Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[Calm]

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.

One could claim that people are looking for a substitute for the love and security of family when they get entangled with pursuing a love of money (for security, control over oneself and others, for pleasure that is substituting for the happiness family companionship gives, etc).

[Calm]

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.

I would agree that the loss of the sense of belonging to an actual community has contributed though I think welfare has contributed to some degree in the sense that it allows a vicious cycle to continue. If one has less concern for the person next door whose name one might not even know, one is less likely to contribute to the community or help the individual, requiring them to go to the government for assistance...and when the government is there, one can make excuses of one's lack of involvement in others' lives by saying to oneself that is what the government is for. Less involvement leads to a lesser sense of belonging, lesser sense of community and extended family, less desire to stay in one place and develop relationships and instead keep moving looking for the 'better life' that may provide for more material things, but less and less fulfills immaterial needs, more shifting of responsibility to others, more dependency on the government to meet needs, etc. etc.

Society is a complicated creature, I don't think you can realistically pull out one important aspect of it and say it doesn't really matter in a particular case.

Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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 include all passions that can be twisted in "lusts" and not just sexual ones, I think you would be closer to the mark.

I believe in many urban areas there was the equivalent of the small town, the village within the city where one worked as well as lived. Now one works with people one doesn't see for the rest of the day, it is much harder to develop caring, supporting relationships with both those we work with and those we live among. We don't have the time or resources to fully contribute to what amounts to two separate communities and in some businesses we are discouraged from even developing those types of supportive relationships.

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.

I disagree. Making relationships work, whether in business or at home or in the community requires a lot of investment of time, resources and patience and longsuffering where one is willing to forgive others when they make mistakes and are forgiven in one's own time. Getting welfare from a government...where even the person one applies to or talks to when problems arise may be different each time, otoh, requires very little emotional involvement and less emotional investment. While welfare may not have caused the breakdown of the local community, I think it helps sustain the lack of it by filling its place to a certain extent on a material level while providing nothing on the immaterial level, thus resulting in numerous social ills due to the lack of a feeling of true belonging and stability. Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

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.

US and UK political/social policy isn't of great interest to me at the moment. My 'love of money' line was more of a quip in response to the idea that all of society's ills stem back to sexuality.

I'd already listed a few countries that have very strict adherence to what we'd consider principles of godly chastity, but who are not a model society.

I've not got a strong view either way so probably won't get "drug" (do you Americans really say that?) down that tangent.

[Calm]

I'd already listed a few countries that have very strict adherence to what we'd consider principles of godly chastity, but who are not a model society.

Legally perhaps, I don't know if one can conclude they actually live that way just like one would suppose that certain drugs aren't present in our own society based on our laws while reality is quite different.

[canard78]

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.

Or... Having a relationship with a built in out makes you work harder. Sometimes people bemoan the drop in relationship quality after marriage because one or both become complacent.

Marriage doesn't strengthen a relationship, just like baptism doesn't make one a follower of Christ.

Keeping the promises made at each ceremony is what makes the commitment and relationship count and that can happen with or without the ceremony.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Good point, BUT:

That has been happening for hundreds of years. There is just not enough land in America for everyone to have 40 acres and a mule.

In urban areas where most Americans now live, I think the sexual revolution of the sixties is more relevant to the breakdown of the family. The shift from an agrarian society to an industrialized urban one has been happening for hundreds of years. I guess it just took a while for it to hit where you are from.

Clearly, we still had "family values" in the 1950's after industrialization was prevalent- so something must have happened since then. I think they call it "The 60's".

[mfbukowski]

One could claim that people are looking for a substitute for the love and security of family when they get entangled with pursuing a love of money (for security, control over oneself and others, for pleasure that is substituting for the happiness family companionship gives, etc).

Yep I think it is security and happiness they want, but are looking in the wrong places.

[Calm]

Keeping the promises made at each ceremony is what makes the commitment and relationship count and that can happen with or without the ceremony.

I agree it is not the ceremony itself but what it implies that makes the difference.

The question for me is can you have what it implies without the ceremony if one has a choice whether or not to have the ceremony?

It is along the lines of God judging someone's heart and not their acts by the rule that if they had a chance to learn of the gospel and obey his laws they would have, but they didn't have the chance...not that they did have the chance and did everything but become officially part of the gospel community so he judges them as part of the community anyway.

Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I've not got a strong view either way so probably won't get "drug" (do you Americans really say that?) down that tangent.

If yore getting drug somewhar it mebe would be down a road, but it sure ain't down some "tangent" whatever 'at's supposed to be. 'At sounds like Limey talk to me!

[Calm]

Or... Having a relationship with a built in out makes you work harder. Sometimes people bemoan the drop in relationship quality after marriage because one or both become complacent.

I would agree that this can happen*****, but it seems to me that stats demonstrate that in general it is the reverse.

****There are unfortunately many who think once marriage occurs, then is the time to "live happily ever after". The fairy tale syndrome is alive and well among LDS just as it is among the rest of the world. However, the idea of the happily ever after being both eternal and dependent on ourselves can be an educational 'kick in the pants' to those who suddenly wake up to reality after the honeymoon glow wears off.

[Stone holm]

I would agree that this can happen*****, but it seems to me that stats demonstrate that in general it is the reverse.

****There are unfortunately many who think once marriage occurs, then is the time to "live happily ever after". The fairy tale syndrome is alive and well among LDS just as it is among the rest of the world. However, the idea of the happily ever after being both eternal and dependent on ourselves can be an educational 'kick in the pants' to those who suddenly wake up to reality after the honeymoon glow wears off.

Well at least the pressure on RM to get married within 6 months of getting off their mission has let up.

[canard78]

Well at least the pressure on RM to get married within 6 months of getting off their mission has let up.

Was it ever really there? I remember being eager to be married when I got back, but no-one pressured me to do so.

[canard78]

I would agree that this can happen*****, but it seems to me that stats demonstrate that in general it is the reverse.

****There are unfortunately many who think once marriage occurs, then is the time to "live happily ever after". The fairy tale syndrome is alive and well among LDS just as it is among the rest of the world. However, the idea of the happily ever after being both eternal and dependent on ourselves can be an educational 'kick in the pants' to those who suddenly wake up to reality after the honeymoon glow wears off.

Nicely put

I remember that moment. Thankfully we both agreed to knuckle down and work at it. I'm glad we did - it's all the better for it.

[Calm]

Just so happens an almost new article relevant to the subject of commitment:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582811/Expectations-of-cohabiting-men-women-may-not-mesh.html

[williamsmith]

The only sin that is "second only to murder" is Adultery and Divorce.

The reason being is because like with murder, you take away the lives and souls of a spouse and children, destroying them.

Obviously other sins are up there also, but these are the sins specifically mentioned that are "choice" based indirect acts that harm the people most precious and important that are to be protected, not simply direct evil acts against others.

[Alvino]

In another thread, teddyaware said:

My reply:

Poor Alma, I wonder if he's up in the spirit world grinding his spirit teeth at the way we've distorted what he said.

We teach an unmarried couple that their intimate moments are second to murder?

Corianton had done more than the chapter heading's simple, broad category of all and any "sexual sin."

His actions:

(2)... "did not give so much heed unto my words"

(2)... "thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom."

(3)... "thou didst forsake the ministry"

(3)... "did go... after the harlot Isabel."

(9)... "(went) after the lusts of your eyes"

The consequences:

(11)... "great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites"

(11)... "when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words."

(12)... "lead away the hearts of many people to destruction"

Warning:

(5)... "Know ye not, my son, that these things (plural) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins"

(12)... "command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities (plural)"

(13)... "lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly"

(13)... "acknowledge your faults (plural) and that wrong which ye have done."

(14)... "Seek not after riches nor the vain things (plural) of this world."

So Corianton, son of the prophet and called to be a missionary is sent preaching to the Zoramites. Because of all his (plural) actions they won't listen. He may be married, so he may also be commiting adultery. He went after the lusts of his eyes which, in Alma's warning, includes riches and the vain things of the world.

Doesn't seem to me this makes the 'next to murder' part any less hard to believe, even if we take all those sins together:

(2)... "did not give so much heed unto my words"

I suppose this depends on what it is you are ignoring God on. If you ignore God's word that you should pray, yet you never do, we wouldn't consider that as too bad of an omission. If you ignore God's word that you shouldn't cheat on your wife and you do, that's also pretty bad but not as bad as other many things you could do. But these things aren't bad because you disobey God but because they are bad things to do, I take it. Barring level of knowledge that would get you 'outer darkness' if you turn (and it's not clear this is less bad than murder, at least as punishment goes), not heeding the words of God seem to me pretty low on the list of bad things to do.

