New Church Policy?

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Under the corrupted society in which we find ourselves, both male and female same-sex dancing should be banned in The Church.  This is really very simple.  Anything else is promoting sinful behavior.  I realize that not all people think that homosexual relations are sinful, but that in and of it’s self is proof that we do live in a corrupted society.

1st - has there ever, in the history of the world been a society that isn't corrupted?

2nd - I realize everyone here keeps hyper-focusing on sxual relationship, but is a homosexual relationship (within the bounds of chastity) also a sin?

   If so- what hope for happiness to LGBTQ people have within the church if they aren't even permitted to have chaste relationships that are meaningful?

Like I asked Filovirus- what does the church have to offer LGBTQ individuals and couple beyond judgement and the expectation of lifelong loneliness?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line when it comes to homosexual behaviors being permitted for Church members?

It's hard to believe this is a serious question.

Given the pharisaical nitpicking so much in evidence on this board, it's hard to believe you didn't see this coming a mile away.

You are creating bright line distinctions for the Law of Chastity that do not hold up to scrutiny.  Hence the absurdity of the suggestion that only penetrative sex, and nothing less than it, is adulterous or violative of the Law of Chastity.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is a Law of Chastity which prohibits sxual relationship outside the bonds of legal matrimony. 

Right.  And the Word of Wisdom doesn't proscribe meth or heroin.

It's hard to take you seriouisly here.  The Law of Chastity is about more than penetrative sex.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That would seem like a reasonable line for both straight and gay. No?

No.  You are not accurately characterizing or stating the Law of Chastity, either in letter or in spirit.

Again, there are tons of urban legends out there about BYU students using reasoning like yours to rationalize and justify sexual behaviors that in their mind A) are not penetrative sex, and so B) are not violations of the Law of Chastity or the Honor Code.  Do you agree with such rationalizations/justifications?   

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the principles underlying the Honor Code that are derived from the Law of Chastity apply to everyone.  That's not must a Me thing.

With respect, I think reasonable minds can disagree about that.

A married man stepping out on his wife, flirting, holding hands with, dancing with, making out with, etc. a woman not his wife.  This behavior would not be seen as "adultery" (or at least some inchoate form of it or incremental step toward it)?

There is no double standard.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior, or adultery, or fornication.  Nobody.

You (and many others) seem to want a pharisaical approach to the Law of Chastity.  As if it is a black-and-white, all-or-nothing kind of thing.

A married man can step out on his wife.  He can flirt with other women.  He can date them.  He can hold hands with them.  He can dance romantically with them.  He can make out with them.  He can touch their bodies.  He can do anything he wants except have penetrative sex with them, and not violate the Law of Chastity.  None of those things - by your reasoning - "could be considered" adulterous.

Is that a fair characterization of your position?

Not so.  There is nothing "ad hoc" about the prohibition against "homosexual behavior."

The only thing "ad hoc" I see is the pharisaical stuff you are trotting out.  

I get that you and yours want to drive wedges between gay Latter-day Saints and their Church, and their fellow members.

I also get that you and yours are, sadly, often succeeding at this.  But not always.  When the Church is allowed to speak for itself, things can and do change.  

I previously laid out my thoughts on this topic here, in response to California Boy's claim that he is "really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like {Ryan} Reynolds think should happen":

I said all this in 2018.  Not much has changed.  You and yours continue to do, well, pretty much all of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see you are now changing your question (your parenthesis adds a significant element to your question). As I said before, it is not adultery if there is no sxual relationship but that doesn't mean it's not a massive betrayal of trust and therefore sinful. But nice try attempting to move the bar. To be clear, a person can be unfaithful to their spouse even without committing adultery.

Just to help you out  a littler bit

Quote

a·dul·ter·y

1. voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse:

   "she was committing adultery with a much younger man"

   synonyms:

   unfaithfulness · infidelity · falseness · disloyalty · unchastity · cuckoldry · extramarital sex · extramarital relations · affair · liaison · intrigue · amour · entanglement · flirtation · fornication

    

    

It's hilarious that you claim I'm the Pharisee here  

The church drives the wedge and members (like some on this thread) hammer it home. When I point out the wedge it doesn't mean I created it.

