Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[canard78]

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

So you're not going to answer the question then? Just play semantics it? Is domestic violence a greater sin than sexual intimacy between a couple?

[Scott Lloyd]

So you're not going to answer the question then? Just play semantics it? Is domestic violence a greater sin than sexual intimacy between a couple?

On a visceral level, the domestic violence would seem to be the more heinous. Personally, I have equal contempt for both.

However, I am also fully convinced of the gravity of sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage and am not persuaded by what I see as attempts at rationalizing the phrasing of scripture on this point.

Moreover, I find the ills that beset society as a direct result of ignoring the law of chastity to be overwhelming evidence of the wisdom of God in decreeing that sexual relations are only to take place within the bounds of marriage. I reject the movement within the last 40-50 years to minimize the gravity of the offense of unchastity.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

On a visceral level, the domestic violence would seem to be the more heinous. Personally, I have equal contempt for both.

However, I am also fully convinced of the gravity of sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage and am not persuaded by what I see as attempts at rationalizing the phrasing of scripture on this point.

Moreover, I find the ills that beset society as a direct result of ignoring the law of chastity to be overwhelming evidence of the wisdom of God in decreeing that sexual relations are only to take place within the bounds of marriage. I reject the movement within the last 40-50 years to minimize the gravity of the offense of unchastity.

So you see the majority of the ills besetting society as stemming from violation of the law of chastity?

[canard78]

So you see the majority of the ills besetting society as stemming from violation of the law of chastity?

Good question. And there was me thinking the love of money was the root of all evils.

[Stone holm]

Good question. And there was me thinking the love of money was the root of all evils.

Oh no there are many good members who would straighten you out on that misconception.

[canard78]

On a visceral level, the domestic violence would seem to be the more heinous. Personally, I have equal contempt for both.

However, I am also fully convinced of the gravity of sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage and am not persuaded by what I see as attempts at rationalizing the phrasing of scripture on this point.

Moreover, I find the ills that beset society as a direct result of ignoring the law of chastity to be overwhelming evidence of the wisdom of God in decreeing that sexual relations are only to take place within the bounds of marriage. I reject the movement within the last 40-50 years to minimize the gravity of the offense of unchastity.

So given that assumption, would you put USA up as one of the most morally corrupt countries (next to several in Europe)? What of Iran, Saudi Arabia etc where both pornography and homosexuality are illega? Are they to be held up as the gold standard for society?

In 1900s China made homosexuality illegal and had heavy censorship of porn. That wasn't really the start of their best era was it?

[Bikeemikey]

Good question. And there was me thinking the love of money was the root of all evils.

Nope it's the love of loving that gets things jacked up!!

[Stone holm]

Nope it's the love of loving that gets things jacked up!!

Oh my and I was just getting into the more holiness give me concept....

[Questing Beast]

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.

That's just it, my daughter considers herself "married", and doesn't see the need to be concerned over legalities or societal sentiments/judgments. I don't fully understand her pov, but I know her feelings are committed to the relationship. She has a lot of friends who married the legal, formally recognized way, and then divorced, with the resulting fallout and legal baggage continuing on after the divorce. I reckon my daughter wants to prove the relationship will work before she gets in that deep. Whatever. I too believe that marriage helps people commit, so I have never gone along with her decision. But I don't judge that she's non committal. She has promised that when/if they decide to have children, they will "get legal" before any children are born....

[Stone holm]

That's just it, my daughter considers herself "married", and doesn't see the need to be concerned over legalities or societal sentiments/judgments. I don't fully understand her pov, but I know her feelings are committed to the relationship. She has a lot of friends who married the legal, formally recognized way, and then divorced, with the resulting fallout and legal baggage continuing on after the divorce. I reckon my daughter wants to prove the relationship will work before she gets in that deep. Whatever. I too believe that marriage helps people commit, so I have never gone along with her decision. But I don't judge that she's non committal. She has promised that when/if they decide to have children, they will "get legal" before any children are born....

Well so far amongst my children and their batting average so far I would have to concede your daughter probably has it right,one of those inconvenient truths I suppose.

[Calm]

Well so far amongst my children and their batting average so far I would have to concede your daughter probably has it right,one of those inconvenient truths I suppose.

