- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always kind of had a problem with the idea that sexual sin is next to murder. Or really even the idea that one sin outweighs another in seriousness. This kind of teaching, I think, tends to create a hierarchy of sins, as was previously mentioned, but also tends to promote a self-righteous and/or judgmental attitude toward others. “Oh, well at least I’ve never committed such and such a sin,” and so on. I’ve always taken James 2:10 (For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all) to mean that no sin outweighs another. If you’ve sinned, you’ve sinned, so go and do whatever you can to make it right.
Besides, isn’t the only unforgivable sin blaspheming the Holy Ghost?
Old-Timer wrote:…Alma said, “
THESEthings (collectively) are an(singular) abomination” – not “ THISthing”…Remember, this is Alma the Younger – someone who would know exactly how abominable it is to actively lead others away from God. He was racked with the pains of Hell for three days over very similar actions – at least in his own eyes, I’m sure…I don’t believe it was sexual sin that Alma labeled as next to murder; I think it was the entire enormity of the multiple things Corianton had done – that was close to spiritual murder… Unsure Footing wrote:The interpretation of these scriptures was also question by the fairly well known apologist Michael Ash in a Sunstone article back in 2006. The side-bar in that article about “information inoculation” is also a good read.
Michael Ash’s explanation in Sunstone sounds even worse than the improper sex interpretation to me because he claims that destroying others’ testimonies is like spiritual murder. Maybe I should go back and delete all my comments on these blogs that are not faith-promoting to try to avoid committing spiritual “murder.” Then again, if some “apostates” really do believe the Church is wrong and has done unnecessary harm to them and others and they want to try to prevent this in the future then it would probably be more like “spiritual” involuntary manslaughter in most cases even if they are wrong.
The relative level of physical and/or emotional harm caused by different sins is easier for people to understand but once we get into ideas like “spiritual” harm and being a bad example and leading people astray when you supposedly should have known better it would be very difficult for people to judge the relative severity with any degree of accuracy. That’s why I think it would probably be better to just let God sort out anything like this on the other side instead of pretending that we know for sure which sins God thinks are worse than others. Even if the Book of Mormon is literally the inspired word of God (which I doubt), “these things” is still rather vague to the point that it could be interpreted many different ways but it clearly wasn’t talking about any one thing in particular (like fornication).
Ray, you make some really good clarifications that most people at church don’t stop to think about. Which is what leads to cultural or traditional thoughts…many of which are not truly grounded in doctrine.
Old-Timer wrote:Alma wasn’t speaking to the entire church. He was speaking to his son. Our culture reads it as general words to all, because it’s in what we view as scripture, but, especially if Alma meant what I think he meant, he was recording what he told his son.
The other thing I would add, is that we don’t really know exactly every word that was said hundreds and hundreds of years ago in a different culture and a different time.We tend to take things so literally in our culture and in our time. (Think Pres Clinton and the definition of the word “is”
:crazy: ). More importantly, what was the message being taught…not the specific words…in order to know how it applies to my life today. Is the message we must equate sexual sin with murder? Or is the message sexual sin can be a big deal?This is the post I said I would bump up for further reading and comment. This is an interesting discussion. I also think Alma was referring to all of those things. Not just sexual sin. My take on the the idea that sexual sin is next to murder in severity is based on the permanence of the consequences. With murder a life is taken. With sexual sin, a life is very often created. Both scenarios have no undo button. That is why they are lumped together, but the significance of murder is FAR greater in my opinion, not just a little because of its absolute permanence. At least with creating a life, you can try to make things right for that child (be a good parent, place child up for adoption). I think the harm to a spouse, while very significant, is secondary to messing around with the powers of procreation. Martha wrote:My take on the the idea that sexual sin is next to murder in severity is based on the permanence of the consequences. With murder a life is taken. With sexual sin, a life is very often created. Both scenarios have no undo button. That is why they are lumped together, but the significance of murder is FAR greater in my opinion, not just a little because of its absolute permanence. At least with creating a life, you can try to make things right for that child (be a good parent, place child up for adoption). I think the harm to a spouse, while very significant, is secondary to messing around with the powers of procreation.
So does it become less of a sin today, in a world that has access to birth control?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:So does it become less of a sin today, in a world that has access to birth control?
Hmmm. Hard to say. I have a dozen nieces/nephews who were immune to the effects of birth control.
🙂 The statistics are pretty bad. In 2010 in the US, there were 1.6 million births to unwed mothers and 1.2 million abortions. Does the fact the someone uses birth control mitigate the sin. I would think one’s intentions matter. While the person does plan on having premarital or extramarital sex, he/she does not intend on getting pregnant. But I have a nephew who was not a planned pregnancy. His two faithful LDS parents felt it was a big sin to have protection around because that would mean they were intending to have sex.
Like I said, I feel sexual sins are lumped together with murder because of the seriousness of the consequences, but seriously don’t think judgement (which I believe will be just and merciful) of the two will be close to comparable. After all, we have a God given sex drive, but not a God given need to kill.
