---
title: Improvement Era
description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930.
authors:
  - Taylor, Joseph E.
collections:
  - periodicals
tags:
  - magazine
  - improvement-era
periodical: Improvement Era
volume: 4
number: 10
published: 1901-08
publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations
publisher_place: Salt Lake City
language: en
type: magazine
reference: 'Joseph E. Taylor, "A Cardinal Sin," *Improvement Era* 4, no. 10 (August 1901): 752–758.'
source:
  url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera0410unse
  transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers.
  identifier: improvementera0410unse
start_page: 752
end_page: 758
rights:
  status: public-domain
  basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1901-08)
  source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera0410unse
  publication_year: 1901
  note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1901, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright.
---

# A Cardinal Sin

<!-- page:752 -->

A CARDINAL SIN.
BY ELDER JOSEPH E. TAYLOR, OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE SALT
                   LAKE STAKE OF ZION.




    In   all   civilized   communities,    wrong-doing   is   classified   as
being of a greater or less degree. Lawmakers have attached
penalties in keeping with the estimate placed upon the various
offenses and crimes of       which humanity     is guilty.  The common
offense of theft is classified.         One kind is called grand larceny,
another, petit larceny.      In either instance, the offender has been
guilty of stealing; no matter what the quantity may have been, nor
the market value of the article or articles purloined.          If    we were
to name .all the crimes in the calender, we would find them simi-
larly classified; even the very highest     —that of murder — having it

a first as well as a second degree, although the result in either
instance has been death to the victim.
     Unquestionably this classification may be traced back at least
as far as Moses, the great lawgiver to Israel, who named in detail
under the direct instruction of the Almighty, the aggregate of
offenses and crimes of which mankind was guilty, and the penalties
therefor, the justice of which, only a few have had the temerity
to question.
     There are crimes that may be correctly termed cardinal, or
the greatest, involving       consequences of the gravest character
both to the offender and the offended.         I will name two of these.

First, murder: second,      adultery.     The second one we wish more
particularly to consider at this time.
     The crime of adultery is named in the decalogue next to that
of murder.   "Thou shalt not kill," is immediately followed by,

<!-- page:753 -->

A CARDINAL SIN.                           758

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."      And though this has been re-
peated and re-repeated along down through the ages that have
followed since the day these words were spoken amidst the thun-
derings of Mount Sinai, until our time, and despite our boasted en-
lightenment and so-called Christianity, it cannot be denied that
this is the crowning sin of the age.      And be it known that the
direful consequences following this    crime are manifold, and will
follow the guilty ones beyond this life, unless justice can in some
way be satisfied or forgiveness obtained.
    Why do we name the crime of murder and the crime of
adultery as being the greater sins?       For the simple reason, you
cannot restore a life taken, neither can you restore lost virtue.
You may be able to compensate the person from whom you have
stolen, even to paying four fold, the full extent of the ancient law,
and thus fully satisfy justice.   Or you may obtain forgiveness for
this, or   other offenses committed against your fellow-man, from
those whom you have offended.      This   is   according to the teach-
ings of Jesus, who said we were to forgive seventy times seven;
and though our fellow-man might condone the higher crimes, that
I   have named, yet the fact remains, that neither a lost      life nor

lost virtue can be restored.
      The duly authorized servants of the Lord, whose duty it was
in all ages to instruct the people and teach  them God's law, have
not been wanting in administering the severest rebukes to those
who were guilty of sexual sin. The prophet Nathan was not in
the least daunted, even in the presence of the mighty King David,
the knowledge of whose guilt in this respect was made known to
him.   Notwithstanding this man, by virtue of his kingly authority,
exercised the right to pass judgment upon the transgressor, and
when by parable Nathan asked him what should be done with the
one who had thus been found guilty, and he had answered, "As
the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely
die," thus unwittiDgly passed judgment upon himself, strictly in
keeping with the law, yet the prophet, with that boldness which
always characterized a true servant of the Lord, said to him, "Thou
art the man."
     The severe rebuke given by John the Baptist to King
Herod who had unlawfully taken the wife of his brother Philip,

<!-- page:754 -->

754                     IMPROVEMENT ERA.

and the hatred begotten in the breast of Herodias through this
rebuke thus administered, undoubtedly cost John his life, as re-
corded in Mark 6: 17-26, and other gospels.
        Our Savior in his sermon on the mount quoted the law by re-
peating the exact text, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."          He
did not stop here, however, but added, that "whosoever looketh on
a   woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart."       In warning the people against the prac-
tice of divorcement, so extensively indulged     in   at that time be-
cause in many instances it led to the greater sin, he declared that
a woman put away or divorced for any other cause than fornica-
tion,    would cause her to commit adultery, and further         said,

"whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
—(Matthew 5: 32.)
     He upheld the law when the woman was brought to him who
was accused of adultery; only demanding that those who inflicted
the penalty should be free from the crime, using these words, "He
that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Being
conscience-stricken, they left, one by one.    When alone with this
woman, he      told her he   would not condemn her; but mark the
warning, "Go, and sin no more," thus intimating that the wrong,
if repeated,   would bring her condemnation for the past.      He had
said upon a former occasion to the man whom he had healed, "Sin
no more, lest a worse thing come to thee."
        We might quote extensively from the sacred writings and
name numerous instances similar to those we have mentioned, but
these will answer our present purpose, and are sufficient to prove
the divine displeasure as voiced through his chosen servants whose
duty it is to rebuke iniquity and more especially the sin that we
have termed a cardinal one.
        We are writing more particularly for the benefit of those of
our faith, and not for the outside world, who would give little heed
to warnings and denunciations upon this point from us.       Their so-
called Christian ministers in the    main carefully avoid any direct
mention of, or rebuke     for,   unlawful sexual indulgence, as they
would thereby jeapordize their popularity and more particularly
their income, claiming by way of excuse that the subject is of too
delicate a nature to admit of more than a general mention.       Thus

<!-- page:755 -->

A CARDINAL SIN.                                     755

is this grievous sin passed by unrebuked by those             who should assail
it most aggressively.

     Unlawful sexual indulgence is recognized the world over as a
crime, and would be so recognized if there were no law against it.
We may attribute this to education, tradition, or any other cause;
but outside of all these, there is a true intuitive feeling within,
which forces upon us this just conclusion.
     Lost virtue   is   likea wrecked vessel: true, it may be towed
into port, be placed      upon the stocks, be repaired and painted
afresh, have another name given to             it,   thus apparently obliterat-
ing every trace of the wreck, but even the                 common sailor will
always remember that it was a wrecked vessel, no matter               how all
signs of the disaster may be seemingly effaced.               Heaven's forgive-
ness only, obliterates all traces of past wrong doing, and this must
be obtained in God's appointed way.
     We will now refer to some things that the Lord has said to us
upon this important subject. As early as February 9, 1831, the exact
words as we find them in the decalogue are repeated and spoken to us.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Doc. and Cov. Sec. 42 24.) Six       :



months afterwards, the Lord again speaks of this sin, and repeats
Jesus' saying upon the mount, with a slight change of words,
"Verily, I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on
a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their
hearts, they shall not have the spirit, but shall deny the faith and
shall fear."   (Sec. 63: 16.)
     The first commandment or law given to the ancestor of our
race, after having received at the hands of our Father his wife
Eve, was, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," and
the seal of heaven's approbation by a special blessing was then
and there placed apon them. To this end, and for this purpose
only, was the union of the sexes, or marriage, instituted; any in-
dulgence, outside of the marriage covenant, is therefore forbidden,
and is to all intents and purposes criminal: and may              all   be classed
under one general head, adultery.
     The question particularly before us is: are we justified in classi-
fying this great wrong, and in saying that one phase of it consti-
tutes a greater criminality than another? I take the ground that
the acme of this crime         is   reached,   when a man who is himself

<!-- page:756 -->

756                                IMPROVEMENT ERA.

under the holy covenant shall defile his brother's wife who has
been given to him under the bond, seal and covenant of the Holy
Priesthood. This is a sin not only against his brother, but directly
against heaven           itself.    The wronged husband cannot      effectually

condone this great offense, however much he might desire to do so.
Heaven's representative alone posesses this power. (Doc. & Cov. Sec,
132: 45, 46.) True, the power may be delegated to others by God's
servant to extend mercy.              A high council in a stake of Zion who
may have tried a case of this kind and found the person guilty,
might be thus authorized, but in doing this, they would exercise
other functions than those of a trial court.    Before celestial
marriage was revealed, and when the marriage vow extended only
"until death do you part," the conditions were then different.             The
Lord in speaking, at that time, first gives the command: "Thou
shalt not commit adultery."  Then he says: "And he that com-
mitteth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out; but he
that has committed adultery and repents with              all   his heart, and
forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; but              if   he
doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast              out.''

(Doc. & Cov. Sec. 42: 24-26.)            Forgiveness is here limited to one,
—the      first   —   offense, and is forbidden if the offense is repeated.
This is strictly in keeping with Jesus' saying which we have quoted
"Go and sin no more."
     We will now refer to the ancient law, to show that sexual
iniquity was followed by penalties varying in severity according to
the magnitude of the wrong in this regard which had been com-
mitted. If a man found a damsel, a virgin, who was not betrothed,
and defiled her, then he had to give to her father fifty shekels of
silver,   and she was to become his wife.         As the text reads, "Be-
cause he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
The provision is here made that they must bear the wrong to-
gether.   He could not divorce her, and thus give her an oppor-
tunity to become the wife of another, for she is a defiled woman,
and defiled by him.
     It was very different, however, with a betrothed damsel.   A
betrothed woman was virtually looked upon as a wife. There are
two penalties named in this connection. If the crime was com-
mitted in the open field where her cries for help could not be

<!-- page:757 -->

A CARDINAL SIN                                 757

heard, in this instance, she was allowed to go free, but the man
must suffer death.     If the crime was   committed within the         city,

and she cried not, then the man and woman were both stoned to
death.     (Deuteronomy 22: 23-27.)
       If a woman who had been defiled should    marry, and her guilt
was afterwards discovered, then death to her was the penalty. If
a man committed adultery with his neighbor's wife, then both the
man and the woman suffered the penalty of death.            (Leviticus 20:
10.)     Thus provision was made, in that early day, suited to the
various phases of this sin.    David undoubtedly did the very best
thing possible after he had wronged Uriah, although his sin was
for the time being put away, by marrying Bathsheba.                  In this
manner, the two bore their wrong together, which was the only
reparation either could make to the other.       I    wish to say here,
that the penalties above quoted were not those belonging to the
higher law of the gospel, but to the law of carnal commandments.
       The law of the Holy Priesthood, however, is equally severe in
its demands for virtue and purity to be   maintained inviolate; any
infringement thereof will be visited with such condemnation as
the nature of the wrong will justify. While that which will follow
the greater sin is unquestionably worse than physical death; for
the greater exaltation is thereby jeapordized        if   not lost; unless
indeed it can be forgiven.    (See History of Joseph Smith, Nov. 25,
1843.)
       To the transgressor, let me say, Repent with       all   your heart;
confess the sin without any reserve whatever; offer no excuse by
way  of palliation.  In this way, and in this way only, can the
mercy of our Father be obtained. Then watch and pray for
strength to resist temptation in the future; for a wrong once com-
mitted exhibits a weakness which the enemy will always try to
take advantage of.     David understood this, for he        said,   "I have
made a covenant with mine eyes that I will not look upon a maid."
Again, "I remember my sin, and my transgression            is   ever before
me."
       To the pure and undefiled, the old adage truly applies, "Virtue
hath its own reward," to which we will simply add, Yea; not only
here in this life, but in the life to come.

<!-- page:758 -->

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?

       The brothers went fishing on June 15th, that being the day
on and after which, by grace of the law-makers of our state, peo-
ple may openly fish in the mountain streams.
       As usual, Hugo carried the literature.     David, the elder boy,
was loaded with the fishing     tackle, with    worms, flies, and other
vermin generally made use of on such occasions         —something he
had always enjoyed since the time he was a little child gathering
toads in a tin bucket, and filling his pockets with angle-worms.
       "Carry some of these things, and throw them old          papera
away!" was David's command, as they encountered the stiff morn-
ing breeze in the mouth of the canyon.
       "Throw 'em away!    Not a bit of it.    Copies of Chicago News-
Record, worth more than all the fish we'll ever catch to-day," said
his brother, with more enthusiasm than regard for grammar.   "Got
Eugene Field's column in, and that's worth something, because he'll
be talked about like Lamb and Longfellow."
       "Field?   Who's Field, anyway?"
       "A newspaper man who wrote many good things worth read-
ing.   Don't you remember the book 'Love-Songs of Childhood,' that
I   got last Christmas, and the recitation, 'Just 'fore Christmas,'   I

learned?     Well, Field wrote that.   There is a story in this paper
I   think very entertaining.   It makes you feel like deciding to re-

member what father and mother teaches.         Then look at this paper;
this column of fine   print has at least two thousand words in      it.

He filled that column every day, three hundred and thirteen days
each year for twelve years. You can figure that     "

       "0, figure nothing; take some of these things.      There goes
the lunch!"