Ryan Reynolds is a member? Sweet!!!  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it was a real misstep to adapt the term “damnation” to anything that was less than a perfect oneness with God the Father in the next life.  How can a kingdom of glory be damnation, condemnation?  Even those in the Celestial Kingdom are labeled damned if they are not exalted.*** It makes no sense to me given the origin of the word.  

Instead of teaching joy in the eternities, we have created a sense that every state besides exaltation is a state of condemnation, even hellish, quite contrary to the doctrine that every heaven is a mansion prepared by God, every heaven a blessing and glory of God where there is no evil or sin and no eternal burning in hell.  All punishment and necessary sanctification is resolved before the final judgment and our being blessed, not cursed, with an eternal life in the appropriate heaven unless sons of perdition.

It is all very well to give the definition of “spiritual separation from God”, but “damnation” has the baggage of hellfire and brimstone and eternal suffering attached to it due to it is not a uniquely Latter-day Saint term even if we act like it is.

Fear driven progress will most likely end up short of exaltation imo as exaltation requires embracing God, not just rejection of evil out of fear of punishment.  And wanting exaltation out of a desire to avoid damnation isn’t going to provide the motivation to love others as is needed to be godly and to become one with God.  Fear is too self centered, imo.

***”The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.” (From the church website under “Damnation”.)

Very well said, Calm.

[filovirus]

Just throwing this out there. D&C 42

22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.
23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.
24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;
26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

Verses 22-23 don’t specify adultery, but is it considered in the LoC?

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Womewhat.

If the OP bemoaned married men stepping out on their wives (but not having sex), would you find that objectionable too?

Infidelity, even without sxual relationship is wrong. Has anyone said otherwise? People can be unfaithful in many ways but that doesn't mean it is adultery. I would not approve of unfaithful behavior, with or without sx. Not even if the guilty claimed God told him to do it.

I am not.

The same behavior standards apply to everyone.  No adultery.  No fornication.  No homosexual behavior.

You can play pharisaical games all you want, but I don't think they work.  The Law of Chastity is, like virtually every other commandment, based more on principles and less on "bright line rules."  Thus a married man cannot credibly say "Yes, I step out on my wife.  I have a hot girlfriend.  We hold hands, kiss, dance romantically, and so on.  But we don't have sex, so that's not adultery.  I am not violating the Law of Chastity."

There are all sorts of urban legends about BYU students trying to play with semantic distinctions and hypotheticals that would allow them to engage in sexual behavior and still not violate the Honor Code.  I can't help but wonder if folks like you are fans and advocates of such efforts.  

"Act gay?"  Stereotype, much?

Dude Handholding, dancing, kissing. That's what we've been talking about. You're pretty ridiculous.

Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  Sexual orientation does not matter a whit.  Same goes for adultery and fornication.  We are all held to the same standard.

Says the straight man who has not been banned from expressing his orientation.

So sexual behaviors that do not includes penetrative sex are not violations of the Law of Chastity?  That's your position?

That's not what I said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Give it up, man. Once again you've proven yourself to be unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Exactly what is happening - same sex pairing becomes more and more acceptable.

Yes. That is good.  Look anyone who is heterosexual won't be impacted. There is no way I could ever be physically interested in another man. I am just totally hetorosexual.  So accpeting homsexuality is not going to persuade me to be gay.

 

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree that dancing is pretty harmless.  I don't agree that displaying acceptance of same sex couples is harmless.

That is to bad.  See this is when I think religion becomes problematic

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Dancing isn't sex.  Romantic attraction is often a big part of youth dances.

We really need to stop pretending that homosexual sex isn't serious sin.  And anything that encourages acceptance is wrong too.

It isn't a serious sin.  And the only reason you think it is is because you think your God is telling you that. Well that is of for you but don't impose that on others.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, there are tons of urban legends out there about BYU students using reasoning like yours to rationalize and justify sexual behaviors that in their mind A) are not penetrative sex, and so B) are not violations of the Law of Chastity or the Honor Code.  Do you agree with such rationalizations/justifications?   

