Pride, Sexual Immorality and C.S. Lewis

[Jamie123]

In my religious thinking over the years, I've perhaps been a little over-influenced by C.S. Lewis, to the extent that I've been surprised to find Christians whse opinions are so much at odds with him. This is of course a fault on my part - Lewis never claimed to be a prophet, and would (I suspect) be horrified at anyone using his writings as a substitute for scripture.

Now Lewis was a protestant (though I believe he did correspond with at least one Mormon in the US) but he nevertheless seems to have a following among LDS members. And this is a little surprising considering some of his writings. Take for instance this passage from Mere Christianity:

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

(Emphasis mine.) Now this flies in the face of what many Mormons believe. A couple of years ago I got into a long-running dispute with someone on this board (it might have been Hemidakota) about the relative seriousness of pride and sexual sin - he believing that fornication was second only to murder, and that pride was far less serious. (I would suggest that fornication and murder are not sins in themselves, but consequences of sin - giving in to the temptations of lust or anger - but that's another matter.) Lewis on the other hand suggests that pride is worst condition of the soul, and the very cause of Satan's fall. (Hemi said that "rebellion" and not "pride" was the cause, but I would again suggest that that rebellion was a symptom of pride, and not a cause in itself.)

Anyway, what do you guys think? Was Lewis wrong to suggest that unchastity is a "mere fleabite" compared to pride? Mormons (I believe) need to seek forgiveness from special priesthood holders if they ever commit fornication, but life would be complicated if you had to seek out a priest every time you had a prideful thought! And if this is so, how seriously does that error undermine Lewis' writings?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Jamie123

[Guest gopecon]

I think Lewis was on the right track here, although fleabite might be a bit of an understatement. Pride leads to a whole host of problems. President Benson recognized this when he counseled about pride in the 1980's. The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns of the dangers of becoming proud. Pride is a state of mind, not an outward act (like adultery). As such, when we talk of the big sins (murder, adultery, etc.) we are talking about the acts. Pride is a condition that can lead to these things. Lewis is right that pride is what drove the devil into rebellion against God.

[Connie]

Beware of Pride - Ensign May 1989

[RipplecutBuddha]

Think about it this way. If you're humble, you are teachable. You listen to the spirit, and thus to the council of Heavenly Father. Through this communication all sin can be avoided because you are warned of the dangers and you are more likely to heed them.

Now, if you're proud...even a little bit, you think you have learned what you need to know. Thus you stop asking questions in some areas. Thus when temptations arise, rather than seek the Lord and his spirit, you try to conquer it alone. When men boast of their own strength, they are left to the same.

Speaking for myself, pride led me to commit sins I would have never considered a good idea. I thought I knew better. I thought I was strong enough to indulge and still be okay. I was desperately wrong. Had I remained humble, I would have avoided much of the trouble I still struggle with today, all these years later.

[Traveler]

In my religious thinking over the years, I've perhaps been a little over-influenced by C.S. Lewis, to the extent that I've been surprised to find Christians whse opinions are so much at odds with him. This is of course a fault on my part - Lewis never claimed to be a prophet, and would (I suspect) be horrified at anyone using his writings as a substitute for scripture.

Now Lewis was a protestant (though I believe he did correspond with at least one Mormon in the US) but he nevertheless seems to have a following among LDS members. And this is a little surprising considering some of his writings. Take for instance this passage from Mere Christianity:

(Emphasis mine.) Now this flies in the face of what many Mormons believe. A couple of years ago I got into a long-running dispute with someone on this board (it might have been Hemidakota) about the relative seriousness of pride and sexual sin - he believing that fornication was second only to murder, and that pride was far less serious. (I would suggest that fornication and murder are not sins in themselves, but consequences of sin - giving in to the temptations of lust or anger - but that's another matter.) Lewis on the other hand suggests that pride is worst condition of the soul, and the very cause of Satan's fall. (Hemi said that "rebellion" and not "pride" was the cause, but I would again suggest that that rebellion was a symptom of pride, and not a cause in itself.)

