop, family, friends in the LDS community would frown upon it. I think you can have a positive life experience too, for the baby if the mother decides to keep it. There is a girl in my neighborhood that got pregnant and she kept the baby and lives at home and has a wonderful family to support that. And she is a great mom. Her parents are incredibly supportive. I also know parents that weren't so supportive and how hard it was on a friend I had in high school when she wanted to keep the baby. So sexual sin can produce a life but it all depends on how that life is taken care of. It can be a great blessing too. I've never heard the statistic that more children are born to unwed mothers than married ones, do you have a reference? ETA: Here are some links to how the church encourages a mother to put her child up for adoption. https://itsaboutlove...enting?lang=eng If you go to the highlighted words you'll see that it would be very hard to keep the baby in the LDS community.

And frankly, that is the way it should be. The single mother you are referring to may be an outlier, but statistically, that child will grow up poorer than one adopted into a two parent family, it will also have a much higher chance of committing a crime, dropping out of school, and becoming a single parent him/herself. So maybe each case is different, but too often we only see the cute toddler with a grandma who helps take care of her, and not the angry teen who wonders where their father is. The churches counsel to marry or adopt is doctrinally and societally sound.

[Questing Beast]

I see an oxymoron in the phrase "unmarried but committed."

It's not an oxymoron. We have common law "marriages" everywhere. My daughter is c. halfway into one right now. She has her reasons for not getting all "legal", but she also considers her relationship a committed one. So does the man, and he would marry my daughter if she was willing. But for some complex of reasons she is holding off, still....

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not an oxymoron. We have common law "marriages" everywhere. My daughter is c. halfway into one right now. She has her reasons for not getting all "legal", but she also considers her relationship a committed one. So does the man, and he would marry my daughter if she was willing. But for some complex of reasons she is holding off, still....

We'll have to disagree on this.

It seems to me that one who is truly committed should have no objection to making the relationship binding with a legal marriage.

This is especially true for Latter-day Saints who profess, as a matter of doctrine and faith, that there can be no righteous expression of sexual attraction outside the bonds of marriage.

[Stone holm]

We'll have to disagree on this.

It seems to me that one who is truly committed should have no objection to making the relationship binding with a legal marriage.

This is especially true for Latter-day Saints who profess, as a matter of doctrine and faith, that there can be no righteous expression of sexual attraction outside the bonds of marriage.

Have to agree with Questing Beast on this one, its not an oxymoron.

[Scott Lloyd]

Have to agree with Questing Beast on this one, its not an oxymoron.

Noted.

But it's not anymore compelling coming from you than from Questing Beast.