Does the LDS Church focus too much on sexual sins?

[Thinking]

Should the sin next to murder really be the sin next to murder?

Without going into details, let's understand that we are talking about relationships between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships. I would place rape (in all its forms) as a more serious sin than any sexual sin between consenting mature people.

What about the con-man who swindles trusting people out of their money (some losing their life savings)?

What about the person who spreads false information about somebody, and that person's reputation is ruined?

What about the bully who physically or emotionally abuses another person?

In fairness, I remember being taught to be honest, and to be nice to people, but it seemed to me that sexual sins had a greater focus than all the others.

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by Nemesis
Thread bans

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Without going into details, let's understand that we are talking about relationships between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships.

Yes, but if we limit the discussion to such a minuscule portion of the population will this really be a productive discussion?

[bluebell]

When I hear of sexual sins described as a sin next to murder I see it as meaning that it is a sin similar to murder in the way that it usurps God's authority over birth like murder usurps His authority over death.

God alone has the right to set the bounds for when and how His children enter and leave this earth life. 

Sexual sins take that power of creation out of the boundaries God has set.  It is a misuse of the power of creation and that misuse is wielded against innocent beings who did not consent to enter life that way.  

Murder does the same thing with the power of death.  God is the one who gets to decide how someone leaves the earth. When someone else takes that power on themselves it's a very serious sin.  

In many ways those two sins are two sides of the same coin.  I'm not surprised they are compared in the scriptures and in doctrine.

I'm not saying this is the only way to understand that phrase, but it's how I understand it. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by bluebell

[strappinglad]

Well, murder refers to the  intentional taking of innocent life. It does not refer to taking life in general. Sexual sin may have similar caveats .

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Should the sin next to murder really be the sin next to murder?

Without going into details, let's understand that we are talking about relationships between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships. I would place rape (in all its forms) as a more serious sin than any sexual sin between consenting mature people.

What about the con-man who swindles trusting people out of their money (some losing their life savings)?

What about the person who spreads false information about somebody, and that person's reputation is ruined?

What about the bully who physically or emotionally abuses another person?

In fairness, I remember being taught to be honest, and to be nice to people, but it seemed to me that sexual sins had a greater focus than all the others.

 

The power to take life and the power to give or create life seems to be issues very important to God. Perhaps we spend a little too much on it at the expense of other things but perhaps the sin is far too common that it can't be ignored.  Though society might not think its a big deal, to God it is a big deal.  Perhaps far more than we all understand.

[Calm]

This is one of those things imo that terminology gets it screwed up and that includes when inspired leaders teach it as well.  Sexual sins can be destructive to innocent life, but so can a lot of sins and we don't give then the same label as "next to murder" and a lot of them are more akin to it.  I clump this into the Thomas Marsh and Moroni 9 story that are used for something not quite what the text/history was about, so the result goes to far.  

In the first the narrative is little sins of selfishness, greed, pride can lead to big sins of apostasy and then the example is the cream strippings, as the beginning of the off ramp while the more complete narrative is much more complex.

Then in Moro 9 we read "...after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue..." when what it should say in order not to appear to value women based on whether or not they possess an intact hymen is "which is freedom and safety"...what deprived if chastity is most precious above all things (what is said to be most valued for men?) when one is raped is not chastity and virtue, but the control over one's own body, the loss of ability to make the choices that distinguish us as chaste and virtuous.  Rape itself defines nothing about it, it instead impedes expression of virtue just as cutting out someone's tongue would impede his abilty to sing beautifully. That person can still treasure a love for music, can still be a performer of music, he must simply find a different way to express it than he did before if he was a singer...the same action would not impede a musician that was a string plauer and just as a sex slave can treasure virtue and freedom to express that virtue as she desires, she may not have that option of expression, does not mean she has lost the quality of virtue or chastity.  This last is a cultural misrepresentation of the gospel, virtue was seen as something that could be taken with force and not an attribute that was chosen.  And the misrepresentation of the gospel  is in the text itself, I believe, not the interpretation.

