Transgression vs. sin

[changed]

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

[Duncan]

I think the difference is I know something is wrong but do it anyways and feel bad and hopefully repent vs. know something is wrong but do it anyways and maybe apathetic towards it, justify it, would do it again. More like a weakness vs rebellion. I think sins, mistakes, transgressions have more to do with how feel about it and yourself afterwards. 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I've heard that the Adam & Eve story is all allegory. Even from LDS members now. Which is shocking. So why would any of this matter if it's made up in scripture, or just symbolic?

[changed]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I've heard that the Adam & Eve story is all allegory. Even from LDS members now. Which is shocking. So why would any of this matter if it's made up in scripture, or just symbolic?

and I suppose a life for a life is just allegory too?

[changed]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think the difference is I know something is wrong but do it anyways and feel bad and hopefully repent vs. know something is wrong but do it anyways and maybe apathetic towards it, justify it, would do it again. More like a weakness vs rebellion. I think sins, mistakes, transgressions have more to do with how feel about it and yourself afterwards. 

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who .. have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! - Mosiah 3

 

For all other conversations, transgression is equated with "not knowing" ... Adam and Even knew God did not want them to eat the fruit.

 

3 Nephi  6:18 Now they did not sin ignorantly, for they knew the will of God concerning them, for it had been taught unto them; therefore they did wilfully rebel against God.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by changed

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, changed said:

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who .. have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! - Mosiah 3

 

For all other conversations, transgression is equated with "not knowing" ... Adam and Even knew God did not want them to eat the fruit.

 

3 Nephi  6:18 Now they did not sin ignorantly, for they knew the will of God concerning them, for it had been taught unto them; therefore they did wilfully rebel against God.

 

so the scripture in 3 Nephi 6:8 isn't talking about Adam and Eve. Maybe God thought Adam and Eve eve weren't rebelling, he did forgive them for it as per the verses in the Book of Moses. I don't think we know everything that happened to Adam and Eve. To the second part of your question because of what Adam and Eve did they were kicked out of the presence of God So, Christ came to bring all of us back into his presence, spiritually and physically

[changed]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so the scripture in 3 Nephi 6:8 isn't talking about Adam and Eve. Maybe God thought Adam and Eve eve weren't rebelling, he did forgive them for it as per the verses in the Book of Moses. I don't think we know everything that happened to Adam and Eve. To the second part of your question because of what Adam and Eve did they were kicked out of the presence of God So, Christ came to bring all of us back into his presence, spiritually and physically

so... transgression leads to both spiritual and physical death, as well as sin?  

As in Adam all die - we all die because of a mere transgression, not because of sin?

 

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, changed said:

so... transgression leads to both spiritual and physical death, as well as sin?  

As in Adam all die - we all die because of a mere transgression, not because of sin?

 

Adam's did, ours could if it leads to more and we are unrepentant about it

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

I seem to agree with you. Transgression = sin. Breaking the law = sin. There are different levels of sin or culpability. So while Adam did not have evil intent, he still had to suffer the consequence with Eve, and actually partook for Eve's/the Church's sake, and he learned his nakedness before God.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

Christ atones for broken law.  Sin and transgression are two similar but not identical breaking of law.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I've heard that the Adam & Eve story is all allegory. Even from LDS members now. Which is shocking. So why would any of this matter if it's made up in scripture, or just symbolic?

It is both history AND allegory.  Not an either/or choice.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

Let's see:  Adam & Eve have not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, and so could not know the difference (by definition, they are no better at distinguishing right from wrong than a child).  Breaking the rules is not the same as being fully responsible.  Only after figuratively eating of the fruit of that Tree are they able to articulate good & evil, or any other pair of opposites.,  Only then do they even know that they are naked. Walking and talking with Daddy does not make one able to distinguish right from wrong.  All children break rules, and they are not held responsible.

Moreover, in the Garden scene, we face an enactment of an endowment ritual in which the participants have a set liturgy to perform.  It is a ritual, the same ritual performed by Adam & Eve.  The only blame is a mock blame attributed to Lucifer, as part of that set liturgy.  The Atonement is also set liturgy, the regular sacrificial rite at Passover, just as the original ritual slaughter of lambs just before the Exodus was part of liturgy -- saving the first born of the Israelites, upon whose doorposts that blood had been spread.  The symbolic actions having saving power when performed by the priesthood of God.

[Calm]

"could not know the difference"

I prefer the phrase "did not comprehend the implications or consequences".  Having taught Sunbeams, they hear "could not know the difference between right and wrong" and they think that is silly, the difference is one is right and the other is wrong.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

"could not know the difference"

I refer the phrase "did not comprehend the implications or consequences".  Having taught Sunbeams, they hear "could not know the difference between right and wrong" and they think that is silly, the difference is one is right and the other is wrong.

