Of course, Jesus famously sees past the binary options of their question meant to bait them and encourages them to look at their dichotomy from a different lens: that anyone of them who was sinless could stone her.

I don’t really want to discuss that part of the story, as it’s probably been picked apart a lot. However, there is one element toward the end of the story that I have been thinking about recently.

After the scribes and Pharisees are overcome with guilt at Jesus’s carefully worded invitation and leave the scene, Jesus, who had been focusing his attention to the ground and missed their departure—asks the unnamed woman where her accusers were, whether any of them had condemned her.

When she said that no one had ended up condemning her, he responded with “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

The part I want to focus on is “sin no more”.

When I hear this story discussed, when we get to this point, almost always people frame it as Jesus labelling her actions as sinful, despite having just said he didn’t condemn her. Almost as though this were a prime example of the oft-repeated saying, “Love the sinner. Hate the sin.” According to this interpretation, Jesus is being merciful to her, while acknowledging the wrongfulness of her actions.

But I wonder if “sin no more” might mean something else.

Just 3 chapters before another familiar story takes place. Jesus arrives at the Pool of Bethesda, where he finds a man who has been living with an “infirmary” for nearly 40 years. People believed the pool and supernatural healing properties at certain times, so some who travel to the pool hoping to be healed of their afflictions. We learn that each time the man has tried getting to pool, he is pushed aside by others, so he keeps missing the short healing window.

Jesus invites him to rise, take up his bed, and walk. Which he then does, having been healed by Jesus, rather than by the waters of the pool. In the commotion of being healed and being subjected to questioning by some nearby Jews, the man ends up separated from Jesus. However, the two cross paths later in the temple. The text says that Jesus “found” him in the temple, but it isn’t clear whether he was searching for him or just came across him there.

Regardless, having encountered him a second time, Jesus counsels him, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

Once again, he uses the phrase “sin no more”.

This time, however, the counsel is less cut and dried. When he declared it to the woman mentioned earlier in this post, it was pretty apparent to most readers that he was referring to adultery as sin and telling her to not commit adultery anymore.

However, in this case, despite using the exact same phrasing, it’s not clear what sin Jesus would be referring to that he wanted the man to cease committing.

In this instance, the man was at the pool, sick with an illness, trying to be healed. There was no obvious sin that he was committing. As such, it’s not obvious that there was a specific sin he had to “no more” commit.

Perhaps Jesus saw this opportunity to help the person to start not only a new physical life with his newfound freedom and mobility but also to start a new spiritual life. Not because he had a particular sin to stop doing but because he should commit to living a life dedicated to trying to do what’s right.

And if that’s the case, maybe the first story I referenced earlier in this post wasn’t so much about the woman having to no longer commit adultery, but rather an invitation to begin a new spiritual life, born again as a new follower of Jesus.

So, maybe it’s less a specific warning to avoid adultery and more a general invitation to just do better overall.

>”Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

Here, sexual sin ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù which many members assume is what Alma the Younger was referring to when he said “these things”, and which we have debated before ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù is being compared to murdering and denying the Holy Ghost. I have heard it mentioned that sexual sin, therefore, is the third worst type of sin (despite the fact that murder and denying the Holy Ghost could be the same thing.

For the purpose of this post, we will assume that the common traditional interpretations of this verse are correct. That is, there are three degrees of severity when it comes to sin: first, denying the Holy Ghost; second, murder; third, sexual sin.

At the same time, however, God does not accept sin at all. Specifically:

>”For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31)

So, I wonder then if there really are degrees of sin. By classifying some sins as more abominable, does Alma suggest that God looks on other sins with some degree of allowance. Does he suggest that God will turn somewhat of a blind eye to the less abominable sins?

By saying he does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, is God saying he views all sin equally?

Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

So what does he mean by “these things”? Well, modern Mormon interpretation of this means sexual sins; often in a general sense. But is that what it really means?

Specifically, Alma said, “Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom. . . . thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel” (vv. 2?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú3).

So it seems that the actions Alma was reproving were three fold: boasting of his own strength and wisdom, forsaking his ministry, and going after a harlot. I’m not sure why common interpretation leaves out the first two, but it is easy to see how one could make a connection between sexual sin and going after a harlot.

But does “going after a harlot” strictly refer to sexual sin? Did Corianton actually do anything sinful (read ?¢‚ǨÀúsexual?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢) with Isabel? Or did the sin lie in the fact that he left his mission to go after her. In other words, his personal desires were more important than the Lord’s; doing what he wanted was more important than doing what the Lord wanted.

On the surface, it even seems that the question remains unanswered because Alma didn’t go into any further detail regarding Corianton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s sins. Yet, on the other hand, if Corianton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s sin was simply going after Isabel (not really that simple)?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùand didn’t include any actual sexual activity?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùthen Alma went into all the detail necessary, and the account is accurate.

Somehow the list that Alma gave in verses 2 and 3, however, has evolved into including everything under the sexual sun so to speak. Odd.

“How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.” (verse 10)

Alma said that he felt inspired not to intervene because they are automatically saved for their belief in God.

“The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.” (verse 11)

The last part of verse 11 was interesting. Another reason Alma gave for not intervening is that “the Lord . . . doth suffer that . . . the people [presumable the ones doing the killing] may do this thing unto them . . . that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just”.

So he’s not going to intervene in order that God could punish (exercise judgement upon) them? If Alma and Amulek had intervened and no one was killed, God wouldn’t have needed to punish them. Wouldn’t that have been better all around?

“The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost . . . is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant . . .”

It seems that denying the Holy Ghost is not just blaspheming God and Jesus. It seems to involve murder. Keeping this passage in mind when reading Alma’s counsel to Corianton brings a different interpretation to light as well.

“Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness . . .” (Alma 39:5-6)

So all this time, we have been taught that sexual sin?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùaccording to popular interpretation verse 5?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùis the third most serious type of sin. Yet one interpretation could be that the sins of which Corianton was guilty were actually second in seriousness, shedding of innocent blood and denying the Holy Ghost being the same thing.

Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. (3 Ne 12:28)

Obviously this means more than simply looking at a woman, but what specifically does it mean? Is there more to this scripture than simply saying that adultery goes beyond simply as a married person having sex with someone other than his spouse? If so, what constitutes looking at a woman lustfully? Does looking at a woman and thinking she has nice legs constitute lust? Can a man look at a woman’s body on purpose without the thought of having sex with her and still be lusting after her?