Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[canard78]

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.

Despite the patronising tone I'll try to engage this line of argument...

To clarify: you're saying adultery and divorce are synonymous?

Why doesn't a person get excommunicated for divorce if it's really on a par with adultery? Of course it's sad and, as a child of parents who have, is hurtful. But I wouldn't consider them both to be as bad as adulterers.

You're also saying rape etc are pure evil (like murder?) so therefore there is a sliding scale. If rape is worse than adultery, which in turn is on a par with divorce (which I'd dispute), would there be other sexual sins that are less serious and therefore not 'next to murder?'

Like I've said, there are far more evil acts than sex.

[Stone holm]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he was referring to adultery that is the cause of divorce, as opposed to sex between two unmarried consenting adults.

[canard78]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he was referring to adultery that is the cause of divorce, as opposed to sex between two unmarried consenting adults.

Adultery leading to divorce as a single 'sin?'

[Bikeemikey]

Adultery leading to divorce as a single 'sin?'

All sin is a single thing - separation of our will from the will of God.

[canard78]

All sin is a single thing - separation of our will from the will of God.

But the ability of sin different sins to distance ourselves from God and the process needed for reconciliation is certainly different.

[Bikeemikey]

But the ability of sin different sins to distance ourselves from God and the process needed for reconciliation is certainly different.

There are no different sins - there is just different ways of committing sin. There are different ways of substituting gods will for our own.

The process of reconciliation is to utilize the atonement - that's universal for every sin.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Alvino]

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.

The critical assumption you are making, and that I reject, is the following. Even taking into consideration the powers of creation, I don't see why it is you think that anything you do wrongly with those powers is as great a bad thing as the power of creation is great in a good way.

For example, guns are powerful and require some serious personal responsibility. But going on a shooting rampage at a public place is certainly much much worse than if I purposefully kill off an endangered species with it, which in turn is worst than not having your finger off the trigger when you didn't want to shoot once though nothing beyond that happened. So, it looks like one can perform several actions differing in how bad they are with 'powers' or abilities that are by themselves very powerful.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Alvino

[Stone holm]

There are no different sins - there is just different ways of committing sin. There are different ways of substituting gods will for our own.

The process of reconciliation is to utilize the atonement - that's universal for every sin.

That is a very profound piece of BS so you think all sins are equal?

You are out of the thread.

[Calm]

That is a very profound piece of BS so you think all sins are equal?

I get the idea more that he views the term "equal" as inapplicable when discussing sins, comparison of sins being a meaningless endeavour.

He is defining sin by the result of behaviours that we describe as sinful, sin thus being a separation of ourselves from God. He's not the first one I've seen do it and it has a certain appeal in that it helps, IMO, to focus on what is more important---getting ourselves right with the Lord as opposed to obsessing about our sinful behaviours which often becomes an obstacle to repentance and moving on in our journey to the Lord.

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I get the idea more that he views the term "equal" as inapplicable when discussing sins, comparison of sins being a meaningless endeavour.

He is defining sin by the result of behaviours that we describe as sinful, sin thus being a separation of ourselves from God. He's not the first one I've seen do it and it has a certain appeal in that it helps, IMO, to focus on what is more important---getting ourselves right with the Lord as opposed to obsessing about our sinful behaviours which often becomes an obstacle to repentance and moving on in our journey to the Lord.

Last night John Doe worked late to meet a deadline and sinned against the command to "retire to his bed early"

Tonight John Doe will be in bed early... with his neighbour's wife, while his own wife is in hospital having an operation.

Are we really saying that both events distanced John Doe from God in equal measure?

[Calm]

Last night John Doe worked late to meet a deadline and sinned against the command to "retire to his bed early"

Tonight John Doe will be in bed early... with his neighbour's wife, while his own wife is in hospital having an operation.

Are we really saying that both events distanced John Doe from God in equal measure?

Again, I don't think Bikemikey was saying anything about such behaviours being equal in measure, more long the lines of they can't be measured. It makes no sense to ask if both events distanced Doe from God in equal measures then to ask which is sweeter, one or five. All we can say is both acts separate God from Man and until repented of, keep him separated. I more or less agree with that since we have no way of knowing the impact on others or ourselves and in the end it is not the 'value' of the sinful behaviour that matters, but the willingness to give them up.

Bikemikey can correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of what he is saying.

