Sexual sins next to murder?

[hordak]

So on another board the discussion got side tracked and someone mention that sexual sins are next to murder. I have heard this before but can't place the source so my questions are.

Is this scriptural doctrine or some random quotes that became "pet doctrine"?(E.G. I once had a young mens leader who spent half of mutual warning us of the dangers of playing cards after reading the book "Mormon doctrine"

If it is scriptural could it be a product of it's time?(E.G. 1st Corinthians 11 warns talks about the shame of men having long hair, IIRC long hair was warn by the Romans so it was a separation thing, which doesn't matter today. One of our Priest who blesses sacrament every week has hair to shoulders)

Do you believe it?

One member went as far to say(when given the options) he would rather have his son sell heroin to school kids than have premarital sex with his girlfriend in collage because it is a worse sin:eek:

I'm not trying to downplay the problem associated with sexual sin but is it really next to murder? I have a hard time believing the engaged couple who slips up and gives in before the wedding is worse then someone like George Jung, who helped bring in 80% of the cocaine in the US in the 70s-80s

[MarginOfError]

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee?

2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 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?

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

Alma 39: 1 - 6

So it does have scriptural context. But it isn't that sexual sin is next to murder, but that there are very few sins more grievous than sexual sin, and murder is one of them.

Also, keep in mind that this was said by Alma to Corianton. Corianton's sin was that he went to a whore to get his thrills. I would wager that Corianton's sin was much more grievous than the engaged couple who fail to keep it in their pants until the wedding.

Personally, I don't understand when people say "I'd rather have committed this sin over that sin." It doesn't make any sense. Sin is sin, and regardless of how grievous the sin, you end up separated from God. And separation from God is a binary state. And some of those "less grievous" transgressions (think "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed") are a lot harder to give up than the really grievous ones.

[tubaloth]

Its comes from Alma 39

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?

I do think its number two in the list of sins.

We are talking about Life here. Something only God controls. We are talking about taking life, or creating life (or the powers that create life).

When people end up taking this power into there own hands they are in a sense saying I'm like God.

Now God does allow the procreation powers to be used, but is in the terms and bounds he sets, not us.

[hyohko]

There's no denying that he broke the LoC - but I have grave doubts as to whether that made his sexual sin in and of itself second to murder.

There is one enormous aggravating factor, the one Alma mentions in the following verses:

Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words.

12 And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye crefrain from your iniquities;

(Book of Mormon | Alma 39:11 - 12)

The sin of fornication, while great in and of itself, is less than (I believe) the sin of keeping others from the truth by your actions. The reason why Alma is so concerned with this sin is that he was guilty of the same in his own youth, "going about to destroy the church of God." (Mosiah 27:10) Sexual sin destroys the self, but apostasy and fighting against God (very close to the sin Alma warned against, denying the Holy Ghost) leads others to destruction.

God grieves the loss of every soul, and I believe he grieves more when his children conspire and seek to destroy each other.

[Blackmarch]

So on another board the discussion got side tracked and someone mention that sexual sins are next to murder. I have heard this before but can't place the source so my questions are.

Is this scriptural doctrine or some random quotes that became "pet doctrine"?(E.G. I once had a young mens leader who spent half of mutual warning us of the dangers of playing cards after reading the book "Mormon doctrine"

If it is scriptural could it be a product of it's time?(E.G. 1st Corinthians 11 warns talks about the shame of men having long hair, IIRC long hair was warn by the Romans so it was a separation thing, which doesn't matter today. One of our Priest who blesses sacrament every week has hair to shoulders)

Do you believe it?

One member went as far to say(when given the options) he would rather have his son sell heroin to school kids than have premarital sex with his girlfriend in collage because it is a worse sin:eek:

I'm not trying to downplay the problem associated with sexual sin but is it really next to murder? I have a hard time believing the engaged couple who slips up and gives in before the wedding is worse then someone like George Jung, who helped bring in 80% of the cocaine in the US in the 70s-80s

I don't think theres any scriptures that exxplicitly statee this, however I think it comes from the opinions of a couple prophets...

I do believe that its pretty close to murder because its involved/related with in act that tends to have irrepairable consequences... It's also a path that has very great potential to ruin an individuals views and virtues towards others, both in intimate relationships, and other relationships - the memories of which will remain with you for all time.

And as LDS believe that families are what matter the most, the powers that create and bind such require the greatest responsibilities, and have worse consequences when broken.

[Blackmarch]

Its comes from Alma 39

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?

I do think its number two in the list of sins.

