In a few recent conversations, there’s been some back and forth over whether a certain behavior is a sin or not.* The minority view, which held that the behavior is a sin, argued that the behavior is harmful and leads to addiction and unhappiness. Those on the opposite side conceded these points, but argued that it’s just unkind and unhelpful to put that label on the behavior, since many engage in it against their will, or with limited agency, or under pressure from society, or are otherwise pitiable.
These arguments sound like non sequiturs to me.
I find it troubling that some seem to assume that the only reason to label something as sin is to be able to condemn and demean those who commit such acts. I think this defensiveness misunderstands the usefulness of the concept of sin, and the way the Savior intends us to apply it.
As Elder Packer says, a sin is an act that is against the will of God. This definition frees us of a lot of baggage up front. A sin is not something engaged in only by the perverted. It is not an act that brings eternal condemnation on the actor. It is simply an act that does not accord with God’s will.
If you accept the gospel, you certainly accept that labeling something as sinful useful in some cases, given that the gospel undertakes such labeling for many behaviors. For example, no one will dispute that it would be a sin to slap one’s spouse with intent to harm. Also, I think that everyone will agree that there is a benefit to using that label in that case: people will understand that hurting one’s spouse is wrong, is disapproved, and breaks God’s law. It is important to note also what the label does not say, though. Saying that slapping one’s spouse is sin does not say that all spouse slappers are wholly awful people, or that we must avoid association with all spouse slappers, or even that no spouse slappers will attain the celestial kingdom. These last inferences, no matter how frequently they are drawn, are not supported by the statement “spouse-slapping is sin.” All that can be accurately inferred from that statement is that slapping one’s spouse is against God’s will, and will therefore lead one away from God and happiness.
What would motivate the Savior in calling some act a sin? Would he want a reason to condemn a person, or make them feel little, or remove their hope? Is that what we intend when we say that something is a sin? I certainly don’t think so. I think the Savior wants us to know what is sin in order to warn us of the behavior, and suggest to us that when we are caught in it, He is our guide to the exit.
Seen in this sense, any person that struggles with behaviors that damage his or her soul, no matter how unaccountable their actions, no matter how unwilling their complicity, desperately needs to repent, in order to find redemption and happiness in the arms of the Savior. And by repent, I mean find reconciliation with Jesus Christ, who loves us infinitely. It does us no good to pity some people who are caught in behaviors that will certainly lead them to misery and hell, if we are unwilling to combine our pity with the happy tidings that Christ is the solution to their suffering. In short, it’s always a good thing to recognize sin wherever it hides, because only when sin is recognized can its solution be applied. Repentance, in the kind, loving sense of giving up oneself for Christ, requires honesty, and honesty requires calling sin by its name.
Thus, regarding behaviors that afflict the weak and pitiable, we have not less, but more reason to condemn the acts as sinful. Of course, to do this in any spirit besides that borne of Christ’s love would be counterproductive and sinful in itself. But we do not believe in a Christ who gives someone a free pass if they’re beaten down or discouraged. Indeed, it is those people for whom his message is most pertinent. So it’s those people who have most to gain from a true understanding of what sinful behavior is.
*This thread is not the place for the further discussion of eating disorders. My post should be construed to speak generally about the issues addressed, and doesn’t refer specifically to eating disorders. Please limit your thoughts to the meaning and usefulness of sin as a concept, and its proper application in our lives and discussions.
I’m sure I’ll enjoy the ensuing discussion!
I’ve recently been wondering whether we don’t look backwards at the issue of sin — not that your soul is damaged, that you lose joy because it’s sinful, but that it’s sinful because it reduces joy and damages the soul. As Elder Packer noted you noted, sin is what’s against the will of God, and God’s will is that we have joy. Sin, then, is any deliberate act that reduces joy. Hence we feel a surge of joy as we’re freed from sin’s bonds.
