Sexual Sin and the FAIR Instagram Video on Alma 39

[JVW]

On 8/12/2024 at 6:40 AM, Calm said:

Not all sexual sins merit the same level of concern, imo, though.  Some sexual behaviours currently viewed as sins I look more on as impulse control issues, potentially a problem if the person doesn’t learn self control, but if not harming others (I view the porn industry as destructive, so see porn as harmful for a variety of reasons), not something that counts as a serious sin, but one we should not just ignore either.

I have spent years trying to understand repentance. I have found it to be very difficult to understand and hard to do! Your comment reminded me of one fundamental question, how do I tell when I'm sinning? Pornography usage is breaking (at a bare minimum) the 1st, 2nd, and 7th commandments, and afaik breaking a commandment is a sin. But a synonym for addiction is 'slavery' and being a slave is not a sin. Addiction does reinforce pride (which is a sin), and most addicts don't begin their journey of recovery until they hit 'rock bottom' which shatters their pride and plants the seed of humility (which is a virtue). There may be intentional, rebellious pornography use, and there certainly is "I literally cannot not do it" pornography use out of weakness. In either case, pornography use tends to result in the loss of a temple recommend, and some people lose their rights to perform priesthood rituals. It also certainly creates distance from God and weakens discipleship and access to priesthood power regardless of the reason why it's used.

Another question is, what counts as a serious sin, what doesn't, and what's the difference? Any sin, serious or not, is breaking a covenant I've made with God. I don't know what 'serious' means other than maybe it'd put someone in prison for committing it (but that means the definition of 'serious' changes with the culture). I will say that in my life pornography usage has had very serious consequences, very painful ones, just as valid as the consequences of adultery or other 'serious' sins. Viewing pornography is not an isolated, harmless act to unaware third parties.

What I've come to believe about repentance lines up with what President Nelson said in a recent conference about addiction. Repentance is less about focusing on what I'm doing wrong, and instead shifting my focus to the One right thing, Jesus Christ. Addiction is a problem because it changes the nature of who, or what, I'm worshipping. Repentance is fundamentally addressing the elephant in the room, "I know you are there, and I'm sorry that I haven't been paying more attention to you. I will recommit to try harder, please change my heart and lead me to You." not, "I'm sorry I did x, please forgive me, I promise I'll never do it again." The latter can easily lead to a vicious cycle of self-hatred and feelings of isolation as I continue to break my commitment to not do it again. The one constant in life is that I will have something to repent of every day of my life, there will always be something in my path that can, if I view it correctly, lead me to my Savior.

On 8/12/2024 at 9:31 AM, mbh26 said:

Sexual sin is offensive to the spirit of God.  Those who aren't able to acheive self mastery in that way will not get past the Telestial kingdom.  We all have weaknesses that we need the Lord Jesus's help with to overcome.  But when we say that we know better than God what is right or wrong, that's rebellion and God can't work with that.  

I've got news for you. Every sin is offensive to the spirit of God. We all rebel to some degree or another. And if someone has made any covenant with God, any time they sin they are breaking that covenant. You and I, we have each assuredly broken our covenants today. Whether I have done that through my pride and hard heart, by not putting Christ at the center of my life, not always remembering Christ, lusting after a woman, committing adultery, stealing, lying, cheating, unrighteous judgment, etc. It doesn't matter the severity of the sin, any sin causes the Holy Ghost to grieve and withdraw, and results in a broken covenant. I hope that you don't think that you're special because you (implicitly) don't commit sexual sin.

We all have weakness, but weakness is a gift from God, not a curse. Weakness is not something to be overcome, it is to be used, by God, as a tool to show forth His power through us.

To me, your comment has missed the mark. Self-mastery is not the way to get past the Telestial Kingdom. Becoming a true follower of Christ is the only way. Submitting fully to every whim of God and building a relationship with Him. Self-mastery is ancillary, and in many cases can lead to self-deception and hiding the root cause by suppressing the symptoms. This is a problem any "check-box", "cookie cutter", or "works-based salvation" believer has experienced.

On 8/12/2024 at 12:04 PM, teddyaware said:

It’s because HE KNEW TOO MUCH concerning the will of God... "For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned. But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ." (Mosiah 3)

This is an interesting concept to consider. It reminds me of my favorite verse in all of scripture, Alma 32:19 "And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?" The implication here being that God refrains from giving us knowledge as an act of mercy in order to punish us to the least degree possible when we sin. I don't know how much I know or how much I rebel. I don't know if anyone can explicitly state the limit of their personal knowledge and in which sins they are explicitly rebelling against God. But I think that, in general, people know orders of magnitude less than what they think they know, and we receive much more grace and mercy than we are cognizant of. I also believe that weakness is not rebellion even though it causes us to act against God, and it is not something that needs to be repented of.