Not just BYU students.  An Apostle in the days of Brigham Young too.

The Quorum didn't buy it then either.

Edited April 20, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

within the bounds of chastity)

One of the problems here may be a different view of chastity.  I got the message in my youth that chastity was as much a state of mind (internal behaviour) as state of body (external behaviour).  Thus one could be unchaste by fostering feelings of desires to act in unchaste ways even if one didn’t act on them.  This is fundamentally different than simply experiencing those feelings and choosing to not encourage oneself in thinking about them.  Instead one is unchaste in thought when one encourages feelings that make one desire to act unchastely, such as fantasizing about those one is sexually attracted to or to intentionally place oneself in situations for the purpose of increasing the number of sexual thoughts one cannot act on without sinning.

Are we expected to live the spirit of God’s laws or is living the letter of the law enough?  Serious question here.  But so subjective, isn’t it, since the spirit of the law is a vague term.

From my own experience, doing romantic activities with someone I was sexually attracted to increased that sexual attraction.  Even activities that were just pleasant and fun when done with someone I was very attracted to increased attraction, which translated to wanting to act on that desire more.  But I don’t see myself as typical in many areas, so perhaps I am not here.

So general questions:  does/did spending pleasant times with someone you are sexually attracted to increase desire and make it more difficult not to think sexual thoughts, does/did doing romantic things with one’s romantic partner tend to increase sexual desire?

If you have had that experience and it was in a situation where you were not married and not planning to be married for a significant time, did you believe it was necessary to change one’s behaviour to diminish the occurrence of sexual thoughts or not?  If you did, how did you do so?

In my own case, my fiancé and I had rules about being alone after certain times and avoiding certain private places once we got to a more physical relationship.  I did not have as strict of rules prior to that relationship because I wasn’t as sexually attracted to my dating partners and was very naive, but I made some stupid decisions and have regrets because I figured it was okay because I was always in control.  It was not till later when I knew more that I figured out how close I came to losing my control and I am guessing it was worse for at least one partner I had.  (My parents totally neglected sex education, no doubt assuming I got enough education in school, lol; I knew nothing at the time about sex except basic biology and thought I was safe if we just avoided certain actions and parts of the body.)

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes. That is good.  Look anyone who is heterosexual won't be impacted. There is no way I could ever be physically interested in another man. I am just totally hetorosexual.  So accpeting homsexuality is not going to persuade me to be gay.

For pete's sake, this is NOT the concern.
Nobody should be concerned that displays of homosexual romance will change anyone.
The concern is that this will make such relationships seen as acceptable by Church members instead of sin.
Already I'd wager the majority of Church members see no sin in homosexuality.  That makes people like yourself happy.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It isn't a serious sin.  And the only reason you think it is is because you think your God is telling you that. Well that is of for you but don't impose that on others.

Yes, we know you don't believe it to be sinful.  You don't believe in the same religion.
If the Church claimed revelation and stated it wasn't sinful and was now acceptable they would still be wrong.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"LGBTQ" are asked to follow the same moral and behavioral standards as everyone else.

Are LGBTQ asked to follow the same moral and behavioral standards with those they are romantically attracted to, that heterosexual members are asked to follow?

Of course the answer is no.  In general, LGBTQ member cannot hold hands with or kiss someone they are romantically attracted to and still be in good standing in the church, while heterosexual members can.   The standards (which are exist specifically to govern interaction with those who we have a sexual interest in) are different.

Where is the problem with acknowledging that?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I reject the concept that sexual sin is "just below murder" in seriousness.

Do you? That is a good thing.  However the Church has taught this pretty consistently.  Sexual sin is the third worst sin.  Just below murder.  And it has been taught over and over and over and over and over again.........

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, I still think sexual sin is very serious.

Third, I think the answer to your question is likely rooted in or heavily influenced by Alma 39.