We are talking about Life here. Something only God controls. We are talking about taking life, or creating life (or the powers that create life).

When people end up taking this power into there own hands they are in a sense saying I'm like God.

Now God does allow the procreation powers to be used, but is in the terms and bounds he sets, not us.

the first couple of sins on my list are Blaspheming the holy Ghost and Forsaking God... which which generallly places murder and LoC sins in the 3-5ish spots

and thanks for the reference :)

[hordak]

So it does have scriptural context. But it isn't that sexual sin is next to murder, but that there are very few sins more grievous than sexual sin, and murder is one of them.

Also, keep in mind that this was said by Alma to Corianton. Corianton's sin was that he went to a whore to get his thrills. I would wager that Corianton's sin was much more grievous than the engaged couple who fail to keep it in their pants until the wedding.

Personally, I don't understand when people say "I'd rather have committed this sin over that sin." It doesn't make any sense. Sin is sin, and regardless of how grievous the sin, you end up separated from God. And separation from God is a binary state. And some of those "less grievous" transgressions (think "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed") are a lot harder to give up than the really grievous ones.

Good point

[Wingnut]

Murder involves the taking of life without God's blessing. Sexual sins (often) involve the creation of life without God's blessing. They are both grievous. They both involve us acting the part of God without partnering with Him first, as in a marriage.

[NeuroTypical]

Something to consider from an eternal perspective:

Murder moves a victim out of this life and into the next one against their will.

Sexual sin resulting in pregnancy can move someone from the pre-existence into a very short life (via abortion) or a very harsh life here in mortality. Many kids as a result of "sexual sin" (out of wedlock) are born to single mothers. Statistically speaking, these kids have many more obstacles, and hardships, and harder lives, and higher chances of being behind bars, than one would experience otherwise.

Anyway, there are plenty of folks who came from single parent homes who are doing fine. Similarly (from an eternal perspective), there are plenty of folks who were murdered, who are doing fine on the other side of the veil. That someone can overcome hardships isn't the point. That someone must endure these hardships in the first place, due to another's actions - that's the point.

LM

Edited January 29, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[MarginOfError]

Something to consider from an eternal perspective:

Murder moves a victim out of this life and into the next one against their will.

Sexual sin resulting in pregnancy can move someone from the pre-existence into a very short life (via abortion) or a very harsh life here in mortality. Many kids as a result of "sexual sin" (out of wedlock) are born to single mothers. Statistically speaking, these kids have many more obstacles, and hardships, and harder lives, and higher chances of being behind bars, than one would experience otherwise.

Anyway, there are plenty of folks who came from single parent homes who are doing fine. Similarly (from an eternal perspective), there are plenty of folks who were murdered, who are doing fine on the other side of the veil. That someone can overcome hardships isn't the point. That someone must endure these hardships in the first place, due to another's actions - that's the point.

LM

Since we're in the context of doctrine here

• So why isn't it okay to engage in sexual activity with the use of contraceptives. If no pregnancy is the problem, the preventing the pregnancy should remove the sin, right?
• there's no evidence in LDS doctrine to indicate that an aborted child/fetus (pick your term) ever lived or experienced mortality. Scripture and policy are entirely vague on the matter. But I tend to read the Church's position that abortion is neither murder nor the shedding of innocent blood to indicate that the experience of "life" as we think of it.
• as you stated, people born into less-the-ideal circumstances are responsible for their own choices. I find it difficult to accept that a single parent's sins will be multiplied by a factor of the poor decisions his or her illegitimate child makes. I agree that it may increase our sense of guilt, but unless the person is deliberately and actively manipulating a person into transgression, I see no justification to assign any blame to the parent on top of the sexual transgression.

So, I'm not sure these interpretations really hold up to much scrutiny. What is clear to me is that it is not given to us to decide when a life should end*.

Sexual activity, as the gateway to the creation of life, is a privilege acceptable to those who are bound by marriage and only to those who are bound to marriage. Sexual sin takes place when this privilege is used outside of the arena in which the Lord designated it's use. Any other reason stated, however plausible or likely, is an attempt to understand the mind of God. While that is a noble and good pursuit, let's not assign it more weight than it deserves.

* With the notable exception of deciding whether to maintain life support, which the Church has interpreted as not really being the same thing as deciding when a life should end.

[NeuroTypical]

Thanks for the insightful reply MOE. To be clear, I'm not really dug in on any particular position here, I just posted some thoughts I'd had on the matter, because I really don't understand why Alma 39 says what it does.