Alma 39 though, the problem is in interpretation and assuming that those who use the phrase now are refering to the same thing as the authors were and thus it is appropriate to call sexual sin in general as next to murder when the text is not saying that.  The same mistake has been made with those who assume the GandA is the Catholic Church when if one looks closely at the text, it doesn't qualify.  

Nor does sexual sin in general.  The son, Corianton, is not just engaging in sexual sin with a young lady in the mission; he is a missionary selfishly and with intent leaving his flock alone and retreating to another country to indulge in what were most likely a competing faith's temple prostitution rituals with a pagan temple priestess.  And by that very act he was driving people away into apostasy, and since he would have been aware of the result of his actions, he was intentionally contributing to their spiritual death for selfish reasons.  That makes sense as a sin next to murder or intentionally causing the death of the body.

 

[thatjimguy]

You know I was reading this just because I forgot if saying it was next to murder was actual scripture or just stated at a talk or something and it is of course, in scripture;

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/39.5-6?lang=eng#4

How after reading it, it talks about harlots specifically. In other words, prostitutes.

I'm sure this is not saying (and I am certainly not saying) that sex without marriage isn't a sin anymore. But I am saying perhaps it is not of the "oh my Gosh you might as well have killed someone!" level, unless fo course...prostitutes are involved...which implies a loveless, exchange of money thing.

Just a thought since I spent only 10 minutes on it. Feel free to debunk it heavily if you got it.

Thoughts?

Edited August 10, 2016 by thatjimguy

[waveslider]

I think all sin is all bad. It all makes it impossible to again be in God's presence, unless we utilize the Atonement of Christ. So in that sense even the slightest sin is just as bad as murder. In the sense of making restitution things can be categorized in being lesser of more sever, since it is possible to repent and be forgiven.

The reason it is next to murder in severity is because of the repentance process we are asked to do. With murder it is impossible for us to make things right by having the victim still be alive, we just can't make that type of restitution. Similarly having a child outside of the bonds of a tight knit family makes it nearly impossible to fix the problems that the child is going to suffer as a result. In this way it is next to murder in severity, but not quite as bad because it is actually possible to form a tight knit family after the fact, but the odds of that being successful are very slim. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[halconero]

My interpretation of the chapter where that phrase comes from has changed significantly over the years. It appears that the sin next to murder was the abandonment of the ministry, which would jive with the oath and covenant of the priesthood in D&C and the dire warnings associated with it.

Corianton wasn't just sleeping with someone, Alma commands him to repent of that as well. He left the ministry to do so and caused major problems for the missionary work among the Zoramites, probably causing a major stumbling block for many and preventing their reconversion. That WOULD be a sin next to murder.

It would be the equivalent of a publically known leader in the church very publically leaving the Quorum they were part of to pursue a well known celebrity escort, in the midst of a huge reactivation effort by the church, causing that effort to stall hugely and lose out on a large number in the midst of considering reentering full fellowship.

Unfortunately most of us have taken the verse to read that fornication itself is the sin next to murder. While it is of a magnitude greater than many sins, it is the act of preventing the repentance of a soul (in association with fornication, or whatever other sin that might do so) which Alma mostly address here.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Should the sin next to murder really be the sin next to murder?

In Exodus 20, "thou shalt not kill" is in verse 13 and "thou shalt not commit adultery" is in verse 14. So yes.

And all the other things you mentioned are bad too. But the most emphasized teaching is the higher law of Christ, which is emphasized above all others by providing an opportunity to regularly and frequently partake of the Sacrament. Thus the current emphasis by the Brethren to keep the Sabbath Day holy to strengthen individual conversion through faith in Heavenly Father and in Christ and His Atonement.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

When I hear of sexual sins described as a sin next to murder I see it as meaning that it is a sin similar to murder in the way that it usurps God's authority over birth like murder usurps His authority over death.

God alone has the right to set the bounds for when and how His children enter and leave this earth life. 

Sexual sins take that power of creation out of the boundaries God has set.  It is a misuse of the power of creation and that misuse is wielded against innocent beings who did not consent to enter life that way.  

Murder does the same thing with the power of death.  God is the one who gets to decide how someone leaves the earth. When someone else takes that power on themselves it's a very serious sin.  

In many ways those two sins are two sides of the same coin.  I'm not surprised they are compared in the scriptures and in doctrine.

