Sin and Transgression vs. Morality

My one and only personal comment:

You used the name Carlos on previous messages you posted here, so I will call you that until I get a real name. I don’t care for games, so I will ignore the “clue” I assure you I understood. That simply is childish.

Carlos, I have said over and over and over again that I accept completely the Church’s stance that homosexual activity falls in the category of sin and transgression. I said that in this very post. I believe that. Fully. I also have said that I do not support gay marriage. I believe those unions should be civil unions – not marriage. I still read some academic treatises on the topic – just not “most”. To suggest that I will end up walking in a gay-pride parade is ludicrous.

This post is about understanding sin, transgression and morality. Again, I used homosexuality as the example because it gets stereotyped and over-simplified so often and because it is such a good example of the difficulty of understanding actions on an individual level.

If this is a waste of your time, so be it. Don’t bother commenting on posts that are a waste of your time. That is your agency, so if you continue to comment you can’t blame anyone but yourself for the wasted time.

Back to the topic. To everyone:

We have debated homosexuality ad infinitum in other threads. This is not the place for that, and I ask again that this not turn into that. This is about the much broader issue of how we define and deal with sin, transgression and morality in our own lives – regardless of the specific manifestation of it within ourselves. Please limit your comments to that defined topic.

Ray,

Interesting ideas. Under your definition of morality, how would you define the term “moral relativism”?

#6 – as a redundancy? *grin*

Seriously, as much as it appears that I am advocating moral relativism, I don’t like the term or what it connotes for most people who use it. I believe “morals” really do differ from one culture and time to another, but within the group who defines them morals are not relative. Often, they are so embedded within that group’s religion that it is difficult – if not impossible – to differentiate the “moral” from the “religious”. In those terms, morality isn’t “relative” at all. In practical terms, morality only is relative from the historical macro-view. To say it a little differently, if Mormon morality differs from the morality of our American society at large, I don’t believe that we can cast off our own “Mormon morality” as “relative”. I think we can recognize the dis-congruence (and even allow for conflicting moralities among co-existent groups), but I don’t think we should abandon the morality that makes us unique and peculiar.

My reason for addressing this topic in this way is that Mormons occupy a fascinating position within it. We differentiate between sin and transgression – while many don’t; we articulate multiple kingdoms of glory, whose attainment is tied in a way to the distinctions I discussed here – and no other Christians do; we have been on both sides of the “morality line” in this country – acting immorally by the standard of our greater American community at one time but being staunch defenders of American morality a few decades later – and now on the cusp of being positioned against the “new morality” that is emerging.

That is very unique and worthy of contemplation, imo.

Ray,

I don’t know if you caught this little point in your debate between “sin” and “transgression” but reread the article of faith:

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

So was what Adam did a “sin” if transgressions are not always sins?

Note more importantly that Adam’s transgression was punishable, even if he did so in ignorance or not, even if it considered a sin or not. He was still punished for his “transgression.”

I can’t answer those questions on the individual level, but I am convinced that there are many people whose inclinations and urges are so deeply ingrained and powerful that to require them to suppress those inclinations literally is to ask of them the impossible. I am fine with maintaining the belief in certain activity as sin, but how do the distinctions discussed here affect our view of the Atonement?

What I understand from 33 years of experience in this life now, is that inclinations are hardened into habits and normalities the more they are pursued and nourished. They become more powerful and hardened through time and use. This, of course, varies among each individual, just how powerful those feelings naturally are, and how easy/hard it is to overcome, bridle and contain them. I am truly addicted to Dr. Pepper. I get nasty headaches if I go without caffeine for one day. I’m working to get off caffeine, but the damage is already done, and it is harder now than it would have been before.

In the case of homosexuality, I am getting the feeling that the real reason behind the church’s efforts to not legitimize and legalize sexuality between members of the same sex is that that will undermine the sinful nature of the act; it will make it harder to claim that act as a sin. Society has rejected the stoning of individuals for the crimes they commit even though that was one of the original forms of punishment for that sin, for some very minor things too, according to the Old Testament. As society has rejected those forms of punishments, the religions turned too, removing those forms of punishment from their systems. Nowadays, even in our church, a man can go out and have sexual relations with a woman and he’ll get disfellowshipped at best, excommunicated at worst.

Sorry for the long post.

“How deeply ingrained are the urges associated with sin, transgression and morality for each person?”

I think that morality is learned through implicit environmental observation and explicit indoctrinal education, mostly while in our youth. Just as the Proverb says “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it”, I think morality becomes deeply ingrained into our psyche, and colors our worldview for the rest of our lives. Over time, many of us expand our experience and learn to think outside the morality we were taught as children, but we still constantly confront it and can never quite be rid of it (I’m not saying we necessarily *should* be rid of it). Many don’t realize that morality operates on the learned behavior plane, and therefore have a hard time separating morality from “sin” because these same individuals often have strong religious backgrounds as well. I suspect that morality is what caused people of previous generations to unquestioningly (for the most part) perpetuate racist, misogynist, etc. attitudes without malice or evil intent. Similarly, in regard to homosexuals, I think the learned morality against homosexuality is one that will take time to change.

At the same time, I think that certain responses to stimuli are innate, and therefore have a way of becoming unconsciously ingrained into public morality. For example, Michael Pollan, in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, posits that humans have evolved (lets not get off track here!) an aversion to decaying foods with an inborn “disgust” response that prevents them from consuming food sources that could potentially kill them. This disgust response has some universality to it, but taking a look at the wide variety of different cuisines from different racial and ethnic groups worldwide as evidence, the disgust response is not universal for all types of food. I think that sexuality may work the same way in varying levels for various people. The majority of people have a strong aversion, even “disgust” response to images or thoughts of homosexual acts, particularly between members of their own gender. I think this aversion has its place in natural selection, influencing most people to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and therefore ensure the survival of the species through reproduction. Since the majority exhibit this aversion, it finds place in the public morality of most cultures quite readily. That’s not to say that those people born without this aversion, (or the opposite, an aversion for members of the opposite sex) aren’t human or have a psychological or physiological problems; they simply find themselves outside the cadre of acceptable (public) moral behavior. These innate responses are deeply ingrained, and hard (impossible?) to change.

So I think a combination of innate attraction or aversion to stimuli, combined with learned behavior informing our own concept of morality all have a hand in how deeply ingrained the urges associated with sin. Additionally, sinning over and over again can have an ingraining effect as well.

“How is your recurring, seemingly unconquerable weakness different for you than homosexuality is for others?”

My recurring weakness is seeking pornography and masturbation as an outlet for stress and the pressures of conformity in my rather structured life. (don’t worry, my wife and bishop both know about it and we’re working on it.) I think I have a strong natural sexual drive, and I also have a history of indulgence that has made resisting the urge to view pornography difficult. Additionally, my moral training taught me that pornography and masturbation were terribly wrong, embarassing, and shameful. I don’t think my experience with my recurring weakness is terribly different than those with homosexual urges, however. In fact, as addictions go, I’m not sure how my experience is terribly different (or worse) than those who struggle with addiction to food (and there are a lot of people, and a lot of LDS people, who struggle with this). I guess that because pornography is labelled as “immoral” and food isn’t, therein lies the difference. But God calls gluttony in all its manifestations “sin”. Then is there an hierarchy of sin? I know that the scriptures say that sexual sin is second unto murder, but I wonder how much of that is public morality speaking, and how much of that is God making a list of sins from greatest to least (I got my money on the public morality). Either way, any sin is going to keep you from god.

At the same time, I can’t say either food or pornography can be equated to homosexual urges and behavior. Although too much food is a problem, we need food to survive. Similarly, although overindulgence in sexual thoughts and acts is a problem, sexual expression is at core of human activity, and even if I don’t look at pornography, I can satisfy those urges with my wife in “moral” ways. Homosexuals, on the other hand, struggle with innate urges that defy public morality and possibly God’s will, and are offered no means of recourse in this life. Its not like a 24-hour fast, after which we can eat again; its not like having to patient oneself until the next sexual encounter with one’s spouse a few days or maybe weeks later. This is a lifetime of denial of one of the most basic human needs: to love and be loved, and to express that love in physically intimate ways. Herein lies the problem, for me: I know how strong my urges for physical and emotional intimacy with my spouse, and assuming that some, maybe most homosexuals have similar urges as well, how is the expression of theirs a sin, but not mine? I don’t know the answer to this.

I found SteveS’ comment insightful. The Church’s official position is that only homosexual acts are sinful. Often times, however, homosexuality in general (which is more of a passive condition, like heterosexuality) gets labeled as a sin which condemns people as sinful merely for existing – regardless of their actions. This can be and has been a dangerous stance to take as the consequences often lead to suicide for the one trying to live a righteous life, yet finds him/herself to be gay.

But we are also taught that our thoughts of our hearts will condemn us. What happens when our attitudes (seemingly) contradict God’s plan – even though we have not expressly broken a commandment? As a faithful member of the Church, I have a desire to follow the council of the prophets, but as a gay man, I have no real desire to marry a woman. Is my not wanting to enter into a marital relationship sinful even though it has been called the “duty” and “responsibility” of every worthy Priesthood holder? If sin is “seeking our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other people and with all creation”, then I guess it does…assuming it is the will of God that I marry in this life. But is there such a thing as an exception?

In a fireside, Dallin H. Oaks explained “As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.” That places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of gay Mormons and to be honest, I find it sometimes terrifying. Am I an exception? What if I’m wrong?

To be honest, I don’t know the answer.

Gay Mormons do exist and it can be difficult for us to deal with all the negativity that gets thrown around from outside and inside the Church. We need never apologize for doctrine, but we do need to be aware that our attitudes can make the life of the person sitting next to us at church much more difficult (or much more manageable).

Re: My favorite definition of morality is, “The standards commonly upheld in a society as being what the people in that society believe to be proper.

The trouble here is that what people believe to be proper and what they tolerate in silence for the sake of political correctness are two different things. The youth of a society then get the message that the silence = tacit approval and the values of a generation can be lost. Not to mention external forces at work.

Look at yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the use of capital punishment for the crime of child rape. In the decision that it was unconstitutional, one of the arguments was:

“Evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment to allow the extension of the death penalty, a hesitation that has special force where no life was taken in the commission of the crime.”

I would argue that evolving standards of decency do not necessarily mark the progress of a maturing society. In fact, judicial courts overturning voter approved legislation signals the refusal to recognize the standards of decency of the people.

#20 – I was writing my comment and missed yours. Excellent point – and rarely considered. I make no secret of my rejection of the idea that morals only evolve in a progressively rising line. I believe firmly that morals can and do slide or descend regularly.

Now I really am out of time.

Interesting discution. This is always something I struggled to understand. LDS Transgression and Morality are unique IMO to Mormonism in many ways. I don’t know of other faiths, but Im sure there are some, that have additional sins for members – mostly thinking of Baptism and the Temple ceremonies. Once you have taken out those ordinances there are more ways to transgress (Word of Wisdom, Garments, Tithing etc – specific member only commandments). With other mainstream Christian churches I do not see that, it seems that most believe a sin is a sin no matter whom you are or what you religion you align yourself with. In addition I believe its a unique SLC LDS belief that the mentally handicapped are incapable of sin.

I consider myself a Buddhist now, and the view of “sin” is completely different than the western worlds. In fact it took me several years to really understand it (I should note here I realize my form of Buddhism is not speaking for all Buddhist because there are many divisions there too.) Basically the way I understand all actions have an equal or opposite reaction and there is no real moral value placed on them, however its outcome is what is important. The main goal of Buddhism is to stop all suffering and the only way to do that is to stop attachment, so in a way the attachment to something or some outcome your hoping for is the “sin.” (Which could be argued as similar to LDS teaching in trying to detach yourself from this world to Heavenly Father – only with out the religious stigma that is common in the west).