So why isn't it okay to engage in sexual activity with the use of contraceptives. If no pregnancy is the problem, the preventing the pregnancy should remove the sin, right?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind, is the failure rates of various popular forms on contraception. I'm also not saying that unwanted pregnancy is the ONLY negative consequence of premarital sex.

there's no evidence in LDS doctrine to indicate that an aborted child/fetus (pick your term) ever lived or experienced mortality. Scripture and policy are entirely vague on the matter.

The general handbook has this to say:

"It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body." It also mentions that memorial/graveside services may be held for stillborn children, and although no temple work is done for them, the family may record the stillborn child's name on their family geneology. I would consider these to be evidence indicating that an aborted child lived, just not conclusive evidence.

But I tend to read the Church's position that abortion is neither murder nor the shedding of innocent blood to indicate that the experience of "life" as we think of it.

The first words in the General Handbook under the heading Abortion, is quoting D&C 59:6 (Thou shalt not...kill, nor do anything like unto it". But yeah, the language is pretty vague for the rest of that section.

I find it difficult to accept that a single parent's sins will be multiplied by a factor of the poor decisions his or her illegitimate child makes.

I never claimed otherwise. I'm suggesting that sexual sin often results in a very hard life for a kid. Not interested in assigning guilt or placing blame, just coming up with reasons why God might consider sexual sin a sin of such great importance.

Sexual sin takes place when this privilege is used outside of the arena in which the Lord designated it's use. Any other reason stated, however plausible or likely, is an attempt to understand the mind of God. While that is a noble and good pursuit, let's not assign it more weight than it deserves.

Very well put - I agree.

LM

[MarginOfError]

Thanks for the insightful reply MOE. To be clear, I'm not really dug in on any particular position here, I just posted some thoughts I'd had on the matter, because I really don't understand why Alma 39 says what it does.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind, is the failure rates of various popular forms on contraception. I'm also not saying that unwanted pregnancy is the ONLY negative consequence of premarital sex.

Don't get me started on failure rates. I promise you, the true failure rates of contraceptive measures are much higher than reported. But I'll stop there.

The general handbook has this to say:

"It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body." It also mentions that memorial/graveside services may be held for stillborn children, and although no temple work is done for them, the family may record the stillborn child's name on their family geneology. I would consider these to be evidence indicating that an aborted child lived, just not conclusive evidence.

The first words in the General Handbook under the heading Abortion, is quoting D&C 59:6 (Thou shalt not...kill, nor do anything like unto it". But yeah, the language is pretty vague for the rest of that section.

I still have doubts about whether that "life" inside the womb qualifies as a full mortal experience. It may have been alive, but was it sentient? was it able to act and be acted upon.

I guess I'm just hesitant to let any blanket statements on the issue go by. Simply put, we don't know enough to make a statement either way. And I'm okay with that.

I never claimed otherwise. I'm suggesting that sexual sin often results in a very hard life for a kid. Not interested in assigning guilt or placing blame, just coming up with reasons why God might consider sexual sin a sin of such great importance.

And this is where my thing about attempting to understand the mind of God comes in. I do think what you said has some value, even though I may not express that very well.

[Tarnished]

Hordak mentioned time period, that maybe in the time period in which the statement was made that it was a tradition of the time. Looking at it though I don’t think that is the case. In his book “The Miracle of Forgiveness” Spencer W. Kimball states that sexual sins are next to murder. He says in the beginning of chapter 5 “There are also sins which approach the unforgivable ones in seriousness but seem to come in the category of the forgivable. These are the diabolical crimes of sexual impurity.”

He also uses Alma 39:5 and D&C 19:25 as references for the seriousness of sexual sins. He brings up the fact that sexual sins used to be punishable by death, however that has changed. What I see is that society has changed our view of what sins are serious and which are not. Society has grown lax on how serious they view sexual sins. People can live together, have recreational sex, slip up sexually in any number of ways and no one batts an eye. It has become a common and accepted sin, one that is hardly worth mentioning among most of society. However, I believe God does not see it that way. Sex is a type of sacrament; it is sacred and is part of creating life. Sex is a type of covenant, and yet it is casually used by society.

What I see is that when it comes to sex and murder we are dealing with eternal things. Whether sex brings life into the world or not it touches you on an eternal level, it creates a bond, and it is a sin that can seriously affect others. To repent from it you must gain forgiveness from yourself, the person you had sex with, and their family if you had an affair. The list of the people it affects can go on and on. When it comes to murder you must also gain forgiveness from the person you murdered, difficult now that they are dead.