Fourth, I am not sure that the common approach to Alma 39 (v. 5 specifically) is altogether correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well you are out of line with  what your church and its leaders have taught since inception almost.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are LGBTQ asked to follow the same moral and behavioral standards with those they are romantically attracted to, that heterosexual members are asked to follow?

Feelings are not determinative here.  If a married man is "romantically attracted to" someone other than his wife, those feelings do not operate to exempt him from the Law of Chastity.

If an unmarried woman is sexually attracted to her boyfriend, those feelings do not operate to exempt her from the Law of Chastity.

And so it goes.  The Law of Chastity prohibits adultery.  And fornication.  And homosexual behavior.  For everyone.  

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In general, LGBTQ member cannot hold hands with or kiss someone they are romantically attracted to and still be in good standing in the church, while heterosexual members can.   

And a married heterosexual member "cannot hold hands with or kiss someone {other than their spouse} they are romantically attracted to and still be in good standing in the church."

Right?

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The standards (which are exist specifically to govern interaction with those who we have a sexual interest in)

The standards exist to endorse certain behaviors and prohibit others.  Feelings are not determinative.

A married man cannot say "Hey, I don't violate the Law of Chastity when I step out on my wife because I really really like my girlfriend."  His feelings are not determinative.  His feelings cannot justify engaging in prohibited behavior.

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

are different.

They are not.  They are precisely the same.  Nobody is allowed to engage in adultery, or fornication, or homosexual behavior.  

Heterosexual members cannot engage in homosexual behavior.  Nor can homosexual members.  The standard is the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where is the problem with acknowledging that?

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

which are exist specifically to govern interaction with those who we have a sexual interest in)

Exactly.  The rules are not directed at our relationship with the teller at the bank or our doctor or the person sitting next to us on the pew unless we are sexually attracted to them.  They are pretty meaningless in any other context since we would have no inclination to act in violation of those rules with the teller, etc. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you? That is a good thing.  However the Church has taught this pretty consistently.  Sexual sin is the third worst sin.  Just below murder. 

"Just below murder?"  CFR, please.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And it has been taught over and over and over and over and over again.........

Well you are out of line with  what your church and its leaders have taught since inception almost.

I think this is an issue of semantics and degree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not just BYU students.  An Apostle in the days of Brigham Young too.

The Quorum didn't buy it then either.

Yep:

Quote

Albert Carrington (January 8, 1813 – September 19, 1889) was an apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
...
Carrington was excommunicated from the LDS Church by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on November 7, 1885, for adultery, fornication, and "lewd and lascivious conduct".^[2] Carrington's extramarital relationships had begun in England while he was the mission president; he had hid these relationships from the leaders of the church for over 10 years and had lied to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles about them when rumors about Carrington began spreading.^[2] (The Salt Lake Tribune first accused Carrington of adultery in 1875.)^[5] In 1885, Carrington argued before the Twelve that because he did not ejaculate inside the women he had sexual relations with, he had technically not committed adultery, but had simply committed "a little folly in Israel".^[2] The Quorum disagreed and excommunicated him.

Some on this thread seem pretty keen on emulating the sort of rationalizations and technicalities Bro. Carrington did relative to the Law of Chastity.  I don't think these things work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Give it up, man. Once again you've proven yourself to be unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion.

I'm not the one resorting to pharisaical prevarications to circumvent the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

For pete's sake, this is NOT the concern.
Nobody should be concerned that displays of homosexual romance will change anyone.
The concern is that this will make such relationships seen as acceptable by Church members instead of sin.

Yes of course This is why the Church initially adopted the awful November 2015 policy. The were ticked that the SC allowed same sex marriage nationally. So they wanted to make sure members did not become tolerant.  But then they back peddled.  
 

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Already I'd wager the majority of Church members see no sin in homosexuality.

Maybe but I doubt it.

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 That makes people like yourself happy.

And make people like you rage, wring your hands and gnash your teeth.

 

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, we know you don't believe it to be sinful.

Dude you can do whatever you want in your church.  But don't suppose anyone needs to accept your religion's definition of sin because you think God says so.  YOu need more than that.  But I know conservative religious people are happy to impose what they think God says on the general public.

 

So correct. I do not believe homosexual relations are sinful.

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't believe in the same religion.

What same religion?

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

If the Church claimed revelation and stated it wasn't sinful and was now acceptable they would still be wrong.

Yes I know you think you know better than even your leaders. As I have said before we all have a straw that will break our spiritual backs apparently.

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Just below murder?"  CFR, please.

I think this is an issue of semantics and degree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh please.  Are you really serious?  Your really want to debate that the LDS CHurch has taught that sexual sins are the third worst sin, next to murder?  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see you are now changing your question (your parenthesis adds a significant element to your question).

Not really.  "Homosexual behavior" is categorically prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  Likewise, heterosexual behaviors are, depending on the context, compliant with or violative of the Law of Chastity.

By way of example: A married man who steps out on his wife, who has a girlfriend with whom he behaves romantically/sexually not including penetrative sex, would be in what state relative to the Law of Chastity?  By your reckoning, only penetrative sex "counts."  I dispute that, for the same reasons I find the various "BYU student marriage in Vegas followed by annulment the next day" rationalizations to be fatuous and in bad faith.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As I said before, it is not adultery if there is no sxual relationship

You are being pretty unserious here.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but that doesn't mean it's not a massive betrayal of trust and therefore sinful.

Sinful in what way? 

And if you acknowledge that it is sinful, then what on earth is the problem?  

Again, homosexual behavior is categorically prohibited in the Church.  Whether viewed under the auspices of the Law of Chastity or not, there is no set of circumstances in which such behaviors are acceptable for a member of the Church.  So why are you straining and gnats and swallowing camels relative to the Law of Chastity?

Thanks,

-Smac 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  "Homosexual behavior" is categorically prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  Likewise, heterosexual behaviors are, depending on the context, compliant with or violative of the Law of Chastity.

By way of example: A married man who steps out on his wife, who has a girlfriend with whom he behaves romantically/sexually not including penetrative sex, would be in what state relative to the Law of Chastity?  By your reckoning, only penetrative sex "counts."  I dispute that, for the same reasons I find the various "BYU student marriage in Vegas followed by annulment the next day" rationalizations to be fatuous and in bad faith.

You are being pretty unserious here.

Sinful in what way? 

And if you acknowledge that it is sinful, then what on earth is the problem?  

Again, homosexual behavior is categorically prohibited in the Church.  Whether viewed under the auspices of the Law of Chastity or not, there is no set of circumstances in which such behaviors are acceptable for a member of the Church.  So why are you straining and gnats and swallowing camels relative to the Law of Chastity?

Thanks,

-Smac 

CFR - I'd like to see a definitive revelation or scripture that defines the LoC in this way. If you, or even an apostle changes the definition of the LoC it doesn't become law.

Claiming that it is prohibited by the church is more accurate than claiming it is categorically prohibited by the LoC, but that's not even completely accurate. CFR a churchwide source or commandment or scripture stating what is and what isn't allowed behavior for SS couples. Don't cite BYU. It's not the same thing. Don't cite FTSoY because that is not doctrine or commandment to the church. At what point does a SS relationship become sinful? handholding, kissing, spending time together crafting or going to the movies and dinner? As Calm mentioned in a post, feelings of affection and attraction can grow be simply spending time with another person. Is that also sinful? Show me where the church definitively draws this line.

And your use of "Behavior" instead of "sx" is an insidious way of broadening the LoC to cover non-sxual relationships.

You keep making this claim about penetrative but I've never said anything of the sort.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

"Just below murder?"  CFR, please.

I think this is an issue of semantics and degree.

 

Oh please.  Are you really serious? 

Upon further review, no, I am not.  I retract the CFR.

I am not disputing that sexual sin is treated as very serious in the Church.  Alma 39:5 says that Corianton's "sins" (note the plural) are "most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost" (Alma 39:5).  

That said, I was questioning the "just below murder" characterization, as that seems like a bit of hypberbole from critics and dissidents.  See., e.g., here:

Quote

"I suffered with a lot of guilt, because I did things we weren't supposed to do," 27-year-old David Sheppard told the Victoria Derbyshire programme.

"They teach us masturbation is just below murder, and I felt like I was some sort of sexual deviant or pervert for doing it."

Here:

Quote

Mormon prophets want us to believe that God’s one true church was led from 1830 to 1945 by men who were living in violation of God’s clear law of chastity? And violation of the law of chastity ranks just below murder on God’s scale of Celestial No-No’s?

Here:

Quote

Former Mormons have said that masturbation is treated as “just below murder”, which is a sentiment expressed in your film when the president is comparing masturbation to war. How reflective of real life is this ‘worthiness interview’?

And here:

Quote

On the Mormon sliding scale of sin "gravity", all sexual sins are right up there just below Murder, which is just below denial of the Holy Ghost (whatever that is). We could debate whether these sexual sins all deserve to be up there in with the other major league sins, but that's an argument for another thread.

There are ample references to Alma 39:5 in the Church's published materials.  See, e.g., here (comments from Elder Packer) :

Quote

Alma told his son that the devil had led him away (see Alma 39:11). Unchastity is “most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost” (Alma 39:5).
...

Now Alma, in turn, was the father pleading with his son Corianton to repent.

After sternly rebuking his son and patiently teaching the doctrine of the gospel, Alma the loving father said, “And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance” (Alma 42:29).

In agony and shame, Corianton was brought “down to the dust in humility” (Alma 42:30).

So discussion of a serious (and unfortunately common) sin . . . together with discussion about repentance.

However, consider these 1993 remarks by Elder Oaks:

Quote

Outside the bonds of marriage, all uses of the procreative power are to one degree or another a sinful degrading and perversion of the most divine attribute of men and women. The Book of Mormon teaches that unchastity is “most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost” (Alma 39:5). In our own day, the First Presidency of the Church has declared the doctrine of this Church “that sexual sin—the illicit sexual relations of men and women—stands, in its enormity, next to murder” (“Message of the First Presidency,” 3 Oct. 1942, as quoted in Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 6:176). Some who do not know the plan of salvation behave like promiscuous animals, but Latter-day Saints—especially those who are under sacred covenants—have no such latitude. We are solemnly responsible to God for the destruction or misuse of the creative powers he has placed within us.

And these 2012 remarks by Elder Holland: "Next to Murder in Seriousness."

And Chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

The prophet Alma grieved because one of his sons had broken the law of chastity. Alma said to his son Corianton, “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5). Unchastity is next to murder in seriousness.

Pres. Benon in 1986:

Quote

President Joseph F. Smith said that sexual impurity would be one of the three dangers that would threaten the Church within—and so it does. (See Gospel Doctrine, pp. 312–13.) It permeates our society.

In the category of sins, the Book of Mormon places unchastity next to murder. (See Alma 39:5.) As Alma states, “Now … I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, … for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.” (Alma 39:9.)

Elder Haight in 1977:

Quote

You wonderful young people who mean so much to the Lord, and whom the Lord needs so much in this great challenge we have to carry this message of hope and salvation to all the world, must not be among those who flaunt the Lord’s commandments, particularly the commandments regarding sex sin. It is destroying more lives and breaking more homes and families than ever in the history of man. It is the curse of our civilization. Sexual immorality stands next to murder in the category of personal crimes. It is the “most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost,” wrote Alma (Alma 39:5).

There are probably more.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your really want to debate that the LDS CHurch has taught that sexual sins are the third worst sin, next to murder?  

Nope.  I stand corrected and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just below murder?"  CFR, please.

No way I could CFR this but I have served in the youth program for 20 years and I’ve heard it said many many times during discussions of the LoC.  For what that’s worth.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

No way I could CFR this but I have served in the youth program for 20 years and I’ve heard it said many many times during discussions of the LoC.  For what that’s worth.  

I never heard this, hence my initial skepticism.  But I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This, more than any other issue, appears to be so divisive that our hope to be one may not be attainable in the foreseeable future. 

When even masks (pro or anti) have people at war, I doubt we have enough emotional intelligence to attain unity at all.