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And is cutting short the life of an unborn baby detrimental to the child in anyway in your view? What are the odds of eternal salvation for someone born vs unborn?

To answer your question (my personal view), to be born is better than to not be born, or else we'd all still be in heaven with God.

The odds of eternal salvation for anyone is 100%, it's a free gift. All will receive a degree of glory excepting perdition, and all will be resurrected and reunited with their Maker.

However, the odds of eternal exaltation (Celestial Kingdom) are vanishingly low, and it's a miracle for anyone to receive it, church member or not, died in the womb or not. I am not assuming that I will "make it" and I don't assume that anyone else will. I see a pattern in the the number of doors knocked to baptism ratio, the number of sperm injected to egg fertilization ratio, or the business marketing funnel.

Considering exaltation another way, if every person in the Celestial Kingdom will receive a mansion, and the Earth will become the Celestial Kingdom, how many people can fit comfortably? Certainly not the estimated 120 billion or however many have ever lived.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JVW said:

Another question is, what counts as a serious sin, what doesn't, and what's the difference?

There are two ways to look at this in my view and that is the cost of sin to the community.  These tend to be more consistent across individuals, imo.

Then there is the personal cost and that is different for each person. What might be very serious for one is trivial to another because after committing it, it becomes clear to them they don’t want to do it and that’s it while the other is tangled in the same sin for the rest of the life, it overshadowing whatever they do.

Comparing sins is therefore problematic, imo….even though I end up doing it.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JVW said:

However, the odds of eternal exaltation (Celestial Kingdom) are vanishingly low, and it's a miracle for anyone to receive it, church member or not, died in the womb or not. I am not assuming that I will "make it" and I don't assume that anyone else will. I see a pattern in the the number of doors knocked to baptism ratio, the number of sperm injected to egg fertilization ratio, or the business marketing funnel.

 

If left to our own devices, sure.

Through God though, what do odds matter?  He operates with miracles.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JVW said:

Considering exaltation another way, if every person in the Celestial Kingdom will receive a mansion, and the Earth will become the Celestial Kingdom, how many people can fit comfortably? Certainly not the estimated 120 billion or however many have ever lived.

But Earth does not stay in the form it is now when it is celestial.  Perhaps it becomes essentially infinite, maybe even becoming one with other of God’s earths as we become one with him.

Putting limits on God and his exalted creations seems unproductive to me.

Edited August 13, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

In some ways I'm glad I don't attend church anymore. Some of the lessons I've had in the past almost propelled me to do things I normally won't do. One of them was the advice to replace bad thoughts with a song, something like that. Well, I'd then think of something bad, where before it hadn't even entered my mind. Just like porn, it becomes more of an addiction when someone tells you it's wrong and porn if you've viewed something and then you almost think you're already doomed, not speaking from experience on this one. And then the drinking problem, a lot of LDS mostly in youth drink to get drunk not just one or two and there tends to be more alcoholics born that way, IMO. 

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just like porn, it becomes more of an addiction when someone tells you it's wrong and porn if you've viewed something and then you almost think you're already doomed,

I have my doubts that this is the mechanism that leads to actual addiction, which seems to me has too high of a physical connection and likely predilection, though it might quicken or deepen the addiction response to those so prone.

Not saying it can’t backfire in other ways, just doubt it increases the risk of addiction.

[JVW]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

What might be very serious for one is trivial to another because after committing it, it becomes clear to them they don’t want to do it and that’s it while the other is tangled in the same sin for the rest of the life, it overshadowing whatever they do.

Comparing sins is therefore problematic, imo….even though I end up doing it.

I agree with you.

In addition to what you said my personal barometer for comparing sins is that the more obvious and less hidden they are, the less bad I think they are. I'd much rather spend time with a smoker or alcoholic than someone who secretly fosters evil desires that nobody will ever know about. So if I can see the sin, I have little to no judgment on it. I am much more trusting of a bar biker than I am of many members, because who knows what the typical member is hiding. A lot of fruits from members in the church are rotten or nonexistent, so even though they appear to be saints, I have strong doubts that they actually are (I am not excluding myself from this judgment). Another factor I consider is if the person is willfully ignorant of their sinful behavior. The mote/beam kind of thing. There are a lot of temple recommend holders that would receive a world of good with just a smidge of self-reflection and thoughtfulness.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If left to our own devices, sure.