Yes, and the full implications are presumably not crystal clear until at least the age of accountability -- as arbitrary a rule as that might be.  The Jews place that age at 13 years, when a ceremonial Bar Mitzvah takes place, the boy now responsible for his own acitons.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained the difference between sin and transgression: “[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign,Nov. 1993, 73).

Yes, “they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit” but I would rethink the notion that “Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did.

They may have walked with God, but they had no knowledge of good and evil, only of the instructions and commands of God and later the beguiling words of the serpent. To truly know God enough to sin in the “classic” sense, we must first have that knowledge of good and evil and knowingly rebel against God. There was no rebellion in their action, but a choice of which commandment to keep (multiply) at the expense of disobeying the other (not partake of the forbidden fruit).

Jesus atoned for sin in both the classic sense and in this sense as demonstrated by these various scriptures:

Mosiah 3: 11 and 16: “For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.” These sins are not sins in the classic sense.

“And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their [the children’s] sins.” These sins are not sins in eh classic sense.

Moroni 8:10: “Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.” This begins to speak of sin in the classic sense.

D&C 19:13-20: “Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments …Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.” This is sin in the classic sense.

Some look at this question in terms of Adam and Eve breaking one law to fulfil another. I see it more as a choice between laws, not between breaking one and keeping another. They could have kept the law of the terrestial paradise by not partaking of the forbidden fruit, or they could have kept the law of the celestial world by multiplying and replenishing even in the telestial world, fulfilling their eternal marriage covenant.

Fortunately we have judges in Israel if we are struggling with an issue that requires us to understand the difference between a sin and a transgression. I think it most healthy to focus on obedience.

Edited July 14, 2017 by CV75

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained the difference between sin and transgression: “[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign,Nov. 1993, 73).

Yes, “they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit” but I would rethink the notion that “Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did.

They may have walked with God, but they had no knowledge of good and evil, only of the instructions and commands of God and later the beguiling words of the serpent. To truly know God enough to sin in the “classic” sense, we must first have that knowledge of good and evil and knowingly rebel against God. There was no rebellion in their action, but a choice of which commandment to keep (multiply) at the expense of disobeying the other (not partake of the forbidden fruit).

Jesus atoned for sin in both the classic sense and in this sense as demonstrated by these various scriptures:

Mosiah 3: 11 and 16: “For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.” These sins are not sins in the classic sense.

“And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their [the children’s] sins.” These sins are not sins in eh classic sense.

Moroni 8:10: “Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.” This begins to speak of sin in the classic sense.

D&C 19:13-20: “Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments …Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.” This is sin in the classic sense.

Some look at this question in terms of Adam and Eve breaking one law to fulfil another. I see it more as a choice between laws, not between breaking one and keeping another. They could have kept the law of the terrestial paradise by not partaking of the forbidden fruit, or they could have kept the law of the celestial world by multiplying and replenishing even in the telestial world, fulfilling their eternal marriage covenant.

Fortunately we have judges in Israel if we are struggling with an issue that requires us to understand the difference between a sin and a transgression. I think it most healthy to focus on obedience.

um, i'd like to change my answer..............this sounds intelligent and legit!!!!

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

Jesus died for every law that was broken, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I have a son who has broken the law many times. He steals housemates' food, candy, or whatever else they may leave lying about that he might take a fancy too. He has thrown rocks through a window. And other things like that. He has broken the law of chastity by masturbating. The only way that he knows that those things are wrong is because someone has told him such. He functions on the level of about a five year old. He cannot sin, but he can break a law. Christ took care of that for him.

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I've heard that the Adam & Eve story is all allegory. Even from LDS members now. Which is shocking. So why would any of this matter if it's made up in scripture, or just symbolic?

If so then all of their children are just part of the allegory.  Not even Jesus was real since his genealogy is just part of the allegory.  I am sure there is symbolism in the story like Satan being called the serpent but I would not make all of it symbolic.

[carbon dioxide]

This is how I have come to see this issue.  I see sins to be be like felonies while transgressions are misdemeanors.  Both are crimes but one crime is much worse than the other.  Both involve a violation of counsel, commandment, or law of God and both have a consequence.   The consequences of sin are much worse. They involve the real possibility of ones eternal salvation being at risk.  A transgression may be bad but it by itself will not cause a person to be eternally damned.  Modern day transgressions would be not doing home teaching or not having family home evening.  The Word of Wisdom contains both.  It is a transgression of the Word of Wisdom to eat too much meat or not eat the right foods.  If one violates this portion of the word of wisdom, their eternal salvation is not at issue BUT there are still consequences for not following it like having poor health like an increased risk of heart disease.  Other violations of the Word of Wisdom are above transgressions but are sins because they directly threaten the salvation of the individual.  if one uses alcohol, they lose their temple recommend or are not able to obtain one.  This can affect their eternal salvation. 

