Why Do Some Sins Feel So Good?

[The Nehor]

Of all sins, the most enjoyable by far is sloth. 

 

Counterpoint:

 

There is nothing as tedious as loafing because you can't stop and take a break.

 

I'd take fornication over sloth any day.

Edited April 29, 2014 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

Counterpoint:

 

There is nothing as tedious as loafing because you can't stop and take a break.

 

I'd take fornication over sloth any day.

uh... yeah I worry about Gray's sex life, if he missed that. :0

[Gray]

Counterpoint:

 

There is nothing as tedious as loafing because you can't stop and take a break.

 

I'd take fornication over sloth any day.

 

I'd be tempted by that, but I just don't have the energy

[Tsuzuki]

There is the possibility that what we call sin is not really sin.

A sin is anything that hinders one's agency or the agency of another. Participating in a pansexual orgy may or may not be a sin under this definition, and depends on numerous variables. However, if someone has sworn an oath of chastity, than breaking that oath is a sin, even if the orgy itself isn't, because it cripples the power of one's oaths in the future.

[JLHPROF]

There is the possibility that what we call sin is not really sin.

 

A sin is anything that hinders one's agency or the agency of another. Participating in a pansexual orgy may or may not be a sin under this definition, and depends on numerous variables. However, if someone has sworn an oath of chastity, than breaking that oath is a sin, even if the orgy itself isn't, because it cripples the power of one's oaths in the future.

 

By true definition "Sin" is anything that violates an eternal principle.  That's what sin actually is.  It just takes many different guises and forms.  But it's still not subjective because eternal principles are exactly as they're named.

[Bikeemikey]

I'd be tempted by that, but I just don't have the energy

It's the combo effect... Fornication followed by sloth... Then repeat!

[Tsuzuki]

By true definition "Sin" is anything that violates an eternal principle.  That's what sin actually is.  It just takes many different guises and forms.  But it's still not subjective because eternal principles are exactly as they're named.

It would seem to me that agency and love are the most fundamental principles of them all. And I have my doubts about chastity being an eternal principle, at least as it's commonly understood, since according to Brigham Young and other early Mormons, even God the Father violated that one. By definition, an eternal principle can have no exception, and so a sin would be on par with trying to violate the laws of physics.

[Bikeemikey]

It would seem to me that agency and love are the most fundamental principles of them all. And I have my doubts about chastity being an eternal principle, at least as it's commonly understood, since according to Brigham Young and other early Mormons, even God the Father violated that one. By definition, an eternal principle can have no exception, and so a sin would be on par with trying to violate the laws of physics.

You talking about the conception of Jesus?

We certainly know that god has no objection to a man having "relations" with multiple women, under certain circumstances.

I'd say its safe that our current conception of chastity won't work in heaven.

[JLHPROF]

It would seem to me that agency and love are the most fundamental principles of them all.

 

I would agree with that with one addition - that which leads to life is eternally correct and that which stops life is eternally incorrect.

 

 And I have my doubts about chastity being an eternal principle, at least as it's commonly understood, since according to Brigham Young and other early Mormons, even God the Father violated that one.

 

I would disagree with that.  I don't believe God violated the law of Chastity since I believe he was married/sealed to Mary when Christ was conceived.  But that's as much speculation as saying he violated the law of chastity.

 

 By definition, an eternal principle can have no exception, and so a sin would be on par with trying to violate the laws of physics.

 

This is correct, but sometimes a lesser principle has to be violated in order to allow a higher principle.  Christ had to suffer an innocent death (a violation of principle) in order that we might have eternal life (the very eternal principle driving of God's existence).  Adam and Eve had to partake of the "apple" and become mortal and subject to death (violation of the life principle) so that we could gain mortal bodies and become resurrected beings (again, a higher principle).  Nephi had to violate the "no killing" principle so that entire nations would have the opportunity at eternal life.

 

But even in all of these required exceptions there was sin because eternal principle was violated.

[Bikeemikey]

I would agree with that with one addition - that which leads to life is eternally correct and that which stops life is eternally incorrect.

I would disagree with that. I don't believe God violated the law of Chastity since I believe he was married/sealed to Mary when Christ was conceived. But that's as much speculation as saying he violated the law of chastity.

This is correct, but sometimes a lesser principle has to be violated in order to allow a higher principle. Christ had to suffer an innocent death (a violation of principle) in order that we might have eternal life (the very eternal principle driving of God's existence). Adam and Eve had to partake of the "apple" and become mortal and subject to death (violation of the life principle) so that we could gain mortal bodies and become resurrected beings (again, a higher principle). Nephi had to violate the "no killing" principle so that entire nations would have the opportunity at eternal life.

But even in all of these required exceptions there was sin because eternal principle was violated.

Man... What are you talking about...

God was sealed to Mary?

That which leads to life is always correct?

Then top it of with an "ends justify the means" theory just switching a few words out.

It's not that these ideas are objectionable... It's more they are so vague as to have no real meaning.

[wenglund]

Sins do "feel good" to natural men because the natural man is inclined towards sin.

 

Sins don't "feel good" to spiritual men because sin is contrary to their nature.

 

Since mortal men and women are comprised of both physical and spiritual bodies, the respective "feelings" produced by sins will depend upon which aspect of the dual soul predominates.

 

The plan of God is for us to progress such that the physical or natural man becomes subject to the spiritual man, and we no longer have a disposition to sin--i.e. where sin no longer "feels good." (I could site a number of scriptures here, but I trust that we are already familiar with them.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2014 by wenglund

[Garden Girl]

During my inactive years, I lead a very good life... but I walked in the world, a world that took me away from the gospel path no matter how good. The Adversary doesn't need for us to "sin" per se... he's happy with any distraction that separates us from Heavenly Father and the Savior... as long as we are separated, we are not walking in the Spirit. So when I'd play a round of golf or tennis on the sabbath, fine... When I neglected my prayers or scriptures, that too was acceptable. And when I didn't keep the Word of Wisdom... yah hooo...