Through God though, what do odds matter?  He operates with miracles.

I agree with you. Every saved soul is a miracle. In fact, I believe that Christ redeeming anyone is the biggest miracle that can ever occur. I hope that everyone will receive that miracle, but "few there be that find it".

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

But Earth does not stay in the form it is now when it is celestial.  Perhaps it becomes essentially infinite, maybe even becoming one with other of God’s earths as we become one with him.

Putting limits on God and his creations seems unproductive to me.

This thought experiment was somewhat of a joke.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I've had so many mental conversations with my pretend future son or daughter going over what I would say to them if they came out to me. I don't know if there is a perfect playbook for that conversation. The best that I've been able to come up with is just letting them know that I love them.

If I were raising a child I would leave the Church tomorrow. Too big of a risk that it would do all kinds of damage if they are queer.

[manol]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

a synonym for addiction is 'slavery' and being a slave is not a sin.

... I also believe that weakness is not rebellion even though it causes us to act against God, and it is not something that needs to be repented of.

This is wonderful!

I live in an area with a lot of substance addiction.  I recently saw a quick YouTube short that made a huge impression on me.

Briefly, rats who have nothing to do but sit ALONE in a bare cage and who have the choice between cocaine water and plain water quickly become addicted and die, but rats who live in an interesting and inviting environment which includes social CONNECTION with other rats almost never become addicted to the readily-available cocaine water.  The take-away point being:  The opposite of addiction is NOT sobriety; the opposite of addiction is CONNECTION:

 

 

6 hours ago, JVW said:

What I've come to believe about repentance lines up with what President Nelson said in a recent conference about addiction. Repentance is less about focusing on what I'm doing wrong, and instead shifting my focus to the One right thing, Jesus Christ.

... Self-mastery is not the way to get past the Telestial Kingdom. Becoming a true follower of Christ is the only way.

Beautiful!

Imo our THOUGHTS are the CAUSE, and our BEHAVIOR is merely the EFFECT.  We can theoretically change our behavior without changing our thoughts, but the result is inner strain rather than inner peace. Imo it is VASTLY more efficient to change our thoughts, and in particular to re-align our fundamental focus to the HIGHEST that we know.

Imo we are like radios:  We can be tuned-in to a low-spiritual-energy station, or we can be tuned-in to a high-spiritual-energy station.  We cannot be tuned in to BOTH at the same time (we cannot simultaneously serve two masters).  For most of us, our "default" is a fairly low-spiritual-energy station, but we do have the ability to deliberately tune in to a high-spiritual-energy station.  At first it can take enormous effort, which can be impossible to sustain.  But we can keep choosing to shift our focus to the highest we know over and over again, and over time we can shift our "default" station setting, and/or increase our ability to return to that high-spiritual-energy station, by deliberately choosing to do so. 

When members partake of the Sacrament, the ONE thing they "witness" they ACTUALLY DO is this:  "They do always remember him."  <- Imo that's a "radio station" thing. 

 

6 hours ago, JVW said:

Considering exaltation another way, if every person in the Celestial Kingdom will receive a mansion, and the Earth will become the Celestial Kingdom, how many people can fit comfortably? Certainly not the estimated 120 billion or however many have ever lived.

This is just my opinion:

There is no such thing as scarcity in the Celestial Kingdom.  MORE for someone else does not mean LESS for you.  In fact MORE for someone else means MORE for you, because we are ALL branches of the same Vine. 

(Imo all of the lower kingdoms will eventually be emptied of their inhabitants, who will have moved up, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Edited August 14, 2024 by manol

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am saying for some of the justifications used to explain why sexual sins could be so serious as to be said to be like murder, I will agree with the conclusion even if I don’t attach the interpretation of it being sexual sin that is like murder.  For example, I agree about the seriousness in many cases of having children out of wedlock, which is more likely to result in single motherhood, which is tied to health issues for mother and child as well as poverty, which then opens up the potential for generational burdens the family will carry.  And then of course there is rape and incest, which have obvious highly detrimental longterm effects. (Not suggesting the criminal acts of rape and incest are equivalent to the nonmalicious act of having a child out of wedlock, just showing there are a variety of sexual sins that have substantial longterm effects, even though these effects can be very different.)  I just don’t think you need the reasoning “that sin is like murder” to get the point of the seriousness across.  It may even be distracting from the needed message (kids are more likely imo to push worry about the next life out of their minds than worry about having to drop out of school and raise a kid, having kids face up close reality, immediate costs may be more effective; if what they mostly hear is “spiritual death”, the mundane costs may not register as deeply as they need to).

