For the Strength of Youth 2012

[pellegrino]

My wife (very repentant about such things now) refused to kiss passionately until we were engaged. At this I drew the line in the sand: we were not getting engaged until such things happened, and if she was going to be resolute about it I'd find myself somebody less prude. I won, but not without discussion.

It is not surprising that I have some mixed feelings towards this pamphlet.

I do too, and to be honest, I'll sit my girls down and we'll go over every word in this pamphlet to make sure there are no misunderstandings.

I really wish they had dropped the "second only to murder" bit. If we are going to insist on a graduated scale of sins then there has to be a huge abyss between premarital sexual activity and homicide. The one is a natural, innate desire found in all humans, the other is something most humans abhor. How can they be that close to each other? It seems completely illogical to me.

The "arouse sexual feelings" bit always confuses me. Being in the same room as a member of the opposite sex is enough to arouse sexual feelings in a teenage boy. A random rainstorm can too. I think a better path would be to say, "hey, you're going to be aroused a lot for many reasons or even no reason at all and that's okay - just don't act on your arousal in these ways and you're good."

I agree 100% with this, why not say to both of them that you're going to have sexual urges, that it is a natural part of being human but that as LDS we should seek to "bridle our passions" and avoid premarital activity? The scriptural reference would give parents and leaders a great opportunity to then discuss how that relates to sexual activity. It seems unhealthy and unnecessarily repressive to simply say "never let those feelings be felt" because then when they are felt literal minded kids feel guilty over nothing.

[TripletDaddy]

The only place ranking sins makes sense is when talking about sins that cause physical death, sins that cause spiritual death, and all the rest of sindom.

Maybe Corianton did get jiggy with Izzy. But if he did, it isn't the jiggy alone that is the subject of Alma's wrath. It is the effect it had on the Zoramites. If Corianton had looted the Rameumptum treasury and made off with the treasure, the result would have also been the sin next to murder.

In other words, the sin next to murder does not have to be related to sex. It has to do with lust in this instance, but other sins, leading to others rejection of the gospel, would also qualify.

In my wife's mission in Holland a missionary got a wild hair and ran off to the red light district in Amsterdam and hired a whore. He claimed that when the door closed, he didn't go through with it--they just sat and talked for about an hour. My wife believes him. He was sent home anyway. If his investigators knew he went and hired a prostitute, they probably would not have taken the Mormon message as seriously. It really didn't matter whether his willy got wet or not. True story.

This might also be true for Corianton--or they might have engaged in a kama sutra marathon. I hope it was the latter. If he is going to get pegged with it for the duration of the last dispensation, I hope he at least he got to enjoy the moment.

Thanks. I think this is a much better, or rather more compete answer than your initial response, which seemed to dismiss the sexual impurity angle entirely ("no such thing"). After expounding a bit, it seems that you acknowledge that portion of Alma's admonition.

Im not sure Alma was talking about sexual sin in the strict sense, given it is quite possible that the sin wasn't a consummated act, but rather a lusting in the heart. You could actually make a strong argument based on subsequent verses beyond verse 5 that the sin in question was, indeed, sexual lust, not necessarily a physical act. Heartening back to nik's earlier point about forsaking, I wonder if Alma is using lust in a broad sense....lusting after flesh, lusting after things other than the ministry, etc....all of these things are a huge abomination.

[ERCougar]

I don't want to belabor this, but I still think the Rambam reading is forced.

Of course we rank sins, and our rankings extend far beyond spiritual death vs not. And properly so--if you believe that sin causes a rift between God and the sinner, and that the rift must be overcome, through a combination of personal effort and the Atonement, then some rifts will be harder to overcome than others. Sure, causing spiritual death in someone else (is this even possible?) would represent a huge rift, but certainly stealing a car (to pick a random example) represents something bigger than lusting after Nadine Wimmer?

Which is why I think to read this passage as simply a general discussion on the PR damage caused from a missionary screwing up seems really forced to me. Nor do I think he's just talking about general lusts after general things. He's just too specific about the sexual sin. We may just have to agree to disagree.

*My opinion on church discipline and punishment is not a secret on here. I also hate the teaching about sexual sin being next to murder. It's clearly not true, very few if any members really believe that, and it's a terrible way to talk to someone who has made a mistake. But at the same time, the teaching is understandable if you believe the BOM to be the infallible transcription of the words of infallible prophets and indicates the much more natural reading of the passage. I think it's hyperbole.

[jay santos]

My thoughts on this

1. Rambam's take is extremely forced. Especially this comparison between physical murder and spiritual murder. Very random.
2. Alma's a little unclear. On the one hand he does refer to "these things" possibly it's a combination of multiple sins or situations, but then he clearly defines one particular sin being next to murder, not a combination.
3. Sexual sin is condemned all through the scriptures yet this poorly defined sin of forsaking the ministry and leading converts astray is not mentioned.
4. I'm fine with ranking sins. I think it's somewhat practical. But on the flip side, we should acknowledge that we all sin, and it's really not that big of a deal. We sin, we repent. That's what life is for. Saying you're a sinner is like saying you're a human. Saying you're a real serious sinner is saying you're really human. No biggie. If you look at how Jesus treated the woman taken in adultery and how Alma reacted to his son's sexual sin, you get a picture how how sin, even very serious sin, should be handled.

[cowboy]

My thoughts on this

1. Rambam's take is extremely forced. Especially this comparison between physical murder and spiritual murder. Very random.
2. Alma's a little unclear. On the one hand he does refer to "these things" possibly it's a combination of multiple sins or situations, but then he clearly defines one particular sin being next to murder, not a combination.
3. Sexual sin is condemned all through the scriptures yet this poorly defined sin of forsaking the ministry and leading converts astray is not mentioned.
4. I'm fine with ranking sins. I think it's somewhat practical. But on the flip side, we should acknowledge that we all sin, and it's really not that big of a deal. We sin, we repent. That's what life is for. Saying you're a sinner is like saying you're a human. Saying you're a real serious sinner is saying you're really human. No biggie. If you look at how Jesus treated the woman taken in adultery and how Alma reacted to his son's sexual sin, you get a picture how how sin, even very serious sin, should be handled.

I agree with this. In light of #4, it also seems entirely possible that Alma meant what Elder Holland says it meant. We're taught that murder is the only sin that all of us can commit (since denying the Holy Ghost isn't really possible for most of us) for which forgiveness is nearly impossible. Everything else can be forgiven. Hence, ranking sins below murder is just a matter of consequence, and bringing an innocent child into the world without two loving parents is a pretty big deal. I'm not going to argue against ER's assertion that child abuse is worse, just that boinking out of wedlock is also really bad because of the possible outcome.

Where I have a problem with teachings on morality is treating all sexual impurity the same. Pornography, masturbation, heavy petting, etc., are not the same as sex, as our kids are often led to believe, and I agree with santos that we should teach our children to avoid these things because of what they lead to.

My opinion on confession of these things to the bishop has also evolved, and I will teach my kids that confession is necessary if they 1) have a problem that they can't get under control, or 2) engage in a sexual relationship with another person. Beyond that, I'm teaching them that repentance is between them, the Lord, and anyone that their actions may have harmed. I hope I'm not leading them to hell, as my stance on this is a departure from my normally very conservative interpretation of the doctrine, but I think fear of the bishop stands in the way of our youths' spiritual progression far more than we realize.

[Surfah]

I agree with this. In light of #4, it also seems entirely possible that Alma meant what Elder Holland says it meant. We're taught that murder is the only sin that all of us can commit (since denying the Holy Ghost isn't really possible for most of us) for which forgiveness is nearly impossible. Everything else can be forgiven. Hence, ranking sins below murder is just a matter of consequence, and bringing an innocent child into the world without two loving parents is a pretty big deal. I'm not going to argue against ER's assertion that child abuse is worse, just that boinking out of wedlock is also really bad because of the possible outcome.

Where I have a problem with teachings on morality is treating all sexual impurity the same. Pornography, masturbation, heavy petting, etc., are not the same as sex, as our kids are often led to believe, and I agree with santos that we should teach our children to avoid these things because of what they lead to.

My opinion on confession of these things to the bishop has also evolved, and I will teach my kids that confession is necessary if they 1) have a problem that they can't get under control, or 2) engage in a sexual relationship with another person. Beyond that, I'm teaching them that repentance is between them, the Lord, and anyone that their actions may have harmed. I hope I'm not leading them to hell, as my stance on this is a departure from my normally very conservative interpretation of the doctrine, but I think fear of the bishop stands in the way of our youths' spiritual progression far more than we realize.

Not surprisingly I agree with everything here.