Drugs have become a huge crime in today’s society. While a person can have sex with pretty much any adult that they want and not gain the attention of any police officer, a person can not take any drug that they want and escape committing a crime that can gain them prison time. Because of this I think we as a culture place more importance on drug use than we do on sexual sins.

Considering how seriously God considers sexual sins, I think we should take sexual sins a bit more seriously than we currently do. A sexual sin is something that is not going to leave your life once it is repented of, there will be lasting repercussions for a long time to come.

[Generally_Me]

When you commit a sexual sin, you can ask that person for their forgiveness (in causing them to sin, etc) in this life. When you murder, you can only ask that person for their forgiveness beyond the veil.

I can only be grateful that sexual sins are something that I could be forgiven of.

[NeuroTypical]

Mere humans can't prevent you from gaining forgiveness. The repentence process is open to all, and it does not hinge on someone else's forgiveness (although it's nice when you gain it.)

[Faded]

So on another board the discussion got side tracked and someone mention that sexual sins are next to murder. I have heard this before but can't place the source so my questions are.

Is this scriptural doctrine or some random quotes that became "pet doctrine"?(E.G. I once had a young mens leader who spent half of mutual warning us of the dangers of playing cards after reading the book "Mormon doctrine"

If it is scriptural could it be a product of it's time?(E.G. 1st Corinthians 11 warns talks about the shame of men having long hair, IIRC long hair was warn by the Romans so it was a separation thing, which doesn't matter today. One of our Priest who blesses sacrament every week has hair to shoulders)

Do you believe it?

One member went as far to say(when given the options) he would rather have his son sell heroin to school kids than have premarital sex with his girlfriend in collage because it is a worse sin:eek:

I'm not trying to downplay the problem associated with sexual sin but is it really next to murder? I have a hard time believing the engaged couple who slips up and gives in before the wedding is worse then someone like George Jung, who helped bring in 80% of the cocaine in the US in the 70s-80s

It's a sad comment on how corrupt and lost society really is. The world and the worldly do not consider it to be a big deal to commit sexual sin.

God does. BIG TIME. God does not become less offended by sexual sins, sexual deviancy and sexual indiscretion just because society has deemed it acceptable and okay. Similarly, just because the Romans made an accepted institution of putting gladiators in an arena and having them fight to the death -- just because society considered it acceptable didn't make it right, nor did it diminish how abominable it was in the sight of God. The same is true of sexual sins. God doesn't view sexual sins as any less of an abomination than he always has.

Despite the corrupting influence of society, the powerful impact of sexual sin is very easy to demonstrate. Consider the following scenarios:

1.) You are married for 15 years. Your spouse admits to you that they have been addicted to cocaine for your entire 15 year marriage. You were completely unaware of this.

2.) Your are married for 15 years. Your spouse admits to you that they have been cheating on you throughout the entire 15 year marriage, engaging in sex with a sizable list of different sexual partners. You had no idea.

Which one hurts more?

Edited January 30, 2010 by Faded

[Justice]

I didn't read all the posts. I apologize if this has already been said.

Murder and sexual sin both involve life. One involves the taking of life, while the other involves the creation of life.

Life is the most precious gift we have been given. It's a no-brainer that they would go hand-in-hand at the top of the list like that.

[Snow]

So on another board the discussion got side tracked and someone mention that sexual sins are next to murder.s

How bad could it (fornication) be?

David had a flock of concubines and it didn't bother God at all. It was his adultery and murder that annoyed God but not so much that God didn't forgive him.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Snow

[Faded]

Also, keep in mind that this was said by Alma to Corianton. Corianton's sin was that he went to a whore to get his thrills. I would wager that Corianton's sin was much more grievous than the engaged couple who fail to keep it in their pants until the wedding.

In the eyes of God, is an engaged couple who slips up any better off than Corianton?

Consider my case. At one point, I was engaged to be married to somebody that I didn't ultimately marry. Had I slept with her, it would have had the same impact as it would have it I had at some point gone out and hired a prostitute: I would not have been a virgin on the night of my wedding, and I would have robbed my wife of that.

So why isn't it okay to engage in sexual activity with the use of contraceptives. If no pregnancy is the problem, the preventing the pregnancy should remove the sin, right?

This is completely missing the point. The tools of procreation are sacred in the eyes of God. More sacred than anything human beings are blessed with other than life itself. Misuse of those sacred tools and abilities can't be negotiated down to be less offensive in the eyes of God.