Iow, I don’t believe one needs to add the label “a sin like unto murder” to the above to stress how serious they are.  I think the description is sufficient.  I prefer not to tie the emotionally laden “like murder” to even very serious sexual sins because I see too many making the error of assuming “like murder” equates to “too late to repent” or “I have messed up this life and the next one”, which can lead to despair.  But I also understand why others see it as useful if they focus on the out of wedlock births they believe were prevented or marriages saved by such a connection between sexual sins and murder.

Plus I don’t tie the level of morality to a sin by the seriousness of the outcome.  Even though two young kids having sex has at times resulted in a baby raised in poverty, possibly entering the foster care system and getting placed with the worst foster parents in the world, turning the kid into a violent criminal, I don’t view teenage sex as malicious or evil on the level I view rape and adult-child incest.  In my view that fornication is a sin and yes, it could have a horrible result and thus is serious, but in no way do I see it like murder where the two kids have separated themselves so far from God they cannot repent nor have they in any way sacrificed their chance at the Celestial Kingdom.  For example, one of the strongest families I know in the Church started out as two teenage hippies rebelling against their parents and taking off, having a child, and then meeting the missionaries and converting.  I have seen the same longterm result with teenage church members.

——

Then there is the interpretation part.  I believe in likening Scriptures and that the Lord uses scripture to inspire us, often in different ways, meaning there can be a variety of interpretations, some that to others may seem like totally unconnected (though I see those cases as more personal than general ones).  So I am unlikely to tell someone they are wrong in their interpretation.  I also don’t believe we can be so certain of scripture to insist this is what it must mean since we are different people in a different environment, sometimes so different we can’t conceive of how those who first shared scripture thought, so I am always going to be qualifying when people say “this is what the scriptures mean” by adding “to you in this moment” in my head at least, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that meaning lacks value as teaching, especially if from in spirited leaders.  Inspiration in the here and now is going to be much more relevant to me and those living now than thousand years old inspiration/revelation imo or even a hundred years old revelation, imo.

I do think at times it is possible to identify improperly reasoned assumptions being made instead of the text actually saying something (for instance the assumption of coins in the Book of Mormon based on a discussion of weights.)  

Church leaders have the calling to help us liken scriptures to ourselves for the Church and they may be inspired to perceive the interpretations of scripture that will best work on the majority of Saints.  Therefore there are likely very few cases I would see a reason for me to state “the leaders are wrong” even though at times I might conclude “they may be wrong” and then give my reasons.  I do think at times we assume revelation when it was reason based on faulty assumptions (such as in the case of a young earth and no evolution).  I don’t see church leaders as infallible, even at the very top when they are called as prophets, seers and revelators.  Only God is infallible (not meaning here my vision of God) or so I trust him to be.

Thank you. I think your approach is reasonable and well thought out. I wish the Church leaders would or had taken such an approach. I think they have softened some but I don't pay as much attention to such things these days.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

I've had so many mental conversations with my pretend future son or daughter going over what I would say to them if they came out to me. I don't know if there is a perfect playbook for that conversation. The best that I've been able to come up with is just letting them know that I love them.

I have had that conversation with two of my kids, who were adults at the time. 

I suggest you see it as an opportunity to be completely, totally, 100% loving, with zero reservations.  If you would have to shift your paradigm in order to do that honestly, you can ask God to help you.  Even if you can only get to 99% you will still have made enormous progress in becoming like Christ.  God's grace can bridge that little gap. 

And if in doubt, err on the side of kindness. 

Imo just about everything is an opportunity to choose between love and fear.  Perfect love casts out fear, and this includes any fear for your own soul, and any fear for anyone else's soul. 

Edited August 13, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Fair enough. 

Not that I'm an Old Testament scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but to the best of my knowledge that guy was the only person executed for breaking the Sabbath.  Maybe stoning someone to death for breaking the Sabbath was sufficiently traumatic for everyone involved that it was never repeated.  And there were "outs" written into the Law of Moses - two eye-witnesses were required, a large panel of judges had to vote for the death penaty, and often the two witnesses would be required to be the first participants in the execution (who would want to do so?).  

