Is One Sexual Sin Worse Than Another?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

That's the question.

First, we need to discuss whether any sin is "worse" than another one. (See James 2:10 -- "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.") On the other hand, the Book of Mormon does suggest that there is a ranking of sins (see Alma 39:3-5 (sexual sin "most abominable above all sins" except shedding innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost)). I don't know how to reconcile these passages. Have at it, y'all.

Second, is one sexual sin worse than another?

Intuitively, I'd say yes, there is a difference in the seriousness of, say, rape vs. two kids getting carried away in a back seat.

Let's break it down, then, and say consensual sexual sins are not as bad as forcible sex crimes like child abuse or rape.

How about the big question -- ordinary sex outside of marriage vs. same-sex relations outside of marriage?

On the one hand, you could argue they're the same thing -- The prohibition is against all sexual relations other than with one's spouse, so whether it's two guys in the Castro district doing their thing vs. two Timpview seniors doing theirs, the sin is equivalent.

On the other hand, same-sex relations tend to lock one in to an identity that will involve future, similar acts, so maybe even if the sins are equally serious, they're not equally "dangerous."

On the other hand (er ... "tentacle"; I just ran out of hands), you could also make the argument that a guy who makes it his practice from an early age to enjoy many women outside of marriage is locking himself into an identity where he'll continue to be tempted to act that way after he's married. While same-sex relations may be a rejection of the ideal model of fidelity between husband and wife, promiscuity might be seen as a corruption of that ideal. Which is worse? I can think of arguments both ways.

[DisRuptive1]

There's no such thing as same sex relationships within marriages (as we don't allow gay marriages), so how can those who do it really commit the sin of fornication like with "ordinary sex" as you call it?

And what is so bad about fornication? Is it the act of "feeling good" outside of marriage that makes it bad, or is it the fact that you are "baby making" without the intent to make or support babies (as a marriage would help out)?

I don't really think you can consider sex a sin in anyway until you first find out why it's being engaged in. And if same sex relationships are bad and the things they do in them "abomidable" then can't you say the same for anything within a normal relationship that doesn't involved the missionary position?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

And if same sex relationships are bad and the things they do in them "abomidable" then can't you say the same for anything within a normal relationship that doesn't involved the missionary position?

Not following the logic here. What does position have to do with anything?

[DisRuptive1]

It was just in response to something you said. You implied that same sex is more dangerous than other forms of sex. Can't opposite sex also be just as dangerous if it isn't "normal" (aka missionary) sex?

And (a little off topic here) you're comparing two different things (2 forms of sex) in the same area (both being outside marriage). So you're basically asking which is the greater sin, "normal sex" (basically heterosexual activities) or "abnormal sex" (homosexual activities). Marriage really has no place in your arguement unless one exists within a marriage and one exists outside of it.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Dis --

What I'm asking is whether same-sex sex outside of marriage (i.e. all of it, since -- at least in most religious views of marriage -- same-sex relationships aren't marriages) and opposite-sex sex outside of marriage are equally immoral (again, we're assuming both are), or if one is more immoral than the other.

[Lindy]

a guy who makes it his practice from an early age to enjoy many women outside of marriage is locking himself into an identity where he'll continue to be tempted to act that way after he's married. While same-sex relations may be a rejection of the ideal model of fidelity between husband and wife, promiscuity might be seen as a corruption of that ideal. Which is worse? I can think of arguments both ways.

Arguments for which is worse?

I view them as equally bad, and there are countless types of different scenieros we can have; but, if the scenerio was that both of them are not religious people, or don't have any knowledge of what is right or wrong in the eyes of God.....and are just doing their own "thing", and the same-sex relation type guy is devoted to his partner heart, mind and soul and he would never think of anygay else....and the manwhore was a total hunk and and I was going to be stuck on a desert island for a couple of years with one of them.... I hate to admit it...but I would probably pick the gay guy over the straight guy...just based on the level of respect he has for others. I would doubt the level of respect the straight guy has for anyone...including himself. With respect comes responsibility, and I wouldn't want an irresponsibile guy stuck with me for even a year. The better of two wrongs?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 9 2005, 03:22 PM

That's the question.

First, we need to discuss whether any sin is "worse" than another one. (See James 2:10 -- "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.") On the other hand, the Book of Mormon does suggest that there is a ranking of sins (see Alma 39:3-5 (sexual sin "most abominable above all sins" except shedding innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost)). I don't know how to reconcile these passages. Have at it, y'all.