Anyway, what do you guys think? Was Lewis wrong to suggest that unchastity is a "mere fleabite" compared to pride? Mormons (I believe) need to seek forgiveness from special priesthood holders if they ever commit fornication, but life would be complicated if you had to seek out a priest every time you had a prideful thought! And if this is so, how seriously does that error undermine Lewis' writings?

In general it seems to me the any individual seems to define the worse sins as someone else’s. The sins that seem to be okay are the sins with which we have the most difficulty. For whatever reason we dismiss your sins and are sure the sins of other will ruin their salvation. This strangeness seems to be most prevalent among the more devout concerning religion. But I find this is also present a great deal among the non-religious - that is -- what ever it is that I am doing - really is not that bad. But the really bad stuff is always what someone else is doing - often the more someone else is disliked the worse what they are doing is in our mind.

In all honesty, I view the world and universe through my eyes. I have tried to see things through the eyes of others and all that I have learned is that in so doing there is always something missing so in drilling down things do not make sense. So when I try to realize what the worse sins are - I can only see through my eyes. I assume that others are doing the same - or at least should be doing the same if they are acquainted with reason.

For me murder and adultery and not that big of a deal - in order for me to get to a place where murder and adultery is a real option I must honestly admit that I must past through many other sins first. Those other sins are my problem. The sin I have had the greatest problem during my entire life is forgiveness. At one point it was forgiving those that did unbelievable or tired to do unbelievable things to me - but at this point it is what I consider unthinkable things to children or to the “Church” (children being my biggest concern).

The one thing I have learned - I must be living on a different planet than just about everyone else posting on this forum. Their greatest challenge is “murder”. But not for me.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Lewis is right in the overall point he makes. Sexual sins seem to be predominant because we can see them and judge them. Pride would seem easy to pinpoint, but it's very subjective. If we like someone they are confident, otherwise arrogant. If we supervise them, they are proud, if they are our colleagues, they are so competent they expose the boss' ignorance.

So we judge the sins we can see...that others are doing. Pride? That one hits too close to home. "Who can judge the heart...well my heart, anyway?"

[Just_A_Guy]

Anyway, what do you guys think? Was Lewis wrong to suggest that unchastity is a "mere fleabite" compared to pride? Mormons (I believe) need to seek forgiveness from special priesthood holders if they ever commit fornication, but life would be complicated if you had to seek out a priest every time you had a prideful thought! And if this is so, how seriously does that error undermine Lewis' writings?

Any particular deed probably could be deemed "a mere fleabite" compared to our overall state of being. Sexual peccadilloes are, at the end of the day, the former; whereas pride is the latter. So, in that sense, I'd agree with Lewis.

That said: they kind of feed into each other, because sexual misconduct is often an indicator of a prolonged regimen of indulging and gratifying one's own pride. It's pretty easy to pick up a (few) bottle(s) and get drunk, or have a passing greedy/prideful thought, or even to lose one's cool for a moment. But fornication usually takes some planning--or at least (for a Mormon), a sustained period of pretty reckless behavior while ignoring warning after warning from (those whom we view to be) the Lord's messengers, as well as our own consciences.

The problem with an adulterer isn't so much the act per se, as the fact that he's allowed himself to become the kind of person who has no qualms about committing adultery.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

The one thing I have learned - I must be living on a different planet than just about everyone else posting on this forum. Their greatest challenge is “murder”. But not for me.

If I don't rank sin by what is the greatest personal challenge then concluding that my greatest personal challenge is what I rank as the highest sin is flawed. Despite your claims that you assume people view the world in their own way (which would include 'ranking' sin) you're still assuming they are thinking the same way as you (in this case how they would 'rank' sin). I for one don't respond to a questions like, "What are the unforgivable sins?", "What are the worst sins?" by treating it as, "What sins do you find the greatest challenge to avoid." And I doubt I'm in the minority here, so assuming the board in general does is going to leave you with conclusions divorced from reality.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Dravin

[RescueMom]

I have to agree that pride leads to other sins. If we are humble and really listening to the spirit we don't sin. It's when we think we can do for ourselves, think we know better (pride) that we start to disenage from the spirit, that we stop listening. Pride will keep us from kneeling in prayer, pride will keep us from seaking guidance, especially if we think we know better.