Imo God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  And imo the God depicted by Christ in the Gospels is a vastly truer-to-the-source depiction than the God depicted by the Law of Moses.  I am not comfortable turning my concept of right-and-wrong upside-down just to avoid throwing the Law of Moses under the bus.  Of course I could be wrong. 

Again, instead of accepting the Law of Moses at face value just because it is included in the Bible, I suggest running the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test on the Law of Moses, and then running it on the teachings of Christ in the Gospels.  Ime the difference is night and day.

The Law of Moses is the name assigned to the whole collection of written laws given through Moses to the house of Israel, as a replacement of the higher law that they had failed to obey. The Exodus 34:1-2 records what the Lord commanded Moses in respect of the two tables that Moses had first come down from the mount with, that Moses destroyed because the people were busy doing things they weren't supposed to be doing. Moses was commanded to make two more tables, but the biblical account doesn't go into the same details that the JST does, which is:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.

The Law that Moses provided in replacement for the original, which was what was given during the time of the Christ's mortal sojourn, was a law of carnal commandments. In Galatians we read:

Gal. 3:24 -> "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

You might want to read a short article about the Law of Moses, HERE. And some more HERE.

In short, the Israelites were not ready for the higher law, so they were given a lesser law, in order to prepare them for the higher.

[manol]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The Law of Moses is the name assigned to the whole collection of written laws given through Moses to the house of Israel, as a replacement of the higher law that they had failed to obey. The Exodus 34:1-2 records what the Lord commanded Moses in respect of the two tables that Moses had first come down from the mount with, that Moses destroyed because the people were busy doing things they weren't supposed to be doing. Moses was commanded to make two more tables, but the biblical account doesn't go into the same details that the JST does, which is:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.

The Law that Moses provided in replacement for the original, which was what was given during the time of the Christ's mortal sojourn, was a law of carnal commandments. In Galatians we read:

Gal. 3:24 -> "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

You might want to read a short article about the Law of Moses, HERE. And some more HERE.

In short, the Israelites were not ready for the higher law, so they were given a lesser law, in order to prepare them for the higher.

I'm aware of the LDS teaching that the Law of Moses was given because the Israelites rejected the higher law.  That may be the case, but 1400 years (give or take) seems like an awfully long time to keep "God's people" under the burden of an unnecessarily harsh "schoolmaster" or "carnal" law just because their ancestors made a bad choice.  I'm not saying that isn't what happened, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me. 

Also, I do not believe for an instant that God literally "swore in [his] wrath" to do or not do this or that.  I can explain why if you'd like.

Edited August 13, 2024 by manol

[Rain]

3 hours ago, manol said:

This is wonderful!

I live in an area with a lot of substance addiction.  I recently saw a quick YouTube short that made a huge impression on me.

Briefly, rats that have nothing to do but sit ALONE in a bare cage and drink cocaine water all day long become addicted and die, but rats that live in an interesting and inviting environment which includes social CONNECTION with other rats almost never become addicted to the readily-available cocaine water.  The take-away point being:  The opposite of addiction is NOT sobriety; the opposite of addiction is CONNECTION:

This very much goes with Gregory Boyles books, a Jesuit priest who works with gang members.

3 hours ago, manol said:

 

 

Beautiful!

Imo our THOUGHTS are the CAUSE, and our BEHAVIOR is merely the EFFECT.  We can theoretically change our behavior without changing our thoughts, but the result is inner strain rather than inner peace. Imo it is VASTLY more efficient to change our thoughts, and in particular to re-align our fundamental focus to the HIGHEST that we know.

Imo we are like radios:  We can be tuned-in to a low-spiritual energy station, or we can be tuned-in to a high-spiritual-energy station.  We cannot be tuned in to BOTH at the same time (we cannot simultaneously serve two masters).  For most of us, our "default" is a fairly low-spiritual-energy station, but we do have the ability to deliberately tune in to a high-spiritual-energy station.  At first it can take enormous effort, which can be impossible to sustain.  But we can keep choosing to shift our focus to the highest we know over and over again, and over time we can shift our "default" station setting, and/or increase our ability to return to that high-spiritual-energy station, by deliberately choosing to do so. 

When members partake of the Sacrament, the ONE thing they "witness" they ACTUALLY DO is this:  "They do always remember him."  <- Imo that's a "radio station" thing. 

 

This is just my opinion:

There is no such thing as scarcity in the Celestial Kingdom.  MORE for someone else does not mean LESS for you.  In fact MORE for someone else means MORE for you, because we are ALL branches of the same Vine. 