Second, is one sexual sin worse than another?

Intuitively, I'd say yes, there is a difference in the seriousness of, say, rape vs. two kids getting carried away in a back seat.

Let's break it down, then, and say consensual sexual sins are not as bad as forcible sex crimes like child abuse or rape.

How about the big question -- ordinary sex outside of marriage vs. same-sex relations outside of marriage?

On the one hand, you could argue they're the same thing -- The prohibition is against all sexual relations other than with one's spouse, so whether it's two guys in the Castro district doing their thing vs. two Timpview seniors doing theirs, the sin is equivalent.

On the other hand, same-sex relations tend to lock one in to an identity that will involve future, similar acts, so maybe even if the sins are equally serious, they're not equally "dangerous."

On the other hand (er ... "tentacle"; I just ran out of hands), you could also make the argument that a guy who makes it his practice from an early age to enjoy many women outside of marriage is locking himself into an identity where he'll continue to be tempted to act that way after he's married. While same-sex relations may be a rejection of the ideal model of fidelity between husband and wife, promiscuity might be seen as a corruption of that ideal. Which is worse? I can think of arguments both ways.

I think you are taking the New Testament scripture out of context. Read the verses preceding the one you quoted. He's talking about the laws of justice and mercy. Those who live only by the letter of the law are basically hopeless because any sin makes us unclean. If we don't believe in mercy and are judged strictly by the law, even if we may not be a murderer, any sin will damn us.

[DisRuptive1]

Pd,

I don't think you are being clear enough. When you talk about sex between two people of the same sex I'm thinking of the opposite sexes doing it the same way. There's obviously a difference when a man's and a woman's frontsides collide versus when the man's frontside collides with the woman's backside. How is this any different than when a man collides with another man's backside?

Or is that your question? Is the man-woman situation mroe immoral than the man-man situation?

I'm unsure about woman-woman situations

[sgallan]

Just for fun..... if I am an athiest, who marries an athiest, married by an athiest JOP, in a secular ceremony, then I no longer a 'religious sinner' and just because I followed an entirely secular legal format, that had nothing to do with a god or religion. Right? Then why is this okay, while two devout religious young people, who let their immaturity and hormones overcome them, so bad? Does this speak of a rational posited god?

[Amillia]

The scripture means that if one sins or breaks any of the laws, he loses the Spirit.

The Holy Ghost cannot dwell in unholy places and one is not holy when one sins (Moroni 10:32-33)

So one sin may take longer to repent from (like adultry is harder to repent from than telling a lie) or homsexual sin seems to have a stronger grip on it's victims than does normal adultry kind of sin. (JMO)

Anyway, any kind of sin ~ big or little causes the Spirit to leave and in this it is just as bad to commit one sin, or all the sins. ~

[Lindy]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 9 2005, 08:53 PM

Just for fun..... if I am an athiest, who marries an athiest, married by an athiest JOP, in a secular ceremony, then I no longer a 'religious sinner' and just because I followed an entirely secular legal format, that had nothing to do with a god or religion. Right? Then why is this okay, while two devout religious young people, who let their immaturity and hormones overcome them, so bad? Does this speak of a rational posited god?

Ok....so

an athiest, who marries an athiest, married by an athiest JOP, in a secular ceremony, then I no longer a 'religious sinner'

do you cheat on your athiest wife and break your secular vows given to you by an athiest JOP? Even if the ceremony was overseen by a JOP...athiest or not.....those marriage vows should be basically the same as one dealt out by a Priest, Bishop or what-have-you. "Religious sinner" or just a plain "cheater" I think it is all the same. If you didn't cheat on your wife, then what's the beef?

The two young people should be, IMO, in a worse position than the athiest and athiest married by an athiest. But I am an off the wall LDS and my views don't represent the church.

[srm]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 9 2005, 03:22 PM

That's the question.

First, we need to discuss whether any sin is "worse" than another one. (See James 2:10 -- "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.") On the other hand, the Book of Mormon does suggest that there is a ranking of sins (see Alma 39:3-5 (sexual sin "most abominable above all sins" except shedding innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost)). I don't know how to reconcile these passages. Have at it, y'all.

Second, is one sexual sin worse than another?

Intuitively, I'd say yes, there is a difference in the seriousness of, say, rape vs. two kids getting carried away in a back seat.

Let's break it down, then, and say consensual sexual sins are not as bad as forcible sex crimes like child abuse or rape.

How about the big question -- ordinary sex outside of marriage vs. same-sex relations outside of marriage?