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Again, I don't think Bikemikey was saying anything about such behaviours being equal in measure, more long the lines of they can't be measured. It makes no sense to ask if both events distanced Doe from God in equal measures then to ask which is sweeter, one or five. All we can say is both acts separate God from Man and until repented of, keep him separated. I more or less agree with that since we have no way of knowing the impact on others or ourselves and in the end it is not the 'value' of the sinful behaviour that matters, but the willingness to give them up.

Bikemikey can correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of what he is saying.

That's nice except, platitudes like the one in the title of this topic cause us to emphasize certain sins over others until we distort the message of Christ into something that does not resemble His ministry while on Earth which had no such emphasis.

[Maestrophil]

All speeding will likely get me pulled over, but where, how fast, with whom in my car, my state of sobriety etc, can all cause the consequence/punishment to be much higher!

[CV75]

I will teach my children chastity. But I will not use Alma 39 to do it.

I think sexual sins have their degrees, as does murder of various kinds, so degree-for-degree, sins that prevent or interfere with God’s means of and direction for creating and destroying life can be of the same, lesser or greater severity. Where life cannot be destroyed until it is first created, and where one’s unimpeded sexual choices are dependent on his unimpeded choices over his body’s animation (we can’t have sex if we’re dead), sexual sin would naturally flikewise follow second to murder in that regard.

[Maestrophil]

In light of how many people have commented in the "what official church doctrines do you disagree with?" threat regarding sexual sin - I re-visited this thread.

 

I still do not see any compelling reasons why we should disregard the churches repeated teachings that sexual immorality is very close in seriousness to murder.  I believe it is - through personal experience of seeing the vast and sweeping damage sexual sin causes to the innocent and the guilty.

 

Could it be that many who feel an aversion to this teaching are very often people who struggle to keep - or struggle  to want to keep - this commandment?  I my personal experience, most people I know who balk at this teaching have had serious sexual transgression in their lives either past or present. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You know what is funny is that of the sins he was guilty of sex was one of them. Yet, I guess we are to assume then that other sins mentioned by Alma are just as bad. After all he did say "iniquities".

 

But for some reason people want to dismiss what is in scripture and say "nu'uh, having sex out side of marriage is no big deal, it really is not that serious, certainly not next to murder". It boggles my mind. How can any one that is Mormon justify that view?

[omni]

You know what is funny is that of the sins he was guilty of sex was one of them. Yet, I guess we are to assume then that other sins mentioned by Alma are just as bad. After all he did say "iniquities".

 

But for some reason people want to dismiss what is in scripture and say "nu'uh, having sex out side of marriage is no big deal, it really is not that serious, certainly not next to murder". It boggles my mind. How can any one that is Mormon justify that view?

What boggles my mind is a loving couple who have sexual relations are considered greater sinners than Bernie Madoff.

[bdouglas]

I cannot tell you how much this idea, that sexual sin is next to murder, sickens me.

 

When I was 13 I was sexualized by an adult female whom I will call "Susan". At the same time I was being sexualized by this adult female I was also high on LSD. She gave me the LSD first, then came the sex. This happened over the course of around six months.

 

By the time I was old enough to go on a mission my bishop told me I couldn't go because I was unworthy. After "Susan" had sexualized me, I had a series of girlfriends, non-Mormon girlfriends, and I did not keep the law of chastity with any of them. When I frankly told the bishop about these girls, he told me he was "sickened", that I should be x-d (I was 18 years old), etc., etc. Of course I didn't say a word about "Susan" (and any victim of sexual abuse will know why). Later my family moved to a new state and my dad was called as a stake prez and he succeeded in getting me on a mission, he sort of pushed me in through the back door. And I was a good missionary and I totally and completely imbibed and took in the idea of sexual sin being next to murder. And I believed that I would be able to live that law, the law of chastity, I believed I would be able to live that law 100%, as missionaries were constantly told to do.

 

Well, I came home from mission and went to BYU. I dated very little. I was afraid to. When I did date, I did not so much as even touch the girl's hand. If we were at a dance, I made up excuses for sitting out the slow dances. This went on until I was 26 or so, and I was out of town working on a construction job. All day I'd work construction, and at night I'd sit in a small trailer and read. It was during this same time that my bi-polar issues really began to assert themselves. I'd had problems with this on my mission and at school, but now it was getting bad. But I didn't know I was bi-polar. I really didn't know what was going on. And to make a long story short, one night, during one of my phases, I had dinner with a girl (a non-Mormon girl), and afterwards we ended in the backseat of her car, etc., etc.