I'm not saying this is the only way to understand that phrase, but it's how I understand it. 

Bluebell has this right in my opinion.   My interpretation on this is simple.

Murder (especially the shedding of innocent blood) is the ending of life.
Sexual sins are messing with the power to create life.  And we read in the scripture how God feels about this in all its forms.

That is why sexual sins are next to murder.  They both interfere with the natural and God-ordained process of life.
Consent to a misuse of the power to create life makes the sin no more acceptable.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

When I hear of sexual sins described as a sin next to murder I see it as meaning that it is a sin similar to murder in the way that it usurps God's authority over birth like murder usurps His authority over death.

God alone has the right to set the bounds for when and how His children enter and leave this earth life. 

Sexual sins take that power of creation out of the boundaries God has set.  It is a misuse of the power of creation and that misuse is wielded against innocent beings who did not consent to enter life that way.  

Murder does the same thing with the power of death.  God is the one who gets to decide how someone leaves the earth. When someone else takes that power on themselves it's a very serious sin.  

In many ways those two sins are two sides of the same coin.  I'm not surprised they are compared in the scriptures and in doctrine.

I'm not saying this is the only way to understand that phrase, but it's how I understand it. 

I hear this reasoning a lot but it really doesn't hold up, does it? If the real sin is usurping God's authority over life and death, then it would seem that "sxual sins" that bear virtually no risk of usurping that authority, would really be a sin. (I'm thinking of individuals using various birth control methods or are no longer fertile, or even acts that could not result in pregnancy) None of those sins misuse the power of creation. It uses the regular process that leads to creation for non-creation reasons, but is that a sin? Is it wrong for married couples to have sxual relationships with no intention of pregnancy? No. So that reasoning wouldn't hold up either.

[Duncan]

Are all sexual sins the same? is adultery the same as self abuse or is their a hierarchy or sexual sins, mistakes or transgressions? 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Are all sexual sins the same? is adultery the same as self abuse or is their a hierarchy or sexual sins, mistakes or transgressions? 

I don't think they are all the same.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear this reasoning a lot but it really doesn't hold up, does it? If the real sin is usurping God's authority over life and death, then it would seem that "sxual sins" that bear virtually no risk of usurping that authority, would really be a sin. (I'm thinking of individuals using various birth control methods or are no longer fertile, or even acts that could not result in pregnancy) None of those sins misuse the power of creation. It uses the regular process that leads to creation for non-creation reasons, but is that a sin? Is it wrong for married couples to have sxual relationships with no intention of pregnancy? No. So that reasoning wouldn't hold up either.

I think that it is still a misuse of the power of creation because it still perverts the act.  It is a corruption of it when it occurs outside of marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

While any unrepented of sin will keep us out of Heaven some sins are easier to repent of than others.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

Should the sin next to murder really be the sin next to murder?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  "Should" according to whose lights?  Yours?

We're not talking about a political question, but a moral one.  And in the LDS paradigm, that moral question already has an answer, so the question becomes rather moot, does it not?

Quote

Without going into details, let's understand that we are talking about relationships between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships. I would place rape (in all its forms) as a more serious sin than any sexual sin between consenting mature people.

Are we also talking about adultery?  That is "between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships," after all.

Are we also talking about incest "between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships?"

Are we also taking into account all the consequences of extra-marital sexual behavior?  

Sexually transmitted diseases?  

Single parent households?

Abortions in the millions?  

Profound social/emotional turmoil caused by today's "hookup" culture?  

Pornography (damage done to the consumer, the consumer's loved ones, and even the actors in it)?

The Law of Chastity, if followed by God's children, would decimate or even eliminate many of today's more serious social issues.  Conversely, widespread and wholesale violation of that Law materially contributes to or causes those issues.  I therefore have some measure of a conception as to why violation of this Law is deemed to be such a serious thing in the Restored Gospel.  

Quote

What about the con-man who swindles trusting people out of their money (some losing their life savings)?

I don't understand.  Clearly that is a bad thing as well.  But how does that make violations of the Law of Chastity less bad, in your view?

Quote

What about the person who spreads false information about somebody, and that person's reputation is ruined?

