I have puzzled over the question of sin: Is an action inherently sinful, or is it ascribed that meaning by God? It seems to be the latter, because the same action can be either laudable or a sin depending on the circumstance (e.g. Nephi was justified in killing Laban because God told him to, yet God told Moses that killing is a sin; sex outside of marriage is wicked and filthy but in marriage is beautiful; polygamy was once a commandment but now you can be excommunicated for it). If that is the case, why does God ascribe that meaning to it? It seems that the consequences (either feeling happy or sad) of either abstaining from or committing the sin only come because of the value God ascribes to the action (e.g., Nephi didn't feel enormous guilt and spiritual darkness after killing Laban). So why ascribe negative values to these actions in the first place? Are they just arbitrary and used as a test? Is sex not inherently bad outside of marriage but God created the confines of marriage to create separate circumstances to test us? This larger issue is a topic for another day; right now I want to focus on the Law of Chastity in all of its glory.
The Aaronic Priesthood manual encourages leaders to "[e]xplain that sexual sin has very grave consequences for them." Why? "In the eyes of the Lord it is second only to murder in its seriousness because it tampers with the sacred powers of procreation, and it is not easily repented of." Second only to murder. An action you save doing for years which is apparently one of the crowning beauties of life can also be akin to murder. One day, it's next to murder. The next day, it can be great. How does that set-up not create complexes for people? It definitely has for me. How are you supposed to mentally switch off the idea that sex is bad once you're married when that thought has been drilled into you for years and years?
The only reasons I have found for why extramarital sex is wrong is because 1. it uses procreative powers inappropriately and 2. God said so. It is apparently next to murder because, while homicide takes away someone's life unnecessarily, sex outside of marriage can give someone life (unnecessarily?). But murder, by its nature, always takes away someone's life. If it doesn't, then it's only attempted murder. But sex doesn't create a baby every time. And in this modern age where birth control is readily available, pregnancy can even be avoided the majority of the time.
This leads to the question: If a sexual encounter does not result in a fertilized egg, is it still wrong? If it's wrong because it "tampers with the sacred powers of procreation," is it (more) excusable if it doesn't tamper with them? (I suppose you could say that no matter what, having sex always "tampers" with those powers.) If attempted murder is nowhere as bad as actual murder because the person didn't actually die, is attempted egg fertilization not as bad as actual egg fertilization?
What about more gray areas of the Law of Chastity that are still considered wrong? Are varieties of sex other than intercourse still wrong even though they can't create a new life? (I suppose they could, but very indirectly.) What about homosexuality? It's impossible for two people of the same gender to create a new life. So why exactly is it wrong other than because God says so?
Like I said above, the only reason other than "because God says so" that I can find for why unchastity (spellchecker says that's not a word...if it is, then maybe it's in Newspeak) is because it could bring a life into the world outside of marriage. But what if the sexual act doesn't or can't? I can't find an answer for why that would then still be wrong. If the thing that's wrong about it is that it creates life, then is it not wrong when it doesn't create life?
So why is breaking the Law of Chastity (having sexual relations outside of marriage) next to murder? Shouldn't just bringing a life into the world outside of marriage actually be next to murder? You could say I just "logicked" my way to this conclusion, I suppose. But really, why is it wrong? There just seems to be a lot of hemming and hawing around the reasoning and this subject in general.
Good questions! I don't really have anything to add, except I thought you brought up a lot of good points and things to think about in general.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget masturbation! It's not quite next to murder, but still heavily condemned by the church. Is it tampering with the sacred procreative powers? There's not much chance that I could father a child by jerking off, and (arguably) even less that you could mother one through similar activity.
ReplyDeleteI've gone through almost your same thought process myself, and in the end I've only been able to come to the same conclusions as you have. From what I can tell the only thing that makes premarital sex sinful is that God said so. Unfortunately, this conclusion is more confusing than just accepting that it's bad, and I'm afraid I don't have any answers. Hopefully, as the world moves toward being more and more open about sex we'll get some of that in the Church as well. To be clear, I'm not saying I want the Church will change their definition of chastity. I'm saying I hope that within the Church discussions about sex won't produce awkward silences and dirty thoughts, and we can have actual discussions about chastity and maybe answer some of these questions.
ReplyDelete