Pride comes in all forms, we are warned of pride over and over again, not only in scriptures but in modern revelation. It was pride that did the Nephites in, their pride in their own strength, self-righteouness, ect....after they became prideful they began to sin. And we see the pattern through out all of human history, starting with Cains pride..it was his pride that drove him to kill Able.

I would dare guess that most of us before committing a sin have some form of justification on why we committ the sin going on in our minds...this IMHO is pride in our own thinking we know better than God.

[Traveler]

Another thought - the difference between good and evil is the same for every one. One problem I see is the concept that the "first" step in sin or evil is oaky. This is the wrong concept - because it is always harder to repent and change. It is always best to start out from the first choice to chose the right.

Thus I see great error in thinking the first step towards evil is okay as long as you don't take any more. This mistake here is misunderstanding the nature of evil. It is the first step that takes us from the spirit and darkens our soul. The following steps are always more easy. The first step to righteousness is always easier when we have not developed "bad" habbats.

My point is that the first choice of evil is always the same - it is that choice - when made that is the "worse" choice. And that first choice appears to me to be the same. The second bad choice is that the first really did not do any "real" damage - especially to the really bad choices being made by others.

The Traveler

[Canuck Mormon]

I remember hearing a quote once. I think it was from the scriptures, but am not 100% sure. It goes "Pride cometh before the fall". To me this indicates that pride comes before we sin. So, in a sense, CS Lewis is right, in that before we commit these other sins we are full of pride and think that we know better than He that knows all.

Just my thoughts. Feel free to bash and criticise!!

[Javajot]

The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns of the dangers of becoming proud. Pride is a state of mind, not an outward act (like adultery). As such, when we talk of the big sins (murder, adultery, etc.) we are talking about the acts. Pride is a condition that can lead to these things. Lewis is right that pride is what drove the devil into rebellion against God.

Ding ding ding!

The Nephite cycle of righteousness:

And from 3rd Nephi 6:15-17

Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world.

16And thus Satan did lead away the hearts of the people to do all manner of iniquity; therefore they had enjoyed peace but a few years.

17And thus, in the commencement of the thirtieth year—the people having been delivered up for the space of a long time to be carried about by the temptations of the devil withersoever he desired to carry them, and to do whatsoever iniquity he desired they should—and thus in the commencement of this, the thirtieth year, they were in a state of awful wickedness.

I added the bold, but you can easily see that one of the root causes of all of their sins was pride. So destructive was this pride that Satan had such power over the people that he could get them to do whatsoever iniquity he desired.

No doubt at all that included sexual promiscuity.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Javajot

[Blackmarch]

In my religious thinking over the years, I've perhaps been a little over-influenced by C.S. Lewis, to the extent that I've been surprised to find Christians whse opinions are so much at odds with him. This is of course a fault on my part - Lewis never claimed to be a prophet, and would (I suspect) be horrified at anyone using his writings as a substitute for scripture.

Now Lewis was a protestant (though I believe he did correspond with at least one Mormon in the US) but he nevertheless seems to have a following among LDS members. And this is a little surprising considering some of his writings. Take for instance this passage from Mere Christianity:

(Emphasis mine.) Now this flies in the face of what many Mormons believe. A couple of years ago I got into a long-running dispute with someone on this board (it might have been Hemidakota) about the relative seriousness of pride and sexual sin - he believing that fornication was second only to murder, and that pride was far less serious. (I would suggest that fornication and murder are not sins in themselves, but consequences of sin - giving in to the temptations of lust or anger - but that's another matter.) Lewis on the other hand suggests that pride is worst condition of the soul, and the very cause of Satan's fall. (Hemi said that "rebellion" and not "pride" was the cause, but I would again suggest that that rebellion was a symptom of pride, and not a cause in itself.)