What about the bully who physically or emotionally abuses another person?

Same question as above.  These are bad things, to be sure.  But how do they make violations of the Law of Chastity less bad, in your view?

Quote

In fairness, I remember being taught to be honest, and to be nice to people, but it seemed to me that sexual sins had a greater focus than all the others.

Here's my take:

I spent several years teaching various law classes to undergraduates at a local university (Business Law, Legal Research, Intro to Law, Contracts, etc.).  Pretty much every semester in which I taught Legal Research I included a series of vocabulary quizzes based on a rather large list of basic legal words and phrases.   One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three examples of conduct that is malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, for the past four years, I have received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes vary ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts are always volunteered by students.

I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

My personal opinion, never shared in class (it was a state school, after all), is that the legal concept of malum in se is one of the purest evidences of God, and of the Light of Christ. Try as they might, secularists just cannot explain away the innate sense of "right" and "wrong" that exists in all but the most depraved of us. We know, in our heart of hearts, that certain things are "wrong" or "evil," such as murder, rape and theft. We also know, in equally unprovable and unarticulated terms, that certain things are "good" or "right," such as the feeling a parent has when tucking blankets around his sleeping child (as I get to do most nights).

So, coming back to your inquiry: I note that you focus on two malum in se concepts: unjustified violence (abuse) and theft (theft of money/property, theft of reputation).  And you appear to already concede that murder in inherently bad.  So we've covered all three items in the malum in se trifecta.

But what about the Law of Chastity?  Well, I think it's malum in se.  I think that because we are taught as much in the Restored Gospel, and also because I can find all sorts of evidence as to the ill effects wrought by society's wholesale violation of this Law.

This is where I think the Adversary has really gone to town.  He is expending tremendous amounts of effort trying to characterize violating the Law of Chastity as No Big Deal.  These efforts are exemplified in 2 Nephi 26:22:

Quote

And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

And 2 Nephi 28:22:

Quote

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

And Mosiah 4:29-30:

Quote

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

And Alma 26:21:

Quote

And now behold, my brethren, what natural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is none that knoweth these things, save it be the penitent.

And 2 Nephi 2:13:

Quote

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

So the Law of Chastity is important.  So much so that the Adversary is putting in huge amounts of effort to persuade us that it is not important.  And since these lies appeal to the baser instincts of the natural man, his efforts have been largely successful.

I will close by repeating Bluebell's astute observation here:

Quote

Sexual sins take that power of creation out of the boundaries God has set.  It is a misuse of the power of creation and that misuse is wielded against innocent beings who did not consent to enter life that way.  

As I see it, Bluebell essentially characterizes sexual sins as a form of both theft and abuse.  As something that is malum in se.  And she's right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Are all sexual sins the same? is adultery the same as self abuse or is their a hierarchy or sexual sins, mistakes or transgressions?

I don't think they are all the same.
Nor do I think they apply in the same way to those under a covenant as to those who are not.

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I see it, Bluebell essentially characterizes sexual sins as a form of both theft and abuse.  As something that is malum in se.  And she's right.

malum in se

(mal-uhm in say) adv. Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created by statute, which are "malum prohibitum." Example: murder, rape, burglary, and robbery are malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most "white collar crimes" are malum prohibitum. (See: malum prohibitum)

 

Had to look it up.  Thought I'd share with the rest of you who stayed as far away from high school Latin as possible.

[bsjkki]

I am going to try and articulate my thoughts on this but it might be jumbled.  It's hard for me to articulate.  In some ways the phrase, the sin next to murder, emphasizes how dangerous to a person's spiritual well being sexual sin can be.  It can be a warning not to mess with these things in order to protect you from the consequences of these things that lead you away from God and being worthy to enter the temple.  Violating the law of chastity can have long reaching eternal consequences.  So when used as a warning about avoiding these things, it can be very helpful.  Here is the problem.  Using this phrase after someone has made mistakes in this area, can be damaging.  If it is used to shame or emphasize how awful someone is for screwing up, it can lead to feelings of great despair and hopelessness and instead of leading to repentance, can lead people down the rabbit hole to self destruction.  I don't have studies or data.  I only have my own personal experiences but young women seem to have a much harder time overcoming sexual transgressions/mistakes/borderline assaults/sexual assault than the boys.  Many girls I know who experienced sexual contact in their middle school/early teens who have gone through a repentance process with their bishops, still have not ended up okay.  They have not felt that God will ever love them the same, they have felt they are worthless, and the atonement has not healed their spirits.  I'm sure this is not all girls.  I am just saying the emotional effects of sexual contact, are not easily forgotten for the young women.  I have often heard of girls who still struggle and the boy is happily moved on and "served a mission" or is "going to BYU." Many of these situations are not instigated or wanted by the young women but the effects last much longer and often lead down a much darker path.  After the fact, the sin next to murder, is a horrible thing to emphasize to a young women.  