 

And I was devastated — just totally devastated. I very nearly topped myself. If I'd had a gun, I very well might have done it. I'd just lost everything. I had committed the sin next to murder...when in fact all that had really happened is I'd engaged in some light petting.

 

There is so much more I could say about this but won't. I will say a bit about my dad though. My dad had been a mission president four times. He was very good with missionaries. Missionaries loved him. He was also a close personal friend of Pres. Kimball, and my dad completely bought into the idea, the orthodoxy of the time, that in the case of sexual sin full confession was required. You spilled out every tiny detail of what happened. This was necessary for full repentance. Courts were also required. In one case, a case I was personally acquainted with, an RM, a person I knew, committed suicide six months after being x-d. It wasn't my dad who'd x-d him but I knew this person and my dad knew him. This haunted me, and it was this person I was thinking about when I almost killed myself.

 

Later, when my dad was an old man and put out to pasture by being made a sealer in the temple, I told him about "Susan", my near-suicide after "getting into trouble with a girl" when I was 26, everything. We had some long talks. And he revised his thinking on sexual sin, just about completely, and he regretted the way he'd handled many of the cases, the hundreds that he'd handled during his mission president stints.

 

People like teddyaware really have to ask themselves why people, good LDS people who are trying their damnedest to stay on the wagon of either sexual abstinence before marriage or fidelity after, fall off this wagon. Why does this happen? Is it because such people are "carnal, sensual and devilish, and love a lie", etc., etc? In other words, is it because these people are "deliberate sinners"? No. No. In the great majority of the cases it is because of past abuse, mental health issues, employment issues, poor self-image, an impossible marriage — the list could go on and on.

 

In one of his essays in "Approaching Zion" Hugh Nibley says the church's pre-occupation with sexual sin is a case of "switched villains". We have set up a dummy villain in place of the real villain. I could not agree more.

 

But I am hopeful. I see change. Every general conference I see change. There are still the talks which hark back the orthodoxy that prevailed in 50s and 60s, but there are also talks which hint at change (like Elder Scott's talk on masturbation). And I don't think church courts are held as often as they used to be...for the simple reason that I think it has started to sink that such courts are counter-productive.

 

​Will people like teddyaware change their thinking after reading this post? No. But my dad, who was as orthodox as they come, changed his thinking. There is hope.

Edited November 6, 2014 by bdouglas

[Tacenda]

I cannot tell you how much this idea, that sexual sin is next to murder, sickens me.

When I was 13 I was sexualized by an adult female whom I will call "Susan". At the same time I was being sexualized by this adult female I was also high on LSD. She gave me the LSD first, then came the sex. This happened over the course of around six months.

By the time I was old enough to go on a mission my bishop told me I couldn't go because I was unworthy. After "Susan" had sexualized me, I had a series of girlfriends, non-Mormon girlfriends, and I did not keep the law of chastity with any of them. When I frankly told the bishop about these girls, he told me he was "sickened", that I should be x-d (I was 18 years old), etc., etc. Of course I didn't say a word about "Susan" (and any victim of sexual abuse will know why). Later my family moved to a new state and my dad was called as a stake prez and he succeeded in getting me on a mission, he sort of pushed me in through the back door. And I was a good missionary and I totally and completely imbibed and took in the idea of sexual sin being next to murder. And I believed that I would be able to live that law, the law of chastity, I believed I would be able to live that law 100%, as missionaries were constantly told to do.

Well, I came home from mission and went to BYU. I dated very little. I was afraid to. When I did date, I did not so much as even touch the girl's hand. If we were at a dance, I made up excuses for sitting out the slow dances. This went on until I was 26 or so, and I was out of town working on a construction job. All day I'd work construction, and at night I'd sit in a small trailer and read. It was during this same time that my bi-polar issues really began to assert themselves. I'd had problems with this on my mission and at school, but now it was getting bad. But I didn't know I was bi-polar. I really didn't know what was going on. And to make a long story short, one night, during one of my phases, I had dinner with a girl (a non-Mormon girl), and afterwards we ended in the backseat of her car, etc., etc.

And I was devastated — just totally devastated. I very nearly topped myself. If I'd had a gun, I very well might have done it. I'd just lost everything. I had committed the sin next to murder...when in fact all that had really happened is I'd engaged in some light petting.