Anyway, what do you guys think? Was Lewis wrong to suggest that unchastity is a "mere fleabite" compared to pride? Mormons (I believe) need to seek forgiveness from special priesthood holders if they ever commit fornication, but life would be complicated if you had to seek out a priest every time you had a prideful thought! And if this is so, how seriously does that error undermine Lewis' writings?

Well this quote of his does not say that they are merely the consequence rather they are not the utmost or pinnacle causations... In fact I agree quite whole heartedly with his quote here.

As for CS Lewis I have heard him referred to (jokingly) as the thirteenth apostle, due to how often he gets quoted.

He nails it on the head here pride is the centering on the self at putting the self above other things. Lust is but an aspect of that in a bad way.

Guess what gets people excommunicated or to leave the church for the majority of the cases?

Pride.

Guess what keeps people from following Christ and his commandments and joining his church?

Pride.

Pride is what comes before adultery ever happens.

Unfortunately pride is almost always intangible.. So from a judgement point of view one cannot judge it until it has grown to the point of being tangible, and generally by then it is a monster.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Guest Sachi001]

Anyway, what do you guys think? Was Lewis wrong to suggest that unchastity is a "mere fleabite" compared to pride? Mormons (I believe) need to seek forgiveness from special priesthood holders if they ever commit fornication, but life would be complicated if you had to seek out a priest every time you had a prideful thought! And if this is so, how seriously does that error undermine Lewis' writings?

Hmmm..... Priests of Nehor come to mind? How about Nephi's brothers? Zoramites?

There is a difference in pride and false pride. In false pride and not seeking humility and meekness is what Lewis is alluding toward.

Jeremiah 13:9

9Thus saith the Lord, After this manner will I mar the apride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.

False pride is a destroyer of good works.

[Jamie123]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I've always rejected the idea that sexual immorality is a form of pride, on the grounds that most of us are not "proud" of our sexual sins. I doubt very much that Tiger Woods felt "proud" when stories of his misbehaviour were splashed all over the media. And

yet Blackmarch makes an excellent point:

...pride is the centering on the self at putting the self above other things...Pride is what comes before adultery ever happens.

A proud man may think that he can indulge his lusts without getting caught, or without it corrupting other parts of his life, or (like someone slipping into alcohol abuse or overeating or drug addiction) that he "can control it".

However, in another of his books (Surprised by Joy), after giving a hellish description of life at his old school where the senior students (or "Bloods") whose lives were normally taken up with the struggle to move up the school hierarchy, as a recreation engaged in homosexual relationships with their juniors, Lewis says the following...

If those of us who have known a school like [Malvern] dared to speak the truth, we should have to say that pederasty, however great an evil in itself, was, in that time and place, the only foothold or cranny left for certain good things. It was the only counterpoise to the social struggle; the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with foetid water) in the burning desert of competitive ambition. In his unnatural love affairs, and perhaps only there, the Blood went a little out of himself, forgot for a few hours that he was One of the Most Important People There Are. It softens the picture. A perversion was the only chink left through which something spontaneous and uncalculating could creep in. Plato was right after all. Eros, turned upside down, blackened, distorted, and filthy, still bore traces of his divinity.

This is quite a brave thing for a Christian writer to say, and I'm sure it got him into a lot of trouble at the time! But was he right? Were these pederastic liaisons really a comparative good against a background of prideful ambition, or were they rather an extension of the general pridefulness of these young men - a conceited belief that their station in life (within the closed world of the school) gave them a right to indulge their baser urges?

I'm inclined to view Lewis' opinions with some scepticism here - though he certainly does get you thinking!

Edited July 29, 2011 by Jamie123

[MormonMama]

Now this flies in the face of what many Mormons believe.

I don't think this is true. I have heard it taught in Sunday School that pride may be the worst sin because it leads to so many others. I know I saw a quote somewhere once that said something like pride was the root of all sin. After all, sexual immorality often has to do with getting what you want when you want, even thinking you're entitled to it (and that could probably be said about almost any sin). Is that not prideful?