Not really. Stats demonstrate that those who live together prior to marriage or without marriage are more likely to split up than those who get married first.

[canard78]

Not really. Stats demonstrate that those who live together prior to marriage or without marriage are more likely to split up than those who get married first.

But that doesn't mean they weren't ever committed in the first place.

I'm not saying it's better to cohabit, but I am saying there can be commitment in cohabitation.

A scenario from my own experience: a couple who are both divorced got together. He had already been sterilised and they were in their 40s so no desire to have kids. Given issues from previous relationships they decided to cohabit but not marry. They have a joint bank account, own a house together and have been a couple for over 15 years.

Are we (and I'm particularly interested in Scott's take on this) saying as Mormons that their sexual intimacy is a worse sin than:

- A man beating his wife/kids?

- A con-artists defrauding a pensioner of her life savings?

- Armed robbery?

- A drunk driver hitting a pedestrian and putting them in a wheelchair/coma?

I could go on...

If so, are we also saying that their relationship is as grevious and serious as other sexual sins such as:

- Rape

- Child abuse

- A man cheating on his pregnant wife

- Someone with an STD not using a condom

I know all of these are extreme examples. That's exactly my point and the question in the OP. How can we say all sexual relations outside of marriage are 'next to murder' and above some heinous acts (that mentally and physically scar victims).

In my example above there is no victim and no chance of children. How is that possibly 'second only to murder.'

When they visit us they have the guest room, we don't make them sleep apart. Does that make me an accessory to second-to-murder?

[Storm Rider]

I still think that trying to evaluate the seriousness of one sin relative to another sin is a red herring and irrelevant to the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ. The point is to come unto Christ; to align our lives with his; to forsake all sin. What your life is today is really meaningless when compared to what it could be when being the Savior's disciple. We are each trying to live his teachings and glorify him through word and deed. Do that and forget about trying to quantify the abhorrence of sin; all sin is abhorrent.

[Stroopwafel]

I still think that trying to evaluate the seriousness of one sin relative to another sin is a red herring and irrelevant to the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ. The point is to come unto Christ; to align our lives with his; to forsake all sin. What your life is today is really meaningless when compared to what it could be when being the Savior's disciple. We are each trying to live his teachings and glorify him through word and deed. Do that and forget about trying to quantify the abhorrence of sin; all sin is abhorrent.

And that is because it is an established fact that the devil is in the details.

[Stone holm]

I still think that trying to evaluate the seriousness of one sin relative to another sin is a red herring and irrelevant to the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ. The point is to come unto Christ; to align our lives with his; to forsake all sin. What your life is today is really meaningless when compared to what it could be when being the Savior's disciple. We are each trying to live his teachings and glorify him through word and deed. Do that and forget about trying to quantify the abhorrence of sin; all sin is abhorrent.

Interesting. But if that is the case, then why do we hear this saying being repeated over and over again by GAs and morality in many cases being reduced solely to sexual morality?

[Questing Beast]

I still think that trying to evaluate the seriousness of one sin relative to another sin is a red herring and irrelevant to the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ. The point is to come unto Christ; to align our lives with his; to forsake all sin. What your life is today is really meaningless when compared to what it could be when being the Savior's disciple. We are each trying to live his teachings and glorify him through word and deed. Do that and forget about trying to quantify the abhorrence of sin; all sin is abhorrent.

This is precisely the kind of evaluation that rises up when your religious paradigm shifts. All previous assertions vis-a-vis "sin" and what it is come under review. Because the traditions, mores and "doctrines" have been handed down the ages by men and not God, it all requires examination from the pov of the new or shifting paradigm. What exactly *bleeps* off God? Or are you merely offending people? Yes, the dogma is fortified with all manner of caveats, but they likewise are from the same circular reasoning, and wind up being a form of "kissing Hank's keister". It comes down to making your own decision, which depends on being at peace with God, no matter what anyone has to say about your decision. And that's truly what decisions are all about and have always been about: they are never check boxes or dogmatic requirements, like recommend question sessions. People lose sight of the fact that no matter how "in" they are with dogma and its disciples, if they are not at peace with God they are living a form of a lie. They need to find out what that lie is and stop it.