(2)... "thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom."

Are we really throwing this one in the basket so it weights so much as only next to murder? ...OK..

(3)... "thou didst forsake the ministry"

Check.

(3)... "did go... after the harlot Isabel."

(9)... "(went) after the lusts of your eyes"

Check.

The consequences:

(11)... "great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites"

(11)... "when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words."

(12)... "lead away the hearts of many people to destruction"

I don't know what iniquities are being talked about in here, really, but unless Corianton was actively inciting people to do inequities worst than the ones it says here Corianton did, I do not see how this can be added to Corianton's sins. But let's add it anyways.

So, even if we add all those sins together, do you really think this amounts to the worst set of sins you have ever seen save murder? I can think of plenty more that are worst: kidnapping children and mutilate them to ask their parents for money. Trafficking with child pornography, too. Maybe a good way to look at it is to ask what we would prefer one of our kids to do, if we had to choose. I would choose Corianton's sins any day as opposes to another myriad of sins that are less bad than murder, yet as close to murder I can barely distinguish between them.

So why is Corianton warned that his actions are "next to murder?" He effectively causes spiritual death. Almost as bad as actual murder or spiritual suicide (denying the HG). All of his actions which lead to the iniquity brought on the Zoramites are collectively referred to in that way.

What kind of 'causing' do you have in mind here? Did Corianton incite people to commit murder so a bunch of people did? I don't think so. As far as I could see, it was Corianton's example that catalyzed the Zoromites' rejecting God. I would imagine the Zoromites had some fault of their own for not accepting God's word and it looks like Corianton was just committing his own sins there.

Also remember he was under the law of Moses at this time. We are not.

What do you think this changes? When answering this question you might want to keep in mind not to make it sound as if today those sins combined are not next to murder but before they were.

If a high profile church leader did all of the above, they might be guilty of "spiritual murder."

Well, Corianton wasn't a church leader, either, but the son of one, IIRC. Let's say he was in fact a high profile church leader. We still can think of plenty of worst things someone could do that are not murder yet worst than this.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

The only sin that is "second only to murder" is Adultery and Divorce.

The reason being is because like with murder, you take away the lives and souls of a spouse and children, destroying them.

Obviously other sins are up there also, but these are the sins specifically mentioned that are "choice" based indirect acts that harm the people most precious and important that are to be protected, not simply direct evil acts against others.

Here's a challenge for you. Go through a list of crimes one can commit (skip murder or worst) and think whether any of those really is worst than cheating on your wife or getting divorced. Plus, acts that indirectly harm people seem to me to be less bad than doing those evils directly against them. Call me crazy.

[canard78]

Doesn't seem to me this makes the 'next to murder' part any less hard to believe, even if we take all those sins together:

I suppose this depends on what it is you are ignoring God on. If you ignore God's word that you should pray, yet you never do, we wouldn't consider that as too bad of an omission. If you ignore God's word that you shouldn't cheat on your wife and you do, that's also pretty bad but not as bad as other many things you could do. But these things aren't bad because you disobey God but because they are bad things to do, I take it. Barring level of knowledge that would get you 'outer darkness' if you turn (and it's not clear this is less bad than murder, at least as punishment goes), not heeding the words of God seem to me pretty low on the list of bad things to do.

Are we really throwing this one in the basket so it weights so much as only next to murder? ...OK..

Check.

Check.

I don't know what iniquities are being talked about in here, really, but unless Corianton was actively inciting people to do inequities worst than the ones it says here Corianton did, I do not see how this can be added to Corianton's sins. But let's add it anyways.

So, even if we add all those sins together, do you really think this amounts to the worst set of sins you have ever seen save murder? I can think of plenty more that are worst: kidnapping children and mutilate them to ask their parents for money. Trafficking with child pornography, too. Maybe a good way to look at it is to ask what we would prefer one of our kids to do, if we had to choose. I would choose Corianton's sins any day as opposes to another myriad of sins that are less bad than murder, yet as close to murder I can barely distinguish between them.

What kind of 'causing' do you have in mind here? Did Corianton incite people to commit murder so a bunch of people did? I don't think so. As far as I could see, it was Corianton's example that catalyzed the Zoromites' rejecting God. I would imagine the Zoromites had some fault of their own for not accepting God's word and it looks like Corianton was just committing his own sins there.