(Imo all of the lower kingdoms will eventually be emptied of their inhabitants, who will have moved up, but that's another topic for another thread.)

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There are two ways to look at this in my view and that is the cost of sin to the community.  These tend to be more consistent across individuals, imo.

Then there is the personal cost and that is different for each person. What might be very serious for one is trivial to another because after committing it, it becomes clear to them they don’t want to do it and that’s it while the other is tangled in the same sin for the rest of the life, it overshadowing whatever they do.

Comparing sins is therefore problematic, imo….even though I end up doing it.

I see it similarly.  I think serious sins could be described as those that are most difficult to repent of and that cause the most harm us and to those around us.  I think they could also be described as those sins which usurp God's authority (such as sins involving the ending of life or the giving of life).

But I'm glad that it's ultimately God who decides such things.  I wouldn't want that responsibility; i'm unfit for the job.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And then the drinking problem, a lot of LDS mostly in youth drink to get drunk not just one or two and there tends to be more alcoholics born that way, IMO. 

 

I grew up in Wyoming where every town (no matter how small) has a bar.  Youth there (largely nonmembers) drink to get drunk every weekend.  I don't think that Wyoming is unique in that.  I know in the UK blackout and binge drinking among teenagers is a huge problem. 

It's a bad byproduct of society's teachings about alcohol.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

lot of LDS mostly in youth drink to get drunk not just one or two and there tends to be more alcoholics born that way, IMO. 

Where are they getting the booze out of curiosity if it’s not in their homes?  Is it that easy to get adults to buy teens alcohol illegally?

60% of alcoholism is likely related to genetics.  Environment does play a role, but perhaps not as much as you think.  It is more likely imo that the LDS youth who become alcoholics do so because of genetics or mental health issues (assuming the parents don’t drink, which is the third most prominent risk factor) or trauma.  

There are probably a lot of LDS who would be alcoholics because of genetics, but because they have never drunk alcohol, it never gets triggered similar to how I may be allergic to bees, but I have never been stung, so who knows?

Being raised LDS is likely protective as well even if one leaves the faith as an adult as one high risk factor is starting drinking before the age of 15.

Quote

What Increases the Risk for Alcohol Use Disorder?

A person’s risk for developing AUD depends in part on how much, how often, and how quickly they consume alcohol. Alcohol misuse—defined as drinking in a manner, situation, amount, or frequency that could cause harm to the person who drinks or to those around them—over time increases the risk of AUD. Alcohol misuse includes binge drinking and heavy alcohol use. Other factors also increase the risk of AUD, such as:

• Drinking at an early age. A recent national survey found that among people ages 26 and older, those who began drinking before age 15 were more than three times as likely to report having AUD in the past year as those who waited until age 21 or later to begin drinking.³ The risk for females in this group is higher than that of males.
• Genetics and family history of alcohol problems. Genetics play a role, with hereditability accounting for approximately 60%; however, like other chronic health conditions, AUD risk is influenced by the interplay between a person’s genes and their environment. Parents’ drinking patterns may also influence the likelihood that a child will one day develop AUD.
• Mental health conditions and a history of trauma. A wide range of psychiatric conditions—including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—are comorbid with AUD and are associated with an increased risk of AUD. People with a history of childhood trauma are also vulnerable to AUD.

 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, manol said:

I'm aware of the LDS teaching that the Law of Moses was given because the Israelites rejected the higher law.  That may be the case, but 1400 years (give or take) seems like an awfully long time to keep "God's people" under the burden of an unnecessarily harsh "schoolmaster" or "carnal" law just because their ancestors made a bad choice.  I'm not saying that isn't what happened, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me. 

Also, I do not believe for an instant that God literally "swore in [his] wrath" to do or not do this or that.  I can explain why if you'd like.

To be fair Yahweh was a lot rowdier back then. It was much later that he finally vanquished his archrival Baal to become the dominant storm deity and much later after that when he became a cosmic universal God. Everyone has to start somewhere I suppose.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, manol said:

I'm aware of the LDS teaching that the Law of Moses was given because the Israelites rejected the higher law.  That may be the case, but 1400 years (give or take) seems like an awfully long time to keep "God's people" under the burden of an unnecessarily harsh "schoolmaster" or "carnal" law just because their ancestors made a bad choice.  I'm not saying that isn't what happened, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me. 

I don't know either, but I don't think it needs to make sense to you. And I should like to take a moment to point out my signature line, where it says:

"How poore, how narrow, how impious a measure of God, is this, that he must doe, as thou wouldest doe, if thou wert God." [John Donne, from a sermon preached in St. Paul's Jan. 30, 1624/5]

And what makes you think it was an unnecessarily harsh schoolmaster? How would you modify it to make it only a necessarily harsh schoolmaster? Got any good ideas? I shall aver to you that I don't think the requirements of the Law of Moses were as harsh as you think they are. It happens that the Jews of our current day are following the Law of Moses as amended by thousands of years of Rabbinical overthinking -- but even the Jews don't seem to think that the Law as they follow it is an unnecessarily harsh schoolmaster. Because they've been more-or-less faithfully following it for the better part of 4,000 years.

I can tell you that there is one genuinely unnecessarily harsh law, called Communism, that only survives a short time. It doesn't take very long until people get so fed up with it that they throw it off, one way or another, in very much less than a century, everywhere it's been tried. So maybe the Law of Moses isn't as harsh as you think it is.

12 hours ago, manol said:

Also, I do not believe for an instant that God literally "swore in [his] wrath" to do or not do this or that.  I can explain why if you'd like.

Neither do I believe this. You're welcome to explain your reasoning, if you want. But you've no doubt heard that many things reported in the Bible (or, for that matter, the Book of Mormon) are figurative, alliterative, or illustrative? And not meant to be taken literally? Saying that God swore in his wrath about some pretty egregious behavior serves to illustrate that God really didn't like what they did. It's more impressive to say that "God got really angry, so angry that he swore an oath about it", than if it said, "God rolled his eyes about it."

Among the things that I don't take literally are these:

• I don't believe that it was a literal snake who spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden.
• I don't believe that Balaam's *** actually spoke to him.
• Nor do I believe that the earth stopped rotating while Israel battled whomever they were battling in that battle that I don't recall the name of right this moment (and I'm not going to stop writing while I look it up -  )

I do believe that these things were figurative, alliterative, or illustrative. They either dramatize the story, emphasize an important principle, or make the event more memorable. Now could God have made these things literally happen? Of course He could have. But why?

Obviously God knew in advance that Israel would trample on the higher law, and had the lesser law ready for them. Obeying the lesser law for 1400 years was a schoolmaster for the Israelites -- and a test for each and every one of them as to whether they were willing to obey God. More to the point for the rest of us is that that 1400 years was a schoolmaster for all of us. God gives us laws that He wants us to obey, and he also gives us the agency to not obey. So, what will we do today? Will we obey God, and do the right thing, or will we obey our own lusts to do the wrong? 

 

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I grew up in Wyoming where every town (no matter how small) has a bar.  Youth there (largely nonmembers) drink to get drunk every weekend.  I don't think that Wyoming is unique in that.  I know in the UK blackout and binge drinking among teenagers is a huge problem. 

It's a bad byproduct of society's teachings about alcohol.

You and @Calm are right. I was having a bad day yesterday. 

[manol]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And what makes you think it was an unnecessarily harsh schoolmaster? How would you modify it to make it only a necessarily harsh schoolmaster? Got any good ideas? I shall aver to you that I don't think the requirements of the Law of Moses were as harsh as you think they are. It happens that the Jews of our current day are following the Law of Moses as amended by thousands of years of Rabbinical overthinking -- but even the Jews don't seem to think that the Law as they follow it is an unnecessarily harsh schoolmaster. Because they've been more-or-less faithfully following it for the better part of 4,000 years.

How about this:  Taken at face value, I think the Law of Moses is unnecessarily harsh.  The fact that the Jews found work-arounds to soften it (when is the last time they carried out any of the executions it calls for?) makes me think they thought so too.

 

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Neither do I believe this. You're welcome to explain your reasoning, if you want. But you've no doubt heard that many things reported in the Bible (or, for that matter, the Book of Mormon) are figurative, alliterative, or illustrative? And not meant to be taken literally? Saying that God swore in his wrath about some pretty egregious behavior serves to illustrate that God really didn't like what they did. It's more impressive to say that "God got really angry, so angry that he swore an oath about it", than if it said, "God rolled his eyes about it."

Among the things that I don't take literally are these:

• I don't believe that it was a literal snake who spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden.
• I don't believe that Balaam's *** actually spoke to him.
• Nor do I believe that the earth stopped rotating while Israel battled whomever they were battling in that battle that I don't recall the name of right this moment (and I'm not going to stop writing while I look it up -  )

I do believe that these things were figurative, alliterative, or illustrative. They either dramatize the story, emphasize an important principle, or make the event more memorable. Now could God have made these things literally happen? Of course He could have. But why?

You cited the Joseph Smith translation which introduced the "God swore in his wrath" language.  I made the mistake of assuming you were presenting the JST version as being a literal description of what actually happened.  But if that particular wording was figurative in your view, then it doesn't sound to me like we disagree much. 

Maybe my delivery was bad?

 

Edited August 14, 2024 by manol

[Teancum]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:59 PM, Stargazer said:

Well, perhaps not. I seem to recall that the Law of Moses specified the death penalty in some cases. That's seems quite serious, and a similar penalty was affixed to murder.

And they used to stone sabbath day breakers as well. So there is that.....

[Maestrophil]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:35 AM, The Nehor said:

I have seen it cause incredible harm. I really wish we would make a distinction between the more predatory types of sexual sin that explicitly victimize people like assault and rape. That includes the secondary effects that adultery can have. When we smush all the sexual sins together we end up with two teenagers who aggressively made out or a lone person masturbating and put that next to murder that is (at most) self-inflicted damage.

You think the great evil is the prostitute who talks about their clients in a way that still preserves anonymity and not the client. That speaks volumes. Wait until you find out that Mormon couples in the swinger community have an amazingly weird reputation. Also I don’t care if someone is fundamentally good hearted. If you are being sex trafficked or forced (either literally or due to economic pressures or coercion) into sex work you often come across as harsh and bad hearted. It is a survival skill. Religious people in general in our society spend way too much time searching for ‘perfect victims’ before they are willing to admit to a problem. Whenever there is a rape people start trying to find out if the victim somehow deserved it. It is gross.

I suspect this is one reason you see lots of people opposed to feeding hungry children because of a minor cost but are willing to spend lots of resources preventing abortion. Once you are born you might be evil. Dealing with real victims is messy.

Agree with the sentiment that sexual sin has degrees and that masturbation and petting etc do not fall into the category of actual fornication.  

I still believe actual fornication is very serious - even between dumb young 'in love' kids.  And I am aware of swingers in the LDS community and other odd and hypocritical things - it still doesn't keep me from believing that sexual sin is extremely dangerous and hurtful to all involved - you should feel bad if you do it - and then go to teh Lord to fix it and sin no more.  Not so hard to understand IMO

[Frank11]

I don't want to encourage anyone here to commit ‘sexual sins’, but I have my reservations as to whether God expects us today in a progressive world to judge everything exactly as we did thousands of years ago. Deuteronomy 22 verses 28,29 is a good example: 

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel' father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

We would never make such an offer to a rapist today, that would be absolutely cruel. But for the civilisation of the time, it is quite understandable, because it is about providing for the woman who is endangered by the act, as she is unlikely to be taken as a wife by anyone else. Since the beginning of humanity, providing for oneself has been the number one problem, and with sedentarisation comes family property. Paternity and inheritance now play a further major role, as does adultery. The idea of a woman secretly having a child by a stranger who would later take over the property was a horror back then. Accordingly, the harshest punishment was appropriate here as a deterrent for people at the time. Premarital sex was not a major social problem at the time. The girl was married off to a boy a few years older at the age of 13/14 and if, in rare cases, the ‘sin’ still occurred, this could be remedied by marriage. In this case, a marriage was not broken into.
What can we take away for today?
I am convinced that God wants a strong family in which love and loyalty prevail. In this respect, I still consider cheating to be a serious sin, and for me this also applies to unmarried couples, especially those with children. The damage to the family, from loss of trust to divorce, is immeasurable.
With regard to a stable, happy family, I see rushing into marriage in order to comply with the law of chastity as rather problematic. In this day and age, I can't see any sin if a young couple says we'll live together for a year or two, we'll use contraception and if we think it's right, then we'll get married. And if a child comes unexpectedly, then of course we'll take care of it.

For me, that's actually responsible family planning!

 

[Calm]

Many years ago stability in a marriage was increased for couples who did not live together and even didn’t have sex before marriage (correlation, not causation; perhaps those who chose to live together had a less committed view of marriage). I don’t know if that still holds. 
 

But one should be cautious in counseling anyone to live together before marriage if the intent is a long term marriage.  I have heard the reasoning that one should be sure they are sexually compatible before marriage to prevent breakup over that, but apparently that reassurance doesn’t increase stability, maybe because if both are virgins there are no negative comparisons to other partners or worry one isn’t as good.