Quote:His two faithful LDS parents felt it was a big sin to have protection around because that would mean they were intending to have sex.
Sorry, but I have to ask this:
Are you talking about before they were married or after? If before, I understand; if after . . .
*sigh*If Planned Parenthood accepted a family with six kids as a poster family, we would be it. I have been in education, in one way or another, almost my entire adult life – and our children all have summer birthdays as a planned result.
Martha wrote:cwald wrote:So does it become less of a sin today, in a world that has access to birth control?
Hmmm. Hard to say.
I have a dozen nieces/nephews who were immune to the effects of birth control…The statistics are pretty bad. In 2010 in the US, there were 1.6 million births to unwed mothers and 1.2 million abortions.Does the fact the someone uses birth control mitigate the sin. I would think one’s intentions matter. While the person does plan on having premarital or extramarital sex, he/she does not intend on getting pregnant. But I have a nephew who was not a planned pregnancy. His two faithful LDS parents felt it was a big sin to have protection around because that would mean they were intending to have sex… Like I said, I feel sexual sins are lumped together with murder because of the seriousness of the consequences, but seriously don’t think judgement (which I believe will be just and merciful) of the two will be close to comparable. After all, we have a God given sex drive, but not a God given need to kill. Sure it can be very serious in the worst cases but what about all the people that don’t experience any significant negative consequences as a direct result of this? When I look back at it rather than thinking it was a bad idea and I shouldn’t have done this I honestly don’t have any regrets about it now. The way I see it, even if I didn’t have sex with the girlfriends that I did they were going to have pre-marital sex with other guys anyway so I doubt it really made that much of a difference to them either way. However, in my case it helped eliminate the pressure and anxiety I felt about the idea that I should get married as soon as possible when I didn’t really want to which I now see as having been a positive thing overall.
It looks to me like most unwanted pregnancies nowadays are a consequence of people not doing anything that would prevent it at least 95% of the time more than sex itself. If anything the idea that it is so serious that some people don’t even want to think about the possibility that it could happen probably makes unplanned pregnancies like this even more likely in many cases because sometimes things end up progressing faster and farther than people expect in the heat of the moment. I just don’t know how much wisdom there is in continuing to claim that the majority of Americans nowadays will end up being guilty of a “sin” that is supposedly next to murder. To be honest, I don’t see how it could be when there are so many cases where little or no obvious harm is ever done by it plus acting like it is so serious doesn’t really prevent it all that well anyway and I’m not sure it helps anything after the fact either in most cases.
Old-Timer wrote:and our children all have summer birthdays as a planned result.
Just to clarify, I believe you are saying that summer birthdays would be advantagious in you position because you would be available during and for some time after the birth to help with all the stresses that come along with a newborn. Is that correct? If so, I believe that the church has always been in favor of methods to help with proper spacing of children even in the days when the use of those same methods for actual limiting of family size or for the postponement of starting a family were being condemned. I know that the church’s current (and very wise position) is that all of this is between a couple and God.Martha wrote:My take on the the idea that sexual sin is next to murder in severity is based on the permanence of the consequences. With murder a life is taken. With sexual sin, a life is very often created. Both scenarios have no undo button. That is why they are lumped together
Just like Gossip! Indeed – with the invention of the internet it may be that starting internet rumors have more far reaching consequences than either unplanned pregnancies or murder. What about producing an offensive cartoon about the prophet Mohammad and thereby starting multiple riots in which human lives are lost? I vote that the next slogan should be, “drawing offensive cartoons is next to Murder.”
😈 My wording is intended to be sarcastic but I do believe that there is some truth to it. I was told by my SP that getting a vasectimy is very serious because of the permanence of the act. He told the entire Elder’s Quorum that men that have this procedure done without compelling medical reasons will answer to God for rejecting their God given gift of procreation. I believe that he may have been offering his personal opinion but his opinion is bolstered by the CH and the “Permanance=greater sin” theory.Martha wrote:His two faithful LDS parents felt it was a big sin to have protection around because that would mean they were intending to have sex.
I believe that states that teach “abstinance only” sex ed have a greater level of unplanned teen pregnancies. Wouldn’t that be an irony?
The following post might be interesting. It generated some lively disagreement on my blog: “
We Can’t Teach Abstinence Only” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/04/we-cant-teach-abstinence-only.html Old-Timer wrote:Quote:His two faithful LDS parents felt it was a big sin to have protection around because that would mean they were intending to have sex.
Sorry, but I have to ask this:
Are you talking about before they were married or after? If before, I understand; if after . . .
*sigh*If Planned Parenthood accepted a family with six kids as a poster family, we would be it. I have been in education, in one way or another, almost my entire adult life – and our children all have summer birthdays as a planned result.
It was before. After would be seriously messed up.
:crazy: Old-Timer wrote:The following post might be interesting. It generated some lively disagreement on my blog:
“
We Can’t Teach Abstinence Only” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/04/we-cant-teach-abstinence-only.html Good blog topic. I agree with you Ray about teaching abstinence first, but also being open about birth control if that isn’t the choice they make.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.