What do you think this changes? When answering this question you might want to keep in mind not to make it sound as if today those sins combined are not next to murder but before they were.

Well, Corianton wasn't a church leader, either, but the son of one, IIRC. Let's say he was in fact a high profile church leader. We still can think of plenty of worst things someone could do that are not murder yet worst than this.

Hi Alvino, to answer your question, no I don't think what Corianton did was really second to murder. If my child did what we think he might have done in the story I would not even consider teaching them that what they had done was second only to murder. I fully agree that there are many things that rank above the acts of Corianton in my view. If you read the recent post to Scott (which unless I missed it is, as yet, unanswered) I list several things which are much worse.

What I was trying to illustrate was that even if Alma had said what is written, he was not talking only about sexual sin (despite the chapter heading of Alma 39 saying otherwise).

Assuming he did say it, I would imagine it was one of those of those parent child teaching moments. I think most parents have the tendency to get a little melodramatic with their kids. I don't expect perfect doctrine from Alma and the Book of Mormon any more than I so from President Monson. We don't teach the scriptures to be infallible. If there are errors it already says they are the errors of men.

I think it's a shame we persist in teaching our youth that:

The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:5).

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng

I much prefer the sentiment of this video:

You can set standards that will help you stay pure.

(Quoting Richard G. Scott), "Firmly establish personal standards... Decide what you will do and what you will not do to express feelings."

Pray and ask Heavenly Father about the standards you have set for yourself.

Don't let what happened in the past define your future. If you have strayed from the path, you can return.

https://www.lds.org/youth/video/chastity-what-are-the-limits?lang=eng

No mention of 'next to murder' and a simple invitation to set personal standards.

[williamsmith]

Here's a challenge for you. Go through a list of crimes one can commit (skip murder or worst) and think whether any of those really is worst than cheating on your wife or getting divorced. Plus, acts that indirectly harm people seem to me to be less bad than doing those evils directly against them. Call me crazy.

How can I put this so you can understand the context and point?

We are not talking about pure "evil" acts here, such as rape, child molestation, or otherwise. Those are external acts that men do to men, bad, even possibly worse on the "bad" scale. What we are talking about is LIFE..... The power of life over death, the power of creation or destruction.

Adultery and Divorce is second only to Murder in that a persons spouse and children are central to life itself, to progress, to love, to greatness, to God. You know the saying, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home". The reason for this is because everything good in life comes from the home. The failure of civilizations, the hearts of men, righteousness, etc. begins with the loss of the home. Adultery and divorce, betray's life itself because it is not simply an external act, it's the betrayal of ones own flesh and soul, betraying creation itself.

I'm not sure how to put this in ways to understand, for I've never had to put his kind of depth of understanding of our creation into words.

When unjust, those who have love and goodness in them, will all tell you that the loss of family, is the worst thing they could ever go through; worse even than all bad things they might have experienced in the past put together, including being sexually molested or otherwise.

If you cannot understand why adultery and divorce would be second only to murder in your heart, soul, and mind, then it can't be explained to you. This is something you will have to learn, see and feel for yourself if there is a deep love of others in you. It is only by love and understanding of pain are these things understood.

[williamsmith]

I think it's a shame we persist in teaching our youth that:

https://www.lds.org/...purity?lang=eng

I much prefer the sentiment of this video:

https://www.lds.org/...limits?lang=eng

No mention of 'next to murder' and a simple invitation to set personal standards.

A "shame"....?

You think it's a shame that from an early age children are taught to keep their bodies as Temples unto the Lord?

They in turn are much less likely to depart from it, because we also give them other wholesome and good outlets and positive life experiences to help build that strength. You think that is a "shame"?

I think that this value LDS place on purity is a BLESSING to the Church. When I see our youth, so many pure compared to the world, it makes my heart sing with joy.

I'm sorry that you don't value every lesson that teaches the importance of our creative powers.

[Questing Beast]

What is a shame is when such ideals are taught with the mouth and the "home" is where the opposite is experienced by children as they grow up. That happens all too commonly.