I have never assumed that my daughter is living a lie. She's being as authentic to her innermost thoughts and feelings as she knows how to be at this stage in her mortal life....

[Stone holm]

This is precisely the kind of evaluation that rises up when your religious paradigm shifts. All previous assertions vis-a-vis "sin" and what it is come under review. Because the traditions, mores and "doctrines" have been handed down the ages by men and not God, it all requires examination from the pov of the new or shifting paradigm. What exactly *bleeps* off God? Or are you merely offending people? Yes, the dogma is fortified with all manner of caveats, but they likewise are from the same circular reasoning, and wind up being a form of "kissing Hank's keister". It comes down to making your own decision, which depends on being at peace with God, no matter what anyone has to say about your decision. And that's truly what decisions are all about and have always been about: they are never check boxes or dogmatic requirements, like recommend question sessions. People lose sight of the fact that no matter how "in" they are with dogma and its disciples, if they are not at peace with God they are living a form of a lie. They need to find out what that lie is and stop it.

I have never assumed that my daughter is living a lie. She's being as authentic to her innermost thoughts and feelings as she knows how to be at this stage in her mortal life....

But the 1950s were such a comfortable black and white world for middle-class white Americans, can't we go back there to black and white?

[Storm Rider]

I am not sure it was black and white even then. We either believe in truth or we do not and no amount of blind faith in the Brethren can ever compensate for the need of the individual to know God personally. I have always be a skeptic and do not enjoy following a herd. I think it has to do with one of my weaknesses in accepting authority just because someone tells me they have authority. Regardless, I believe that God set this world up to present complexity to us and our objective is to deal with it the best way we can while remaining faithful to God. I also think that it is this complexity that makes judging others impossible. We too often take a moment in time and want to judge an eternity for another. Our Father takes our eternity and judges from the whole range of choices and actions. It would be great if we were all on the path, at the same pace, at the same time and progress in unison, but that is not the plan. We each must work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. We each take detours, begin anew in fits and starts, with times when we really hit our stride, and then stumble again. We need to forget about how well or how badly our neighbor is doing and extend a hand when we can and be willing to grasp the extended hand when we are down.

[mfbukowski]

Good question. And there was me thinking the love of money was the root of all evils.

ahhh, that's 'cuz you are one of them socialist Limeys- or sumptim like 'at.

But if we want to stir up a fight, I will be willing to take on "the root of most social ills is sexual immorality" cause. I see the breakdown of the family as key to most all of what's going on.

[Stone holm]

ahhh, that's 'cuz you are one of them socialist Limeys- or sumptim like 'at.

But if we want to stir up a fight, I will be willing to take on "the root of most social ills is sexual immorality" cause. I see the breakdown of the family as key to most all of what's going on.

I don't think the breakdown of the family as an institution has much to do with sexual immorality, I think it has more to do with the way our economy is structured and the impact on close knit communities.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think the breakdown of the family as an institution has much to do with sexual immorality, I think it has more to do with the way our economy is structured and the impact on close knit communities.

Oh THAT argument.

Well we could debate which came first- the chicken or the egg just as fruitfully. Liberals blame everything on economics, conservatives blame everything on lack of personal responsibility.

One third of the US population now receives some kind of government subsidy. There are more people on foodstamps now than there are full-time workers.

Clearly since the government is helping us all now so much, it is clear that things are getting better and people are getting more moral all the time.

People on welfare tend to be more moral than the rest of us, because the government has solved all their financial problems. Makes sense to me.

[Stone holm]

Oh THAT argument.

Well we could debate which came first- the chicken or the egg just as fruitfully. Liberals blame everything on economics, conservatives blame everything on lack of personal responsibility.

One third of the US population now receives some kind of government subsidy. There are more people on foodstamps now than there are full-time workers.

Clearly since the government is helping us all now so much, it is clear that things are getting better and people are getting more moral all the time.

People on welfare tend to be more moral than the rest of us, because the government has solved all their financial problems. Makes sense to me.