Love is what causes joy and God’s love, being perfect, is the “most joyous to the soul.” Hence the two great commandments center on love and the rest is detail about how to love. God’s greatest gift of love is Christ’s atonement (Jn 3:16). In this sense, Christ does give a free pass to those who are beaten down (and which of us is not) in that he gives free salvation (2 Ne 2:4) for a fresh start. He is the one that tells us, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
You honestly think eating disorders are a sin??
Thank you, Ryan. A much needed post.
I would add that not only does sin consist of acts which are wrong in themselves, but any act which is motivated by pride, selfishness, heard-heartndess, etc. Thus, even our emotions are often sins, insofar as they are motivated by it.
By overcoming a sinful problem ourselves, we will generally have greater compassion on the sinner and greater abhorance of sin. Anytime I know somebody who is on the road to repentance, a road that I have traveled before, my tendancy is to get on the road with them and help them along to get them to safety as soon as possible. By repenting ourselves, we gain greater love towards God and our neighbors and want to help others away.
Perhaps this is the difference of opinion of the definition of sin comes in. Those who have gone through godly sorrow and suffered for sin understand how horrible the acts they committed (or omitted) and see it as sin, where those who have not gone through this sorrow don’t see it. Maybe becuase of ignorance, but perhaps through justification in that a certain act is not really sin.
According to the definitions you are trying to grasp, was Nephi killing Laban a sin?
Daylan,
I would say no. It was done with a broken heart and contrite spirit, and in accordance with the will of God.
See, I used to think that we all needed a physician. Good to know I’m out of the woods 🙂
Ryan, I appreciate the spirit in which your argument is made, but can’t help but think that there’s still no compelling justification for labeling things like eating disorders as sins. I’ll concede that we should advocate Christ as an answer to our travails (mighty big of me, don’t you think?). But why shouldn’t we focus on Christ as an answer to sorrow in these cases rather than Christ as an answer to sin? He suffered both and for the relief of both. It seems that this discursive focus would capture all of the advantages that you’re noting above without any of the judging baggage that would come about as a result of a broader-based discussion of eating disorders and similar issues as “sinful”. I might add that this judging is especially harmful in these cases. It’s not just people freaking out about earrings or Dr. Pepper.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t see spades as spades. What I am saying is that if the degree to which something is a spade is exceedingly unclear and if my words can’t help the spade to change, then there isn’t a great deal of point in talking about it.
Suppose a person is interested in dating you and you’re unwilling to reciprocate. Is it the right thing to do to explain why you’re not willing? Is it the right thing to say “I don’t want you because you’re unattractive, insane, and have little root in the gospel?” Even if it’s 100% true? Of course it isn’t. You’d frame the discourse in a way that’s more helpful than that.
Ryan, I agree that sin shouldn’t be inherently linked to judging, but it is. Given the world we face, I’d rather frame my discourse differently. But, in any event, thanks for placing this discussion on a bit higher level.
Ryan,
I’m going to quibble a little with you. I appreciate the way you have framed the value of Christ’s grace, but I am wary of anything that appears to give the green light to judge other people’s actions.
If I push an old lady to the ground, that is a sin, right? Well, it depends. Did I do it to be cruel, or to steal her purse, or did I push her out of the way of an oncoming bus? The intent of the heart is what matters, and we mortals aren’t very good at discerning the intents of our own hearts, not to mention other peoples’.
Eric R. #6,
But isn’t that the point? A disinterested third party observing Nephi’s actions would have no choice but to report him to the police. As long as we are just looking at external acts and behaviors, we have no way of knowing about broken hearts or contrite spirits.
D-Train,
“But why shouldn’t we focus on Christ as an answer to sorrow in these cases rather than Christ as an answer to sin?â€
It’s the same thing. Christ helps us to change. That’s how he helps as an answer to sorrow.
And not to bring this back to eating disorders, but because it speaks to a general principle: The labeling of an eating disorder as a sin, and understanding why, is probably not helpful to people who are deeply involved with it. It is, however, greatly helpful to the thousands of people who are not and realize that they’d better not engage in the behaviors that start such a problem in the first place.
Mark IV,
I agree. And I don’t think it contradicts anything Ryan says. The point of labeling sin as sin is not to go around making judgments of whether or not particular people are making particular sins in particular cases. The point is to be aware of what kinds of behavior, in general, are against the will of the Lord so that we can prevent ourselves and loved ones from falling to them.
Thanks for some very thoughtful comments, everyone (except Davis).
Manaen, thanks for your thoughts. I agree that love is the antidote– and that’s why the label of sin as it is often used– without any love at all– can be damaging. But when combined with Christ’s love, it has only healing properties.
N Miller, you hit the nail on the head for me. I thought rather differently from this post years ago as a missionary and recently returned missionary, when I was perfect. Now that I’ve returned so many times to the well of the Savior’s grace, I have nothing but good feeling toward all sinners. No one who’s truly walked the road of repentance can feel anything else for their fellow travelers.
Daylan, by my definition, it’s clear that Nephi’s killing of Laban was not sin. Of course my definition doesn’t say anything about how we are to perceive whether an act is in accord with God’s will or not– hence we might object to Nephi’s act if we saw it happen. But I think that’s beside the point of what we’re discussing here.
D-train, I think it’s clear from my post that I believe we all need a physician. But while some of us only require structural and incremental repentance, those who are presently enmeshed in serious sin need it more immediately, in the sense that happiness and growth are much farther from their reach than for the normal, everyday imperfect person. Do you disagree?
Why not skip the label of sin and just tell a sufferer that she needs Christ to assuage her sorrow? Because it misses the point completely. People who suffer from sin need a Savior, someone to change their souls. People who suffer from sorrow need comfort (which is also, of course, a function of the Savior’s grace). We need not repent from sorrow. But the only possible way out of sin is to repent, and I can’t understand how anyone could think you could ever escape from certain behaviors (including eating disorders) and their affer-effects without denying oneself, turning to Christ, and getting his help in re-structuring one’s soul. By helping one out of sorrow, you negate the person’s role in their suffering, which makes repentance and real change impossible. That’s why you have to call it sin– to help the person figure out that the problem comes from within himself, whether it is currently his or her fault that the problem is there.
On the other hand, I’m sensitive to your position that most people inherently link judging with sin. It’s lamentable, but true. That’s why our discussions of these things must come with all the relevant disclaimers, and urgings that others not take advantage of the conclusion. Still, I don’t think the risk that someone might unfairly judge a person outweighs the risk that that person might never understand the gravity and spiritual nature of his or her problems.
Mark IV, you raise the other difficulty in this issue: the difference between a wrong act, and accountability for a wrong act.
I understand that some definitions of sin include both components (a sin is an act that is against god’s will AND done by an agent who is accountable for his actions). I’ve been careful to avoid that definition for purposes of this discussion. I make no judgment on how accountable any person is, and I think it’s foolish to do so. Still, we have a responsibility to speak against acts that will lead to misery and damnation. We can do that without presuming to know which people that partake in the wrong act are wholly accountable for it. In the case of eating disorders, for example, I am aware that this malady operates to lessen a person’s moral agency, and I’m open to that possibility. But I’m open to that possibility vis-a-vis porn addiction, alcoholism, wife beating, and serial killing too– all of which are clearly sins.
Eric: “The labeling of an eating disorder as a sin, and understanding why, is probably not helpful to people who are deeply involved with it.”
But Eric, is the labeling of alcoholism and porn addiction as sin helpful to those caught up in them? Why or why not?
Ryan thinks eating disroders are sins. What does everyone else think???
My sisters are both going through eating disorders. Both are on the bulemia side of things, often with binging taking a part in the whole problem. One of my sisters see it is a sin and is trying to quit and the other doesn’t see it as such and doesn’t really do much to quit.
Who is right? I think the one that sees it as destructive to the body sees it as it really is and as such is trying to do something about it. Would God want us to destroy the body? When we recognize sin (as Ryan describes above, which I believe to be an accurate definition of sin) and have the spirit with us, we wish to become as God would have us become and we put ourselves into Gods hands and will do whatever it is that he would have us do. Hence a change in the direction towards Gods will rather than going further away, in this sisters case she is trying to overcome the carnal desire to be thin. My other sister just sees herself becoming a thin body that others (men and women) can look at with great taste. That is so far from what God would want her to do with her body/life.
So, Davis, I believe the answer to your question is yes it is a sin, but that isn’t your real question anyways. It is not “is eating disorders a sin?”, but rather you question if one who has a mental illness is held to the same standard. The sister who doesn’t want to do anything about her “problem” has been diagnosed with a form of depression that affects her outlook on life in a very negative way. So now what? Is it not sin any more? If a down syndrome person took the life of another person, would they be held accountable the same as somebody else with full mental capacity?
I don’t think so, but that doesn’t mean it is not what God would want. He still doesn’t want his children to kill other children. He doesn’t want us to abuse our bodies. But the degree to which we are accountable differs.
So my answer then is, yes, it is still against God’s will, but I believe that God is just and merciful and will deliver the judgment that he needs to.
Its a sin. I have no problem calling it a sin. We are all sinners. We all sin daily.
We all have our problems. God understands them. He will judge us on terms we don’t quite understand. However, just because something is hard to do (or not to do), doesn’t mean we should quit trying. Whether it is the way you were raised or your genetics, we shouldn’t give excuses. God promises us that through him, repentence is possible. It is up to us to keep trying and not get discouraged, even when the road seems impossible.
I hereby incorporate Ryan Bell’s views by reference.
Adam, just so we’re clear, you mean all of them, right?
Thanks, N Miller for more insights. I’m glad to hear a personal perspective. The most important reason to call sin sin is that it helps us realize how badly God wants to help us out of it.
Ryan,
Thanks for the elaboration of your views. It seems that we’re only down to one real issue of dispute here (that being judging v. recognizing the gravity of the action). My problem isn’t with an individual judging another. Shoot, that can happen at any time. My problem is with the likely creation of a social/institutional judgment of a serious problem.
An example that I would give would be the multiple piercings thing. When counsel is given regarding pretty specific things that aren’t directly mentioned in the scriptures, the issue tends to become obedience much more than the sin itself. For example, Elder Bednar lauded a young man’s decision not to marry a girl because of her multiple piercings. In this BYU-Idaho devotional, he said “It isn’t about the earrings.” Thus, the “sin” isn’t the earrings themselves, but the disobedience of prophetic counsel.
Fair enough. But it should be about the anorexia, bulimia, or whatever else. Does anyone really believe that someone suffering from anorexia will be inspired to change because the prophet said eating disorders are wrong? Furthermore, will that person change in an institutional structure that sees eating disorders as an issue of obedience? I want to return to the point about judging that surfaced on the first discussion of this. Judging doesn’t empower. It doesn’t help one to be corrected. It tells people that already think they’re garbage that there’s a reason to think that. A social attitude that sees ED sufferers as “disobedient and apostate” is not conducive to change. It is conducive to chasing people out of or away from a Church that doesn’t want to help them.
Focusing on sorrow doesn’t negate the person’s role in change; it clarifies it. Suppose that you’re being bullied at school. You’re miserable because of it. Is the gospel principle to focus on higher things and take your beating every day? Or, would it be more correct to do what you can to create a better environment and leave the situations in which you’re bullied, even if it was never your fault to begin with? Of course, the second option is best. No sensible ED treatment program will tell patients that they don’t have to change. What patients would be told is that there’s no reason to attach moral baggage to these body image issues. That you won’t be happy as long as you’re starving yourself. That you won’t be happy as long as those who love you fear for your life. That’s what’s really important.
Also, I would like to quibble with your opener. I was being facetious in the physician comment, but I think your characterization of eating disorders as “serious sin” needs some work. First, it (unintentionally) does what I’m criticizing above: it sets those with ED apart from other imperfect people. Is having an eating disorder disobedient at a level that puts you a lot worse off than your “run of the mill sinner”? Not spiritually. I think the real problem is that the person can’t be happy and might die. This is the kind of thing that leads to judging. When we say “these aren’t just sinners, they’resinnersapart in a way that drives them further from Christ’s fellowship.
Second, I’m just not sold that it’s as spiritually serious a matter as you tend to think. This comment’s already too darn long, so I’m not going into this too much.
I want to reemphasize that I appreciate the spirit in which you’re speaking. I disagree strongly with your conclusion, but I thank you for the respectful tone and sincere matter in which you’ve approached the topic.
Above, in the next to last paragraph, I meant:
“When we say “these aren’t just sinners, they’re sinners”, it sets them apart in a way that drives them further from Christ’s fellowship in the Church.
Darn HTML. No more bold or italics for me.
Ryan,
I was really just admitting that, in the extremities of ED and alcoholism, sometimes hospitalization is needed. I don’t think porn addiction falls into the same category as the other two, although it might. I don’t know. I think sin is an appropriate label for them all though.
D-Train,
I think a comment of yours marks exactly where there is a disagreement on the issue: “What patients would be told is that there’s no reason to attach moral baggage to these body image issues.â€
If we see morality in terms of “moral baggage,†than no, discussions of morality are not going to be helpful at all. I think we have agree as to what morality is and why it is or is not helpful in the first place, before we can come to a consenses on the morality of specific things.
I agree with much of what has been said here… and thought I’d add in my two cents as someone who has dabbled in an eating disorder before. Typically, when you are doing something you know hurts your body, you can feel it. You feel it physically, emotionally, and most devastatingly, spiritually.
One of the consequences of sin is the absence of the Spirit, and the immediate presence of guilt. I like to call it the “you knew better” feeling. That feeling often brings sorrow and hopefully repentance. Of course everyone deals with their “issues” in a myriad of ways, and I am glad I’m not the judge. I do know though that someone who has a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and knows that their body is a temple, AND perhaps most pertinent in this case, a vessel for the Spirit will feel the consequences of their actions. It is that feeling that hopefully will prompt change and a course correction.
This is a simplified view, and I realize that the psychology behind addictions is much more complex. The bottom line is that one of the purposes of the atonement is to help us overcome… whether those be sins we understand we’re committing or not. As one who has attempted, and am still attempting to overcome, I know I’m sinning when I indulge in behaviors that hurt my body.
D-Train
I do actually think that somebody hearing the prophet (or as in the recent conference, Apostle Holland), will start to see things as God thinks and even though seemingly impossible, one can start to have a desire to change. When the prophet speaks with the Holy Ghost I believe it can inspire and teach us things we ought to do. Going from ignorance to understanding and knowledge stirs the winds of change and can initiate change. Someone who is seeking spiritual health will seek to change any part of their life to run in accordance to what the prophets say. This may not be done in a day or week or month, but given the time and help needed, one can climb the ladder of repentance and restore themselves to perfection, at least in that thing.
Ryan, sorry I missed your disclaimer. I will now kick myself in the head.
25
N Miller
I agree with your comments on change, as one of many who has gone through it. Elder Richard G. Scott’s talks over the last 15+ years mainly have been invitations to receive this change through repentance. Expanding on your comment that the Holy Ghost can inspire us to do what we should, I’d add that he also heals your soul, as Pres. Romney described it. One quibble: I’d rephrase “…and restore themselves to perfection” to “…and become perfected through Christ’s atonement”
Manaen
Thank you for that correction. No doubt perfection comes through Christ our Savior.