This is quite a brave thing for a Christian writer to say, and I'm sure it got him into a lot of trouble at the time! But was he right? Were these pederastic liaisons really a comparative good against a background of prideful ambition, or were they rather an extension of the general pridefulness of these young men - a conceited belief that their station in life (within the closed world of the school) gave them a right to indulge their baser urges?

I'm inclined to view Lewis' opinions with some scepticism here - though he certainly does get you thinking!

I think that a greater wrong does not make a lesser one okay. You can't say, "Well, at least they weren't doing this because they were doing that instead." That just paves the way for excuses. "Well, at least if I'm looking at porn then I'm not out there cheating on my spouse with another person." So in that regard, I can't agree with Lewis on that one.

I'm sure any of those junior students who may have been traumatized by their seniors might agree with me.

Edited July 29, 2011 by MormonMama

[Guest Sachi001]

I don't think this is true. I have heard it taught in Sunday School that pride may be the worst sin because it leads to so many others. I know I saw a quote somewhere once that said something like pride was the root of all sin. After all, sexual immorality often has to do with getting what you want when you want, even thinking you're entitled to it (and that could probably be said about almost any sin). Is that not prideful?

I think that a greater wrong does not make a lesser one okay. You can't say, "Well, at least they weren't doing this because they were doing that instead." That just paves the way for excuses. "Well, at least if I'm looking at porn then I'm not out there cheating on my spouse with another person." So in that regard, I can't agree with Lewis on that one.

I'm sure any of those junior students who may have been traumatized by their seniors might agree with me.

I believe Lewis wasn't condoning one or the other as okay. He is just stating what is the greater sin that leads toward a greater downfall and much more harder to repent and atone toward.

[Just_A_Guy]

A proud man may think that he can indulge his lusts without getting caught, or without it corrupting other parts of his life, or (like someone slipping into alcohol abuse or overeating or drug addiction) that he "can control it".

Yes, precisely.

However, in another of his books (Surprised by Joy), after giving a hellish description of life at his old school where the senior students (or "Bloods") whose lives were normally taken up with the struggle to move up the school hierarchy, as a recreation engaged in homosexual relationships with their juniors, Lewis says the following...

I've not read that particular book, and so am not familiar with the details of what Lewis describes. But I can think of two observations in partial rebuttal:

1) Based on what you offer here, it was undeniably pride--whether their own, or those that "drove them" to this activity--that was the major factor in leading these kids into doing what they did.

2) A hard-liner might say that these kids should have sought genuine solace through a relationship with God, rather than through the counterfeit of fornication. Seeking release through sex (or any other generally-verbotten activity) might be interpreted as a rejection of God as ultimate Comforter.

[RVaSydney]

I've always rejected the idea that sexual immorality is a form of pride, on the grounds that most of us are not "proud" of our sexual sins. I doubt very much that Tiger Woods felt "proud" when stories of his misbehaviour were splashed all over the media.

Though I can see where others would argue otherwise, I don't necessarily see sexual immorality as a form of pride. Particularly when it comes to behaviors that can lead to addictions like viewing pornography or masturbation. We have seen many people post on this forum who are genuinely broken in spirit and not prideful. Perhaps the initial sin had something to do with pride, but truly contrite individuals succumb to sexual immorality because of their weakness to an addiction.

Though I wouldn't call sexual immorality a flea bite, I do think pride is potentially more dangerous because it prevents people from seeking out help. Because of pride, many people believe they do not need to see the Bishop (which is required for serious sins like sexual immorality) and instead think that they can do the repentance process on their own. Having to see the Bishop and confess definitely requires an abandonment of pride.

From some of the stories I have read on here, letting pride prevent one from confessing to the Bishop often leads to a tragic struggle with guilt and shame, relapsing into destructive habits, and a stalling of spiritual growth. Whereas someone who has been sexually immoral, yet is able to abandon their pride and seek help, is able to readily confess and begin the repentance progress. It might take a year or so before they can have all the privileges in the Church (they might trip up and relapse if they have an addiction even while seeking help), but that is one year compared to the many years others choose to endure out of pride before finally confessing.

