Fiannan wrote:
Help me to understand something. When did church authorities say we could catagorize sin at any degree? All it takes is one sin to keep any of us out of the presence of God. Is there any difference between someone being FAT as opposed to someone else cheating a business partner? In the eyes of God, which of these sinners have a better chance for the Celestial Kingdom, a pick-pocket or a rapist? Or the person that gets a tattoo as opposed to he who is a Meth head? How about a person that uses foul language on other motorists as opposed to someone that is addicted to pornography?
On a lighter side, I once saw a guy wearing a T-shirt that read: I'M FAT, But you are ugly, and I can go on a diet?
Fat people could wear a yellow T-shirt that reads: CAUTION!, WIDE LOAD. And if they're real heavy it would read: CAUTION! EXTRA WIDE LOAD. That way they're less likely to offend anyone.
Okay, so if I wear a blue shirt to church this Sunday I am sinning? If my wife has two ear piercings instead of one she is sinning? I think we should be very careful about what we see as sin and what is merely doing something that is not entirely an aspect of a cultural norm or not. If a woman wore a skirt that was showing her ankles in 1900 I am sure she would have been told to go home from church and put on someting more modest. Today practicaly all women in church wear dresses that show the ankles. Dress styles, ear rings, etc. are cultural norms. I understand why the counsel was given since there are still some people who perceive a tatoo or multiple ear ring on a woman as advertising she is loose, but that is rapidly changing as the cultural norm will change. That does not mean it is a sin to do these things, it is just something that has been discussed due to image.
Also, yes we can categorize sin -- we do it every day in all aspects of life. We most certainly see a child molester as a horrendous sinner as opposed to someone who drives
over the speed limit on an isolated freeway. Sins that hurt others are much more henous to God than something that might hurt one's self. In the Old Testament a big sin required a big sacrifice while a little one required something small.
Saying all sin is equal is sending a dangerous message to young people. On a radio talk show I heard a little of last night they had a Mormon porn actress (probably former) interviewed.
So is a girl with a navel piercing at the same level as the woman on the talk show? Answer...did they both sin?
Christ said,
he that is without sin, cast the first stone. Did he say, those of you that only cheat, lie, swear and get piercings can throw stones at her, but those of you that committed adultery or fornication, you stay still? Somehow I don't think so. Sin is sin.
It's real sad that too many members of the church are still bent on following the precepts of man. What purpose is there to send out a message that says it's okay to have a tattoo, but don't ever look at porno. Man has and always will be apt to commit more and more sin UNLESS he yields his heart to Christ and is reborn. Small sins, as you put, eventually leads to large ones. With the exception of cold blooded murder and sin against the Holy Ghost, sin cannot be catagorized. If you want to know what message to put out to our young people, it's not the concept as to whether or not all is is equal,
it is to not sin at all. Get yourself a copy of Stephen E Robinson's book "Believing Christ" and then tell me that sins are not equal. And believe me, Stephen has had articles in the Ensign about this subject. This is what God says about it:
Alma 45: 16
16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land,
for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.
D&C 1: 31
31
For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;
The wearing of a blue shirt is not sin, it is nothing more than a dress code. Let's get real here, a man working a farm in a remote area that attends church in overalls is not a sin. Clothes that are clean and the person is tidy and striving to keep the commandments is all that is expected. There again, it is only people that have a tendency toward snubbing their nose at the "non conformest" that the real problem lies. In this case, who is the real sinner, the person wearing overalls, or the people snubbing their noses at him. This is nothing more than intense PRIDE, a sin. Why else would God say He will not allow SIN IN THE LEAST DEGREE?
God forgives a porno star just as he would an alcoholic. If he were to catagorize sin, there would be a whole lot less of us going to heaven. And, yes, even fully repentent sex offenders can go to heaven. Why else would God say:
3 Nephi 12:43,44
43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;
44 But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;
And heed this:
Mosiah 26:30,31
30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.
Did he say, "except for" in whatever catagory?
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.
We are commanded to LOVE EVERYONE!
Too many people in the church think they are judge and jury for those who commit heiness sin. They, the accusers, will be the real loser in the end.
God will not allow SIN IN THE LEAST DEGREE
The ATONEMENT is for everyone!!