I didn't necessarily refer to welfare. I meant more that right now our economy is such that it has destroyed the family farm and the family owned businesses. That is I think something of a non-partisan issue. I participate in a blog which remininices (sp?) about the small town I grew up in and tries to remember what stores and businesses used to be located there. It is amazing how self sufficient that town used to be, it is now basically a bedroom community with nowhere near the same number of family businesses. There is a family cohesiveness that came when you worked together as a unit that is now lost. A father cannot even in some cases recommend that a child be hired, let alone bring them into the business. Clerks frequently were treated like family if the store was small and they had worked there a long time. We do not have a lot of economic incentives that lead to cohesiveness. Keep thinking about the song about "Love" from Fiddler on the Roof -- I think we may have lost some of that and it has nothing to do with welfare.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't necessarily refer to welfare. I meant more that right now our economy is such that it has destroyed the family farm and the family owned businesses. That is I think something of a non-partisan issue. I participate in a blog which remininices (sp?) about the small town I grew up in and tries to remember what stores and businesses used to be located there. It is amazing how self sufficient that town used to be, it is now basically a bedroom community with nowhere near the same number of family businesses. There is a family cohesiveness that came when you worked together as a unit that is now lost. A father cannot even in some cases recommend that a child be hired, let alone bring them into the business. Clerks frequently were treated like family if the store was small and they had worked there a long time. We do not have a lot of economic incentives that lead to cohesiveness. Keep thinking about the song about "Love" from Fiddler on the Roof -- I think we may have lost some of that and it has nothing to do with welfare.

Well being an urbanite, that was something I never enjoyed, and few of us did.

I guess we could all become Amish?

[Stone holm]

Well being an urbanite, that was something I never enjoyed, and few of us did.

I guess we could all become Amish?

Well the small merchant is pretty much gone replace by Wal-Mart. The family farmer is pretty much gone replaced by huge industrial farms. Rural America has changed dramatically during my lifetime, and I suspect so has urban America (though I have little knowledge of that). In my small town when I was growing up we had: three hardware stores, a furniture store, two clothing stores, a shoe store, a cobbler shop, three restaurants, two grocery stores, a liquor store, two bars, a car dealership, a farm implement dealership, an appliance store, a creamery, a hatchery, a butcher shop, a poultry processing shop, four service stations, two grain elevators, two lumberyards, one sawmill, two propane dealers, a Culligan man, an electric repair shop, several beauty parlors, two barber shops, a theatre, a dime store, a candy store, its own bank and an insurance agency and I am sure a bunch more that I can't remember. Now that same town has: five restaurants, a liquor store, two small grocery stores, two service stations, a securities broker, and a branch bank, one propane dealership, a branch Culligan dealership, one insurance agency, no electric repair shop, no cobbler, no car dealer, one hardware, no clothing store, no shoe store, no hatchery, no creamery, no candy store, no dime store, no implement dealer, one lumberyard, no sawmill, no poultry processor, no theatre, no grain elevator. It does have a dozen or so small factories two of which are locally owned. This has had a massive impact on how families are organized and how the community is shaped. This has happened all over rural America, except in some towns they didn't get the dozen or so small factories or got them and lost them. This was bread and butter middle-class America the bastion of the traditional family. To ignore this change and attribute the collapse of the traditional family in these areas to the idea that people give way to their lusts more now is I think to really put on blinders. If you want to restore the traditional family, you have to give it the economic significance that it used to have -- which had nothing to do with welfare or the welfare state, it had to do with lives filled with economic purpose and dignity which had community ties.

[Calm]

But that doesn't mean they weren't ever committed in the first place.

Commitment, like pretty much every other human behaviour, is on a continuum; just because they may not be as committed generally speaking as a couple who marries prior to cohabiting doesn't necessarily mean there is no commitment at all.

However, relationships are hard and if you really want something to succeed, then it seems to me you would engage in behaviour that would lead to the greatest probability that it would last. That is, of course, one measure of commitment, what sacrifices one is willing to make up front, at the beginning of a relationship to ensure to the best of one's ability that the relationship will still be going in 50+ years. If one is choosing to live together to see if they 'mesh' well enough, that is a good sign they are not fully committed. Any relationship constructed with a built in 'out' is going to be harder to sustain because one doesn't feel as compelled to work at it and one hasn't as thoroughly mentally and emotionally committed to it so it will be less painful to leave it behind.

Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah