JFS on Sexual Sin

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

JFS on Sexual Sin

Post by _Jason Bourne »

in my opinion this is one of the better quotes about sexual sin in the LDS Church. I have referred to it and finally I found it sitting in a folder on my laptop.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Pg.310-311) "There are said to be more shades of green than of any other color, so also we are of the opinion there are more grades or degrees of sin associated with the improper relationship of the sexes than of any other wrongdoing of which we have knowledge. They all involve a grave offense -- the sin against chastity, but in numerous instances this sin is intensified by the breaking of sacred covenants, to which is sometimes added deceit, intimidation or actual violence.
Much as all these sins are to be denounced and deplored, we can ourselves see a difference both in intent and consequence between the offense of a young couple who, being betrothed, in an unguarded moment, without premeditation fall into sin, and that of the man who having entered into holy places and made sacred covenants, plots to rob the wife of his neighbor of her virtue either by cunning or force and accomplish his vile intent.
Not only is there a difference in these wrongs, judging from the standpoint of intent, but also from that of the consequences. In the first instance the young couple who have transgressed can make partial amends by sincere repentance and by marrying. One reparation, however, they cannot make. They cannot restore the respect that they previously held for each other; and too often as a consequence of this loss of confidence their married life is clouded or embittered by the fear that each has for the other, having once sinned, may do so again. In the other case, others are most disastrously involved, families are broken up, misery is forced upon innocent parties, society is affected, doubt is thrown upon the paternity of children, and from the standpoint of gospel ordinances, the question of descent is clouded and pedigrees become worthless; altogether, wrongs are committed both to the living and the dead, as well as to the yet unborn, which it is out of the power of the offenders to repair or make right.
Sometimes an argument is advanced to limit the provisions of the law of God, as given in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, both with regard to punishment and to forgiveness to those who have entered the House of the Lord and received their endowments. This is not possible, as so many of these provisions were given in revelations published several years before the Saints were permitted to receive these holy ordinances, indeed, before any temple was built. The law as given, we believe to be general, applying to all the Saints. But undoubtedly when, in addition to the actual offense against the laws of chastity, covenants are broken, then the punishment for the double offense will, either in this life or that which is to come, be correspondingly greater and more severe." -- Juvenile Instructor, Nov. 15, 1902, Vol. 37, p. 688.


Some may argue with the topic in general. For example, I think these days pushing marriage on a couple as a condition of repentance may not be prudent. But at least he acknowledges that younger people who may cave in are not hideous and he does not put them next to murder. The idea of varying degrees on this sin ought to be more of a theme when teaching the youth
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: JFS on Sexual Sin

Post by _John Larsen »

I agree in general, but he still says "They all involve a grave offense ". So his point is that they are all still very very bad, just differing degrees of very very bad. The Church still chooses to publicly humiliate children involved in normal activity (masturbation) and excommunicate adults in normal committed, monogamous sexual relationships.

The Church may be progressing, but it has a long way to go.
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: JFS on Sexual Sin

Post by _Tarski »

John Larsen wrote:
The Church may be progressing, but it has a long way to go.


Progressing? Lagging may be a better word. It seems like social progress has always got to fight fundamentalist religions. Remember, womens rights? Remember civil rights? Heck, remember slavery? Remember polygamy?

They don't swallow science easily either as we have seen.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Progressing? Lagging may be a better word. It seems like social progress has always got to fight fundamentalist religions. Remember, womens rights? Remember civil rights? Heck, remember slavery? Remember polygamy?


I seem to recall something about Wyoming, Utah, and suffrage......

Everything else in your list doesn't seem to make your point. In fact, I'd say that the LDS Chruch has been ahead in this area.

They don't swallow science easily either as we have seen.


Every TBM knows that LDS doctrine and science don't conflict.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

bcspace wrote:
Progressing? Lagging may be a better word. It seems like social progress has always got to fight fundamentalist religions. Remember, womens rights? Remember civil rights? Heck, remember slavery? Remember polygamy?


I seem to recall something about Wyoming, Utah, and suffrage......


Why did you include Wyoming? They had nothing to do with polygamy or the LDS church.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

bcspace wrote:In fact, I'd say that the LDS Chruch has been ahead in this area.


How has the LDS Church been ahead in the area of social progress? What precisely are you referring to here?
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

...we can ourselves see a difference both in intent and consequence between the offense of a young couple who, being betrothed, in an unguarded moment, without premeditation fall into sin, and that of the man who having entered into holy places and made sacred covenants, plots to rob the wife of his neighbor of her virtue either by cunning or force and accomplish his vile intent.


Too bad the young couple did not have the angel and the flaming sword justification.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Jason,

I remember thinking that in the LDS church it is a horrible sin if two young people who love each other and find themselves having sex.

Yet, a fifty-five year old man could have sex with his fifteen year old, tenth "wife" (you know, a friend of his granddaughter's), without even a flicker of love, devotion, emotional intimacy, or even a mature, mutual friendship, but most likely a bit of lust, and it is no problem.

:-(

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

from the standpoint of gospel ordinances, the question of descent is clouded and pedigrees become worthless

That makes little sense to me. I know what he's trying to say, but I don't see why it matters. Last I checked, one can be sealed to adoptive parents. Why would would the question of descent have any bearing on chastity being a sin? Even if it did, in today's age there are always DNA tests.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

moksha wrote:
...we can ourselves see a difference both in intent and consequence between the offense of a young couple who, being betrothed, in an unguarded moment, without premeditation fall into sin, and that of the man who having entered into holy places and made sacred covenants, plots to rob the wife of his neighbor of her virtue either by cunning or force and accomplish his vile intent.


Too bad the young couple did not have the angel and the flaming sword justification.


LOL! Gotta love the penguin. ;)
Post Reply