It's a lot like making the case that hiring a hitman to kill somebody is less reprehensible than going and killing somebody myself.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Faded

[lost87]

They say the church and the doctrines are supposed to be uplifting and raise your spirit to higher ground....anymore the church, or anything related just tears me apart and makes me feel worthless. Case and point....this thread.

[marts1]

Actually God does change things a little according to the times we are living in. For instance in biblical times it was unlawful to marry another who was devorced, it being called adultry. Today in Gods eyes we can marry someone devorced. There are many more examples of that going on today in the church. Some of the laws put forth by Moses were slightly changed in New Testament times as well.

[hordak]

It's a sad comment on how corrupt and lost society really is. The world and the worldly do not consider it to be a big deal to commit sexual sin.

God does. BIG TIME. God does not become less offended by sexual sins, sexual deviancy and sexual indiscretion just because society has deemed it acceptable and okay. Similarly, just because the Romans made an accepted institution of putting gladiators in an arena and having them fight to the death -- just because society considered it acceptable didn't make it right, nor did it diminish how abominable it was in the sight of God. The same is true of sexual sins. God doesn't view sexual sins as any less of an abomination than he always has.

Despite the corrupting influence of society, the powerful impact of sexual sin is very easy to demonstrate. Consider the following scenarios:

1.) You are married for 15 years. Your spouse admits to you that they have been addicted to cocaine for your entire 15 year marriage. You were completely unaware of this.

2.) Your are married for 15 years. Your spouse admits to you that they have been cheating on you throughout the entire 15 year marriage, engaging in sex with a sizable list of different sexual partners. You had no idea.

Which one hurts more?

I see what your saying but your comparing the wife's sexual sin (which is a sin against you as well) with a drug addiction, a sin against herself (you with the lying) so of course the sexual sin is worse. Perhaps i should define the sexual sin.I thought the example did.

A women who cannot get pregnant (no life involved, no abortion etc etc) has sex with her boyfriend (he's not married to someone else etc)

Is that 1 time fornication actually worse, then if she had sold smack to school kids ?

I'm with MOE on the whole sin is sin point, but i have heard this blanket statement tossed out a few times and wonder if it is a common belief.

[Faded]

A women who cannot get pregnant (no life involved, no abortion etc etc) has sex with her boyfriend (he's not married to someone else etc)

Is that 1 time fornication actually worse, then if she had sold smack to school kids ?

Easy answer. Yes that one-time fornication is far worse. Not saying that dealing drugs isn't a bad thing, but in the eyes of God, that one-time fornication more repugnant.

The trouble is that you can't really negotiate to make misuse of God's most sacred gift to mankind less sacred that it is. And it truly is a measure of how vile society has become that the sacredness of the procreative process has been so thoroughly perverted. These things really are a lot bigger deal to God than you're making them out to be -- but it's understandable considering what society looks like these days. Sex sells and it's everywhere.

Again, the idea that "no life is involved and no commitment involved" is just like me hiring a hitman to kill somebody, and me not considering myself a murderer just because I did not actually do the killing. Is the man who hired an assassin really any better than the assassin himself?

They say the church and the doctrines are supposed to be uplifting and raise your spirit to higher ground....anymore the church, or anything related just tears me apart and makes me feel worthless. Case and point....this thread.

Please bear in mind that nobody intends to make you feel miserable. My wife (Tarnished) and I understand your situation better than most. She is coming to the end of one-year official probation in the Church because she committed adultery. A good while before we were married, I had premarital sex with another girl and went through the Church discipline process myself. Neither of us is innocent on this score. The terrible feelings of guilt and the repentance process has taught us both how serious these things truly are.

I do think it's important for people not to talk themselves into sexual sins being "no big deal" or to decide "that was then and this is now, it's not as bad now as it was a long time ago." That's me defending the law of chastity, not trying to make you feel bad. Just trust me when I say that the Atonement and the repentance process are very, very real.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Faded
for lost87

[marts1]

We are all judged in this life differently for the same sin. This is because we all have different degrees of knowledge and time is also a factor. The only way I can tell in my little world if I'm doing ok or not is whether or not I can feel the influence of the Spirit.

[FlaviusHambonius]

If I have a one time forinication with another partner, that only affects me and my partner.

If I peddle Heroin to kids, I bring a whole lot of souls into darkness and quite possibly their lives.

For them they might overdose and die before getting out of the quagmire. Thus the end of a possible life that could have had a lot of potential.

Me and my partner can have hope in the Atonement, and even if there was a pregnancy, that could bring great joy in ones life.

Seems like I have heard something about turning your weaknesses into strengths.

As far as the one-time forinication vs. putting smack into kids --- no comparison. (IMO)