There is so much more I could say about this but won't. I will say a bit about my dad though. My dad had been a mission president four times. He was very good with missionaries. Missionaries loved him. He was also a close personal friend of Pres. Kimball, and my dad completely bought into the idea, the orthodoxy of the time, that in the case of sexual sin full confession was required. You spilled out every tiny detail of what happened. This was necessary for full repentance. Courts were also required. In one case, a case I was personally acquainted with, an RM, a person I knew, committed suicide six months after being x-d. It wasn't my dad who'd x-d him but I knew this person and my dad knew him. This haunted me, and it was this person I was thinking about when I almost killed myself.

Later, when my dad was an old man and put out to pasture by being made a sealer in the temple, I told him about "Susan", my near-suicide after "getting into trouble with a girl" when I was 26, everything. We had some long talks. And he revised his thinking on sexual sin, just about completely, and he regretted the way he'd handled many of the cases, the hundreds that he'd handled during his mission president stints.

People like teddyaware really have to ask themselves why people, good LDS people who are trying their damnedest to stay on the wagon of either sexual abstinence before marriage or fidelity after, fall off this wagon. Why does this happen? Is it because such people are "carnal, sensual and devilish, and love a lie", etc., etc? In other words, is it because these people are "deliberate sinners"? No. No. In the great majority of the cases it is because of past abuse, mental health issues, employment issues, poor self-image, an impossible marriage — the list could go on and on.

In one of his essays in "Approaching Zion" Hugh Nibley says the church's pre-occupation with sexual sin is a case of "switched villains". We have set up a dummy villain in place of the real villain. I could not agree more.

But I am hopeful. I see change. Every general conference I see change. There are still the talks which hark back the orthodoxy that prevailed in 50s and 60s, but there are also talks which hint at change (like Elder Scott's talk on masturbation). And I don't think church courts are held as often as they used to be...for the simple reason that I think it has started to sink that such courts are counter-productive.

​Will people like teddyaware change their thinking after reading this post? No. But my dad, who was as orthodox as they come, changed his thinking. There is hope.

Such a needed post. Wish every bishop, MP or SP etc. could read this.

I think most sexually active people may have been abused somewhere along the way, it's rampent. Two of my friends were sexually abused by their step fathers. My husband judges critically anyone that has had sex before marrying, and treats it as if they've commited something akin to murder. It's a big problem in our marriage because I'm constantly defending them. I believe there are other actions that should be even more abhorred than sex before marriage. Though I thoroughly believe it hurts self esteem etc.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Tacenda

[sethpayne]

I believe that two 16 year olds who have unlawful and sinful contact in the heat of the moment are absolutely right up there, sin-wise, with the likes of Ted Bundy.  I don't understand why anyone would object to this line of thinking.

 

Our young people who commit this most heinous act should know that God considers them *almost* as evil as Tony Soprano... but not quite.  I expect this knowledge will be of great comfort to them.

Edited November 6, 2014 by sethpayne

[MorningStar]

What I learned in YW is not that it makes you almost as evil as a murderer, but that murder is the taking of one's life and breaking the Law of Chastity is possibly creating life when it should not be created.  Both are serious because the consequences are major, but clearly murder involves having a cold, black heart.

[Yirgacheffe]

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!

You can not make restitution for a multitude of sins, I would say any of them.  Even  in thievery you can not make restitution, you may give back what you stole, but you can't give a person back the trust and security they had before you stole from them.   As far as I can see erasing what you've done is impossible and actually restoring someone you've sinned against in any fashion is too.  

[rodheadlee]

The sexual sin that is like unto murder is adultery. It murders marriages. Sethpayne how would you like it if your spouse committed  adultery, once or twice or carried on a long term affair while you were not aware of it? or your found out 7 years after the fact. Would you feel like a smuck? Would you feel like killing some dude? Could you contain your rage? Could you forgive your wife? How long would it take for the pain to go away? How long would it be before you could trust your wife again? I don't know if you are married so maybe you don't care about adulterers. That stuff happens to other people. You know all those murders that happen to other people due to love triangles. What are the stats on murders committed by jilted lovers? What does the D&C say about someone who commits adultery after they are sealed? Do you think it hurts less if you are only married for time instead of for all eternity?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Yirgacheffe, I don't think you understand the atonement or what Christ suffered for.

[AndyDnom]

for those of you who believe sex is a serious sin, close ish to murder, what do you think masturbation is? third to murder?