Or if we get caught up in "good" activities, so much so that they take us away from our discipleship, great!

I loved my life... it was very comfortable... fun, and even exciting at times as I traveled with my husband... but it did not include my Savior or Heavenly Father... I do say that my life now as an active, faithful member is so much better, but there are times when I miss some things from the past, like Hawaii usually twice a year, etc. I chuckle sometimes and say to myself that I'd better not be like Lot's wife and look back... ha!

GG

[JLHPROF]

Man... What are you talking about...

God was sealed to Mary?

That which leads to life is always correct?

Then top it of with an "ends justify the means" theory just switching a few words out.

It's not that these ideas are objectionable... It's more they are so vague as to have no real meaning.

 

Nonsense.  Not vague doctrines at all.

 

1. If we believe the speculation that God the Father had sex with Mary to produce Christ as his only begotten in the flesh, then to do so outside of marriage would violate the eternal principle of marital chastity (as claimed by Tsuzuki).  I personally believe a marriage would have taken place which in Mormonism is called a sealing.

 

2. Yes, actions which bring about life are righteous according to eternal principle.  Actions that bring about death (or stop life) are sin.  Not vague - (abortion, murder, original sin, homosexual relations, etc all sin, all stop life/ God's work and glory is to bring about eternal life).

 

3. Not a rephrase of "Ends justify the means" but a statement of the doctrine that violation of a lesser law in order to keep a higher law is an eternal principle.

Edited May 6, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Bikeemikey]

Nonsense. Not vague doctrines at all.

1. If we believe the speculation that God the Father had sex with Mary to produce Christ as his only begotten in the flesh, then to do so outside of marriage would violate the eternal principle of marital chastity (as claimed by Tsuzuki). I personally believe a marriage would have taken place which in Mormonism is called a sealing.

2. Yes, actions which bring about life are righteous according to eternal principle. Actions that bring about death (or stop life) are sin. Not vague - (abortion, murder, original sin, homosexual relations, etc all sin, all stop life/ God's work and glory is to bring about eternal life).

3. Not a rephrase of "Ends justify the means" but a statement of the doctrine that violation of a lesser law in order to keep a higher law is an eternal principle.

When your first point needs a belief in speculation I think you can be sure we are off to a bad start.

Not all life producing actions are righteous. Incest, rape, fornication to name a few.

Not all killing is unrighteous.

That makes your last point irrelevant.

[Tacenda]

During my inactive years, I lead a very good life... but I walked in the world, a world that took me away from the gospel path no matter how good. The Adversary doesn't need for us to "sin" per se... he's happy with any distraction that separates us from Heavenly Father and the Savior... as long as we are separated, we are not walking in the Spirit. So when I'd play a round of golf or tennis on the sabbath, fine... When I neglected my prayers or scriptures, that too was acceptable. And when I didn't keep the Word of Wisdom... yah hooo...

Or if we get caught up in "good" activities, so much so that they take us away from our discipleship, great!

I loved my life... it was very comfortable... fun, and even exciting at times as I traveled with my husband... but it did not include my Savior or Heavenly Father... I do say that my life now as an active, faithful member is so much better, but there are times when I miss some things from the past, like Hawaii usually twice a year, etc. I chuckle sometimes and say to myself that I'd better not be like Lot's wife and look back... ha!

GG

I don't think your life was all that bad, I think you maybe only missed having the connection that you do now, with the Savior.  I think you and your husband were good people.  But I think most people that don't live the way we (or I may have once did) do, do many good things.  Sometimes more people than the LDS, do help mankind.  But you are not saying they aren't, I just feel the need to point out that walking in the world doesn't need to separate from HF or the Savior.  I think being in the world like that, even on Sunday, and even when not living the WoW, we can live the true gospel of Jesus.  Maybe someone takes their mom on the golf course on Sunday, and they have some tea or coffee, or wine.  Jesus came to put away those OT laws.  You help in the temple, but who's to say you didn't help when not in the temple and out in the world.  You might have touched someone along the way, in ways you aren't even aware of. 

[Garden Girl]

During my inactive years, I lead a very good life... but I walked in the world, a world that took me away from the gospel path no matter how good. The Adversary doesn't need for us to "sin" per se... he's happy with any distraction that separates us from Heavenly Father and the Savior... as long as we are separated, we are not walking in the Spirit. So when I'd play a round of golf or tennis on the sabbath, fine... When I neglected my prayers or scriptures, that too was acceptable. And when I didn't keep the Word of Wisdom... yah hooo...

Or if we get caught up in "good" activities, so much so that they take us away from our discipleship, great!

I loved my life... it was very comfortable... fun, and even exciting at times as I traveled with my husband... but it did not include my Savior or Heavenly Father... I do say that my life now as an active, faithful member is so much better, but there are times when I miss some things from the past, like Hawaii usually twice a year, etc. I chuckle sometimes and say to myself that I'd better not be like Lot's wife and look back... ha!

GG

 

Hello Tacenda...

I should have said, my life didn't include Heavenly Father and the Savior in the same way that it does today... I still prayed and read my scriptures, and had several spiritual experiences in answer to prayer...

Yes, I agree, many people can be close to HF and the Savior and not attend church regularly (or go to a different church)... and do many good things for their community and those they come in contact with. 

It's just I have such a different, much deeper relationship with both HF and the Savior than I had during those years.

 

from the beach on the most beautiful, sunny morning with the sun dancing on the leaves of trees now fully leafed out...

 

GG