On the one hand, you could argue they're the same thing -- The prohibition is against all sexual relations other than with one's spouse, so whether it's two guys in the Castro district doing their thing vs. two Timpview seniors doing theirs, the sin is equivalent.

On the other hand, same-sex relations tend to lock one in to an identity that will involve future, similar acts, so maybe even if the sins are equally serious, they're not equally "dangerous."

On the other hand (er ... "tentacle"; I just ran out of hands), you could also make the argument that a guy who makes it his practice from an early age to enjoy many women outside of marriage is locking himself into an identity where he'll continue to be tempted to act that way after he's married. While same-sex relations may be a rejection of the ideal model of fidelity between husband and wife, promiscuity might be seen as a corruption of that ideal. Which is worse? I can think of arguments both ways.

Duck, I do that certain sexual sins are better than others.

Sorry, I couldn't resist

[Snow]

Snow Law of Inverse Correlation says that the gravity of the sin is directly and oppositely proportional to the pleasure derived therein.

[sgallan]

**** The two young people should be, IMO, in a worse position than the athiest and athiest married by an athiest. But I am an off the wall LDS and my views don't represent the church. ****

So basically what you seem to be saying is..... as long as a representative of the 'state' says it is okay, then God says it is okay. In other words the 'State' is the every bit the dterminate factor as is God.... in this case. Otherwise, those two kids.... who may be entirely faithful to one another.... would be okay.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

My two cents would be that all sins are created equal except for the sin against the Holy Ghost (whatever that is; it's kinda vaguely defined) -- but not all sins are equally easy to turn away from.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 10 2005, 11:12 AM

My two cents would be that all sins are created equal except for the sin against the Holy Ghost (whatever that is; it's kinda vaguely defined) -- but not all sins are equally easy to turn away from.

I just don't see that. It's just as bad to flick a booger at someone as it is to rape, torment, murder and mutilate them?

[sgallan]

I am picking to flick as we speak..... purgatory for sure!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 10 2005, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 10 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 10 2005, 11:12 AM

My two cents would be that all sins are created equal except for the sin against the Holy Ghost (whatever that is; it's kinda vaguely defined) -- but not all sins are equally easy to turn away from.

I just don't see that. It's just as bad to flick a booger at someone as it is to rape, torment, murder and mutilate them?

I'm not sure if booger-flicking even registers on the sin scale.

But you raise a good point -- obviously we're more repulsed by gross evil than by garden-variety pettiness. It's hard for me to escape the conclusion that one sin is worse than another. I know Catholic doctrine makes distinctions between minor "venial" sins and major "mortal" sins.

The question is whether God makes that distinction. When the goal is moral perfection, the difference between even the most spotless human life and God's perfection is probably greater than that between that spotless life and a murderer's.

Or at least that's what I understand traditional Christian doctrine to teach. Is that right, and is Mormon doctrine consistent with that? Maybe it's possible for a good person to more closely approach God's perfection on earth than traditional Christianity gives humanity credit for.

The late Hugh Nibley wrote that the only thing that matters is repentance. He'd probably say that a minor sin, recognized and unrepented of, has greater eternal consequences than a great sin repented of.

Maybe even if it's ultimately repentance that matters, some sins have a greater effect on removing the Spirit that impels people to repent. That is, the Spirit might be mildly grossed out by a flicked booger, but driven far away by a murder. Once the Spirit is lost, it can be hard for people to recognize their own wickedness, or even care about the whole wicked/righteous distinction at all.

So may be we should conclude that regardless of whether one particular sin will weigh more heavily in a final judgment, some sins are definitely "worse" than others, because they have a greater effect on our ability or desire to repent.

Back to the original question, then: Is some sexual conduct less likely to be repented of than other sexual conduct?

[DisRuptive1]

Oh I get it now. As in people who go all the way are more likely to repent than those that only got to 3rd base, right?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 10 2005, 12:39 PM

The question is whether God makes that distinction. When the goal is moral perfection, the difference between even the most spotless human life and God's perfection is probably greater than that between that spotless life and a murderer's.

I guess that kind of makes sense. Since we are all going to sin in one way or another, it's easier for us to get back on the path if we haven't committed the sins we consider heinous. Our consciences become hardened, we lose hope, we can't make restitution, we feel too guilty when we commit the biggies. All those things contribute to our inabilty to be guided by the spirit.