Placed in the Adam and Eve story.  They were told not to eat of the fruit.  God told them if they did they would die.  That was the consequence.  God did not say they would be eternally damned but that they would die.  Ok no big deal.  That was part of the plan anyway.  Their actions open the door to sin entering the world but opening the door itself is not a sin.  Sort of like if I open my living room door in summer.  Once I do that the bugs and wasps can come in.  Adam and Eve transgressed against the command.  They suffered the consequence of violating that command but for them it was not the end of the world and in fact their actions allowed them to progress forward after suffering the consequence of the transgression. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If so then all of their children are just part of the allegory.  Not even Jesus was real since his genealogy is just part of the allegory.  I am sure there is symbolism in the story like Satan being called the serpent but I would not make all of it symbolic.

Good to know, because it was news to me that it was all symbolism in the temple, for many years of going to the temple, I thought it was what actually happened. I guess I misunderstood some comments on this board.

[changed]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

Some look at this question in terms of Adam and Eve breaking one law to fulfil another. I see it more as a choice between laws, not between breaking one and keeping another. They could have kept the law of the terrestial paradise by not partaking of the forbidden fruit, or they could have kept the law of the celestial world by multiplying and replenishing even in the telestial world, fulfilling their eternal marriage covenant.

The trouble with the above, is that Eve did not eat the fruit in order to have children.  She ate the fruit in order to gain wisdom.  Eve was not choosing between laws.  Did Eve sin?

I'm enjoying all the comments on here - lots of different justifications and excuses for not just Adam and Eve, but excuses that could be applied to any "necessary transgression"...  Is it really a commandment? or just a warning?  Is it really a sin? or just some law that has a few consequences to ponder?  Is this really being rebellious against God? or is it actually a loving thing that will help the plan of salvation move forward?  

No hypocrisy allowed - the excuses that apply to Adam and Eve should apply to all of us.

Interesting, God does not always outline the consequences - Thou shalt not be a liar ... because if you do you will surely not be trusted by anyone anymore?  The 10 commandments just leave it as a command without defining what will happen.  I wonder why the explanation was included with Adam and Eve?  

 

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by changed

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, changed said:

The trouble with the above, is that Eve did not eat the fruit in order to have children.  She ate the fruit in order to gain wisdom.  Eve was not choosing between laws.  Did Eve sin?

Eve transgressed.  She violated a law in order to gain wisdom AND to have children.

Moses 5:11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, AND never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained the difference between sin and transgression: “[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign,Nov. 1993, 73).

--------------------------------------------------------------

One has to distinguish between crimes (misdemeanors and felonies) for which one may be jailed or imprisoned, and mere infractions -- for which you may only be fined.

[CameronDavis]

One thing that I didn't see mentioned yet is that the Greek word ἁμαρτία, from which "sin" is derived, often refers to a general state of being off-target. In my own tradition (Orthodox Christianity) we recognize both sins of an intentional and unintentional nature because it is very much possible to be off-target by accident. In the case of Adam and Eve, it seems safe to say that, if there is truth to the narrative of their transgressions, they were likely unaware of the ramifications their rebellion would have.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, changed said:

The trouble with the above, is that Eve did not eat the fruit in order to have children.  She ate the fruit in order to gain wisdom.  Eve was not choosing between laws.  Did Eve sin?

I'm enjoying all the comments on here - lots of different justifications and excuses for not just Adam and Eve, but excuses that could be applied to any "necessary transgression"...  Is it really a commandment? or just a warning?  Is it really a sin? or just some law that has a few consequences to ponder?  Is this really being rebellious against God? or is it actually a loving thing that will help the plan of salvation move forward?  

No hypocrisy allowed - the excuses that apply to Adam and Eve should apply to all of us.

Interesting, God does not always outline the consequences - Thou shalt not be a liar ... because if you do you will surely not be trusted by anyone anymore?  The 10 commandments just leave it as a command without defining what will happen.  I wonder why the explanation was included with Adam and Eve?  

 

 

 It seems to me that she wanted to gain wisdom (enjoy a new taste) to be as the gods, whose highest joy is to create (multiply). The "law" of godly wisdom is a celestial law.

I think all the commandments have a consequence outlined if we look closely enough. And there is always the implied punishment of "hell" which covers all of them.