[Pheidippides]

Not surprisingly I agree with everything here.

I disagree in part with cowboy's agreement but the last paragraph in particular reflects what I'm teaching my kids too.

[Moliere]

I agree with this. In light of #4, it also seems entirely possible that Alma meant what Elder Holland says it meant. We're taught that murder is the only sin that all of us can commit (since denying the Holy Ghost isn't really possible for most of us) for which forgiveness is nearly impossible. Everything else can be forgiven. Hence, ranking sins below murder is just a matter of consequence, and bringing an innocent child into the world without two loving parents is a pretty big deal. I'm not going to argue against ER's assertion that child abuse is worse, just that boinking out of wedlock is also really bad because of the possible outcome.

I once asked the question on CB and couldn't get a good answer so I'll ask it here. If two people fornicate and the women gets pregnant, is that a more serious sin than if they fornicated and she didn't get pregnant?

[Surfah]

I once asked the question on CB and couldn't get a good answer so I'll ask it here. If two people fornicate and the women gets pregnant, is that a more serious sin than if they fornicated and she didn't get pregnant?

Do you believe there is a difference between someone having safe sex and unprotected sex?

[Moliere]

Do you believe there is a difference between someone having safe sex and unprotected sex?

That's not the question I asked. Two people can have unprotected sex and not end up parents. I'm just wondering if there is a difference between getting a girl pregnant and not getting a girl pregnant. The church seems to say there is a difference, but at the end of the day it's a crapshoot. Even having protected sex can lead to pregnancy.

[jay santos]

I once asked the question on CB and couldn't get a good answer so I'll ask it here. If two people fornicate and the women gets pregnant, is that a more serious sin than if they fornicated and she didn't get pregnant?

I agree with the rationale that sexual sin is serious because of the potential of bringing a child into life with a less than ideal parental situation.

But you can't use that as logic in comparing to child abuse. With sexual sin, there is a possible outcome a child will come into earth that will have some serious obstacles to healthy, normal life. With child abuse, you're guaranteeing a child has serious obstacles to healthy, normal life.

[SteelBlue]

That's not the question I asked. Two people can have unprotected sex and not end up parents. I'm just wondering if there is a difference between getting a girl pregnant and not getting a girl pregnant. The church seems to say there is a difference, but at the end of the day it's a crapshoot. Even having protected sex can lead to pregnancy.

Along the same lines, is it somehow less of a sin if procreation isn't a possibility?

[Pheidippides]

Do you believe there is a difference between someone having safe sex and unprotected sex?

Of course there's a difference. One used a :condom: and one didn't.

Sin wise I don't know. I know which one I consider more irresponsible.

Let me flip the question around on you: which of the following do you find more sinful? A career woman who has a kid out of wedlock but very much planned and takes care of the kid well, or a married couple that has their seventh kid because they're too lazy to care and the kid gets the shit beat out of him or her regularly by the dad? I know which one I find more morally reprehensible.

[Surfah]

That's not the question I asked. Two people can have unprotected sex and not end up parents. I'm just wondering if there is a difference between getting a girl pregnant and not getting a girl pregnant. The church seems to say there is a difference, but at the end of the day it's a crapshoot. Even having protected sex can lead to pregnancy.

I know it's not what you asked, but I think it's relevant to the question at least in my mind. And I think all of us do to some degree. If we had children that were fornicating and would not stop, wouldn't we at least encourage them to practice safe sex? If someone is having safe sex they're at least exercising some degree of responsibility and acknowledging there are consequences (perhaps only implicitly) of their actions. So yes I think there is a difference.

But really to me it's a silly exercise to rank these types of things. Is repeated fornication in a committed relationship worse than a solitary one night stand? Kind of like Cowboy said, I agree that murder is the worst thing anyone can do and everything else falls behind that. Where, well it depends on each individual. Even my own opinions and "rankings" are constantly evolving. And I think they should with circumstance and context.

[Surfah]

Of course there's a difference. One used a :condom: and one didn't.

Sin wise I don't know. I know which one I consider more irresponsible.

Let me flip the question around on you: which of the following do you find more sinful? A career woman who has a kid out of wedlock but very much planned and takes care of the kid well, or a married couple that has their seventh kid because they're too lazy to care and the kid gets the shit beat out of him or her regularly by the dad? I know which one I find more morally reprehensible.

See my last post.