From that perspective though, we are really only concerned with our own progress. It's the sins that hurt OTHER people that seem to be the greater ones. When we rob someone else of their ability to choose or progress. For instance, if a young religious couple goof up before the wedding and have sex, they feel guilty, but they love each other, get married and go on with their lives. If a married person with a family commits adultery and leaves their family for the new love, he's interfered greatly with his existing family's freedom and opportunities (not to mention ability to love and trust.) It's hard to imagine the two sins being the same.

[Traveler]

I am convinced that the first step into sin is selfishness.

I also believe the first step away from sin toward rightiousness is self sacrifice (Discipline)

The greatness of sin is the point at which we quit trying to overcomd selfishness and decide that our wants, desires and pasions trump everything else.

The Traveler

[sgallan]

Dang! If the booger thing isn't a special sin then I am just gonna have to

EAT the next one!

[Lindy]

  The late Hugh Nibley wrote that the only thing that matters is repentance. He'd probably say that a minor sin, recognized and unrepented of, has greater eternal consequences than a great sin repented of.

Repentance is a great thing....it is a very humbling experience and yes IMO the greater the sin....the greater the consequences to "make up" for that sin. However, I would think that this would be a problem to an atheist who wouldn't think of any wrongdoing as a "sin", that's why I figured that the young couple "going at it" would be in deeper doo doo, because they KNEW what they were doing was wrong.

Scott

So basically what you seem to be saying is..... as long as a representative of the 'state' says it is okay, then God says it is okay. In other words the 'State' is the every bit the dterminate factor as is God.... in this case. Otherwise, those two kids.... who may be entirely faithful to one another.... would be okay.

12th Article of Faith...We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining

the law.....

13th Article of Faith...We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men;.......

As long as the law, and those who have been placed in a positions to uphold that law is/are not in opposition of our moral code (law) given to us by God....then a "representative" of the legal system of the state saying it's ok for a man and a woman to marry, who don't have any religious beliefs, giving them that right to live together as husband and wife. But again, I want to stress as long as it is NOT in opposition to what commandments (or teachings) that God has given us. I'm not going to condemn two kids whose hormones get the better of them, it's not my place, I just said....in MY opinion

The two young people should be, IMO, in a worse position than the athiest and athiest married by an athiest.

because they broke the rules (teachings) of God. Faithful to each other is a nice extra touch..... and I think I know what you are saying......correct me if I"m wrong (I know you will ) if they (the kids), are faithful to each other, profess undying love and devotion to each other and yet are NOT married in the eyes of the law....are they still ok in the eyes of God?

I really don't know,

[sgallan]

Lindy - cool. That works for me. I am really not looking to be contentious or debate this. I am mostly trying to get away from that anymore. I got enough on my plate. I have to learn to be nice again.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 10 2005, 11:12 AM

My two cents would be that all sins are created equal except for the sin against the Holy Ghost (whatever that is; it's kinda vaguely defined) -- but not all sins are equally easy to turn away from.

To think that, in the eyes of God, all sins are equal, is to create a God that isn't even as bright as we are.

And if not all sins are equal, then there must be some rationale for making the distinctions. Gee what could that rationale be? Perhaps it has something to do with the objective harm it causes. If we use that rationale, and assume God uses that one too, it might be a little easier to make out a heirarchy of sinfulness.

Otherwise we will have to come up with some other criteria as to what measuring stick God would use. Can we think of some? How about-----

1) The frequency test: The more times God mentions it, the worse it is. (This one makes the most sense to me).

2) The "Snow definition": The more pleasurable, the worse it is.

3) The PD definition: Naaa, they are all the same.

4) The atheist test: What ever you do is twice as bad if done by an atheist.

5) The government test: If the government doesn't punish it, why should God?

6) The TBM test: Everything is a sin, so don't bother making any distinctions.

7) The time test: The longer it takes to not feel guilty about it, the worse the sin.

8) The harm done test (already mentioned): The more objective harm, the worse the sin.

9) The how do I feel test: The worse you feel afterward, the worse the sin.

10) Twisted Snow definition test: The better you feel afterward, the worse the sin.

11) The Bishop test: If the Bishop says its a sin, it probably is.

12) The twisted Bishop test: If the Bishop is doing it, its probably a sin.

13) The hypocricy test: If the Bishop says not to do it, and does it himself, it is no longer a sin.

14) The "identity of the accuser" test: If the accuser says its wrong, find out how much damage the guy can do you if he finds out about you. If he can't excommunicate you, its not a sin.

15) The 'LDS Chat Line test': If the majority of the members of the Chat line say its a sin---make sure you do it---its probably going to make you feel great!