Edited August 3, 2011 by RVaSydney

[ruthiechan]

We have guidelines in how to prevent sexual immorality. It's when those guidelines are ignored that lead two people to fornicate. Why are those guidelines ignored (this is assuming that ignorance does not play a role here)? Pride. You don't need to follow those guidelines, you're strong enough or it's not really a big deal. That's pride right there.

The reason murder and fornication are the top sins after denying the Holy Ghost after having a knowledge of it, is that when you kill someone, or when you have sex with someone, you can not give it back. You can't give someone their life back after taking it away. Once you have sex, you can not give yourself your virginity back, nor to the person you had sex with. It's gone.

[Jamie123]

Once you have sex, you can not give yourself your virginity back, nor to the person you had sex with. It's gone.

It's funny you should say that, because I once went to a seminar (I believe it was at Spring Harvest in 1997) where the speaker argued that through true repentance you could get your virginity back after fornication. Not literally of course (especially if you're a woman) but that the innocence and bliss associated with virginity could be restored through God's grace.

[Guest fadedleaf]

Some of the musings of C.S. Lewis are relevant and the rest are products of fiction. C.S. Lewis for his time was attempting the same role as Martin Luther did in doctrinal stances of the Catholic Church. I’m not going to get too far into this, as this would hijack the entire forum, turning it from a discussion to an object of banal homilies. Was C.S. Lewis far thinking? – Yes. Was C.S. Lewis a Prophet or like Jesus? – NO. One could almost draw the parable like this – “C.S. Lewis was an obvious religious thinker that wanted to change the world with radical ideas that…Wasn’t there a gentleman from New York in the 1820’s that did the same thing?” I grow weary of religious ineptitude to want to make claim on such writers; it’s the same manner in which the Crusaders claimed Jesus for conquests.

Going forward, whenever I hear talks or sermons given on pride I always want to take a full length body mirror so the person speaking knows who they need to talk to. The words, “Beware of piety for impiety, righteousness for unrighteousness, and testimony for demonic temptation,” was not spoken at the LDS church but from the pulpit of a Pentecostal church I had visited with my wife. (The back story is that my spouse’s family has gone to an Assembly of God church for over four generations, which created pastors). He went on to quote from 1 Corinthians 5:11 “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” And he also cross referenced it with John 3:20, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, least his deeds should be reproved.” Both verses stuck a cord in me as I have sinned, and I wanted to hide my sins. Hiding my sins does not make them go away, and neither does changing the viewpoint of the congregation so I may keep doing them. Nonetheless, I know about the Atonement, and I know what it means to repent and have repented. Likewise, those who choose to live in sin, whether sexual, drunkenness, idolatrous, or otherwise have not sought the Atonement, but choose (this is a conscious effort) to live in their iniquity. Forgiveness and grace are different from accepting someone’s sexual sin or impureness. Should we ask those who have sinned sexually or otherwise to come to church? – Absolutely. What better place to seek forgiveness if not in God’s House. Should we allow those who are still in their sin be allowed to teach those who are not? – In my humble opinion the answer is no. I would in no wise accept council from a Bishop in fornication then I would an operation form a med school dropout.

Nevertheless, we can accept people for who they are without having to accept what they have done. There are many, many sexual predators sitting in prison right now believing to their self they have done no wrong.

It isn’t pride that causes one to rebuke sin, it’s love and selflessness. And it is with Love that the sinner will want come back, whole, as Heavenly Father intended it.

Now I know I will get several responses from those that will disagree, maybe not kindly so, and will use biblical scripture in an attempt to fortify their argument in heated passion. I want to assure those reading this know I mean no harm; I am simply stating what I feel to be true. For those that agree, do not allow anyone to take the truth away from you. Hold fast to the iron rod, it will be your salvation.