Edited August 10, 2016 by bsjkki

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are we also talking about adultery?

I would classify adultery as more serious than fornication.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I spent several years teaching various law classes to undergraduates at a local university (Business Law, Legal Research, Intro to Law, Contracts, etc.).  Pretty much every semester in which I taught Legal Research I included a series of vocabulary quizzes based on a rather large list of basic legal words and phrases.   One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three examples of conduct that is malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, for the past four years, I have received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes vary ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts are always volunteered by students.

I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

My personal opinion, never shared in class (it was a state school, after all), is that the legal concept of malum in se is one of the purest evidences of God, and of the Light of Christ. Try as they might, secularists just cannot explain away the innate sense of "right" and "wrong" that exists in all but the most depraved of us. We know, in our heart of hearts, that certain things are "wrong" or "evil," such as murder, rape and theft. We also know, in equally unprovable and unarticulated terms, that certain things are "good" or "right," such as the feeling a parent has when tucking blankets around his sleeping child (as I get to do most nights).

So, coming back to your inquiry: I note that you focus on two malum in se concepts: unjustified violence (abuse) and theft (theft of money/property, theft of reputation).  And you appear to already concede that murder in inherently bad.  So we've covered all three items in the malum in se trifecta.

But what about the Law of Chastity?  Well, I think it's malum in se.  I think that because we are taught as much in the Restored Gospel, and also because I can find all sorts of evidence as to the ill effects wrought by society's wholesale violation of this Law.

Has a student ever listed sexual transgression as malum in se?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Many of these situations are not instigated or wanted by the young women but the effects last much longer and often lead down a much darker path.  After the fact, the sin next to murder, is a horrible thing to emphasize to a young women.  

Good points.  Do you feel that it's an acceptable emphasis for a young man?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nor do I think they apply in the same way to those under a covenant as to those who are not.

I agree, but i sometimes struggle with how this issue is treated at church.  I've known people (in my ward) who were excommunicated for fornication who were not endowed (but was repentant in one case) or not even active (and therefore not repentant in another case).  Young people in their late teens or very early 20s who hadn't been to church in years.

And then i know of a person who was endowed, went to the temple frequently, served in a bishopric, was married, who had an affair for years and also slept with other women on the side and wasn't excommunicated but only disfellowshipped.

I don't want to get into whether those situations were appropriate discipline or not (because i truly feel i can't judge that) but what is confusing to me is how arbitrary it sometimes seems (and i admit that how it seems on the outside may not be how it actually is behind closed doors).

[smac97]

Just now, Thinking said:

I would classify adultery as more serious than fornication.

I suppose.  I'm not particularly invested in ranking such things.  Both are very serious violations of the Law of Chastity.

Quote

Has a student ever listed sexual transgression as malum in se?

Well, yes.  Rape is almost always referenced.  It's part of the trifecta: murder, rape and theft.

Adultery has been referenced.  So has child molestation, "sexual abuse," and incest.

I'm not sure if non-coercive, consensual sexual activity between unmarried persons (IOW, vanilla fornication) has ever been cited as being malum in se.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

Lots of articles and blog posts on this over the years.  I think the typical orthodox Mormon reading of this scripture is shallow and unproductive.  Take a look if you're interested at these two well written articles and judge for yourself.

Dialogue Journal - Page 7 article by B. W. Jorgensen.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V32N01.pdf

Sunstone article by Michael Ash

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/143-34-43.pdf