That is why "lying" in all forms is the core sin that breeds all other sins. Especially lying to yourself. If we can attack ONE vice or sin of humanity, which eradicated will have the most beneficial and lasting effect upon the human family, it is the sin of lying to yourself. Anyone who is genuinely devoted to the truth in his personal life will pull away from all forms of injustice, will in fact prefer death to the committing of conscious injustice, especially toward innocents like little children. There goes your child molestation. Gone are your problems with broken promises to spouses, such as "secret" infidelities. Marriages would fail far less often, and those that did so would be out in the open, communicating their "irreconcilable differences" openly.

Imho, likening sexual incontinence with murder is "shooting beyond the mark" in a palpable way and very damaging....

[Stone holm]

How can I put this so you can understand the context and point?

We are not talking about pure "evil" acts here, such as rape, child molestation, or otherwise. Those are external acts that men do to men, bad, even possibly worse on the "bad" scale. What we are talking about is LIFE..... The power of life over death, the power of creation or destruction.

Adultery and Divorce is second only to Murder in that a persons spouse and children are central to life itself, to progress, to love, to greatness, to God. You know the saying, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home". The reason for this is because everything good in life comes from the home. The failure of civilizations, the hearts of men, righteousness, etc. begins with the loss of the home. Adultery and divorce, betray's life itself because it is not simply an external act, it's the betrayal of ones own flesh and soul, betraying creation itself.

I'm not sure how to put this in ways to understand, for I've never had to put his kind of depth of understanding of our creation into words.

When unjust, those who have love and goodness in them, will all tell you that the loss of family, is the worst thing they could ever go through; worse even than all bad things they might have experienced in the past put together, including being sexually molested or otherwise.

If you cannot understand why adultery and divorce would be second only to murder in your heart, soul, and mind, then it can't be explained to you. This is something you will have to learn, see and feel for yourself if there is a deep love of others in you. It is only by love and understanding of pain are these things understood.

Do you really believe that "no other success can compensate for failure in the home?" I am not sure that I do anymore. Some people do an incredible amount of good in the world, and have truly screwed up families. I think sometimes some people are destined to fulfill certain roles. Some of our truly great Presidents had what were at best dysfunctional families: James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, FDR to name a few. When I think of the prominence of American Statesmen, Benjamin Franklin comes to mind -- family life, total disaster. And look at the Patriarchs, Abraham -- sends his concubine and small child out in the desert presumably to die because his first wife is jealous, then almost kill his son by his first wife, and Jacob for whom all of Israel is named -- horribly dysfunctional family in part due to his excessive favoritism towards Joseph. No I just don't buy that anymore, and I think its constant repetition has created a lot of unneccessary guilt and wasted talent, especially amongst LDS women.

[williamsmith]

Do you really believe that "no other success can compensate for failure in the home?" I am not sure that I do anymore. Some people do an incredible amount of good in the world, and have truly screwed up families. I think sometimes some people are destined to fulfill certain roles. Some of our truly great Presidents had what were at best dysfunctional families: James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, FDR to name a few. When I think of the prominence of American Statesmen, Benjamin Franklin comes to mind -- family life, total disaster. And look at the Patriarchs, Abraham -- sends his concubine and small child out in the desert presumably to die because his first wife is jealous, then almost kill his son by his first wife, and Jacob for whom all of Israel is named -- horribly dysfunctional family in part due to his excessive favoritism towards Joseph. No I just don't buy that anymore, and I think its constant repetition has created a lot of unneccessary guilt and wasted talent, especially amongst LDS women.

I absolutely do believe that.... Success in the eyes of the world isn't going to excuse you for your neglect and destruction of your own family. Further, I would disagree with your portrayal of certain individuals having "disfunctional" homes, especially as it was due to them.

Further, valuing and making ones family, it's individuals successful in every way possible is not "wasted talent" among LDS women or otherwise..... I see you identify yourself as "progressive". I would thus recommend you get rid of such false doctrines.

[Stone holm]

I absolutely do believe that.... Success in the eyes of the world isn't going to excuse you for your neglect and destruction of your own family. Further, I would disagree with your portrayal of certain individuals having "disfunctional" homes, especially as it was due to them.

Further, valuing and making ones family, it's individuals successful in every way possible is not "wasted talent" among LDS women or otherwise..... I see you identify yourself as "progressive". I would thus recommend you get rid of such false doctrines.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I believe it is a cliche that has been overused and is often used as part of the gender stereotyping aimed at women. It also generates guilt in couples whose children go awry that may or may not actually be their fault.