Sin

[nicolasconnault]

I have recently been thinking a lot about the nature of sin. Here is one line of reasoning, from the "traditional" to the more elaborate view I am starting to develop:

1. Sin is any behaviour forbidden by God
2. However, it appears that no individual behaviour is always sinful, all depends on circumstances and motivations.
3. Is a sin also defined by its consequences? No, consequences may include just punishment for sin, but do not define the sinfulness of a behaviour.
4. The internal antecedents of behaviour define its sinfulness: knowledge, motivation and attitude
5. A prideful attitude is an attitude of rebellion. When paired with the knowledge of God's attributes and purposes, it becomes rebellion against God.
6. Sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed after being aware of the goodness of God and the basic principles of the Gospel.
7. If this definition is correct, then how would we label the past behaviour of a new convert to the Church? If he didn't know about the gospel, then his actions were not sinful and he had no need to repent of them.
8. Therefore there is a flaw in this definition

Can you help me identify the flaw in my conclusion (which is not a final conclusion, btw)?

[Palerider]

I have recently been thinking a lot about the nature of sin. Here is one line of reasoning, from the "traditional" to the more elaborate view I am starting to develop:

1. Sin is any behaviour forbidden by God
2. However, it appears that no individual behaviour is always sinful, all depends on circumstances and motivations.
3. Is a sin also defined by its consequences? No, consequences may include just punishment for sin, but do not define the sinfulness of a behaviour.
4. The internal antecedents of behaviour define its sinfulness: knowledge, motivation and attitude
5. A prideful attitude is an attitude of rebellion. When paired with the knowledge of God's attributes and purposes, it becomes rebellion against God.
6. Sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed after being aware of the goodness of God and the basic principles of the Gospel.
7. If this definition is correct, then how would we label the past behaviour of a new convert to the Church? If he didn't know about the gospel, then his actions were not sinful and he had no need to repent of them.
8. Therefore there is a flaw in this definition

Can you help me identify the flaw in my conclusion (which is not a final conclusion, btw)?

I'm not saying by any means I have an answer here. I'll have to give it more thought but two scriptures that immediately jumped to mind were:

John1:9 and Romans 2: 14-15

I'd be interested in knowing how they factor into your definitions

[Palerider]

I have recently been thinking a lot about the nature of sin. Here is one line of reasoning, from the "traditional" to the more elaborate view I am starting to develop:

1. Sin is any behaviour forbidden by God
2. However, it appears that no individual behaviour is always sinful, all depends on circumstances and motivations.
3. Is a sin also defined by its consequences? No, consequences may include just punishment for sin, but do not define the sinfulness of a behaviour.
4. The internal antecedents of behaviour define its sinfulness: knowledge, motivation and attitude
5. A prideful attitude is an attitude of rebellion. When paired with the knowledge of God's attributes and purposes, it becomes rebellion against God.
6. Sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed after being aware of the goodness of God and the basic principles of the Gospel.
7. If this definition is correct, then how would we label the past behaviour of a new convert to the Church? If he didn't know about the gospel, then his actions were not sinful and he had no need to repent of them.
8. Therefore there is a flaw in this definition

Can you help me identify the flaw in my conclusion (which is not a final conclusion, btw)?

In number two, How do you differentiate between that concept (all depends on circumstances and motivations) and "situational ethics"?

[Palerider]

I have recently been thinking a lot about the nature of sin. Here is one line of reasoning, from the "traditional" to the more elaborate view I am starting to develop:

1. Sin is any behaviour forbidden by God
2. However, it appears that no individual behaviour is always sinful, all depends on circumstances and motivations.
3. Is a sin also defined by its consequences? No, consequences may include just punishment for sin, but do not define the sinfulness of a behaviour.
4. The internal antecedents of behaviour define its sinfulness: knowledge, motivation and attitude
5. A prideful attitude is an attitude of rebellion. When paired with the knowledge of God's attributes and purposes, it becomes rebellion against God.
6. Sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed after being aware of the goodness of God and the basic principles of the Gospel.
7. If this definition is correct, then how would we label the past behaviour of a new convert to the Church? If he didn't know about the gospel, then his actions were not sinful and he had no need to repent of them.
8. Therefore there is a flaw in this definition

Can you help me identify the flaw in my conclusion (which is not a final conclusion, btw)?

In number three: Do you differentiate between "sin" and "transgression"? Probably a poor analogy but....If I disregard my mother's warning to not touch the hotplate, I get burned and an "I told you so."

If I accidently touch the hotplate......I still get burned. Consequence?

[nicolasconnault]

In number three: Do you differentiate between "sin" and "transgression"? Probably a poor analogy but....If I disregard my mother's warning to not touch the hotplate, I get burned and an "I told you so."

If I accidently touch the hotplate......I still get burned. Consequence?

I'm searching for the true definition of "sin", while keeping the scriptural principle that sin cuts us off from the presence of God. So I suppose that the transgression you describe doesn't fall in the category of sin, unless your act was one of wilful disobedience to parental authority, knowing that such disobedience was contrary to the will of God.

[Palerider]

I'm searching for the true definition of "sin", while keeping the scriptural principle that sin cuts us off from the presence of God. So I suppose that the transgression you describe doesn't fall in the category of sin, unless your act was one of wilful disobedience to parental authority, knowing that such disobedience was contrary to the will of God.

But aren't we still cut off from God by transgression of the law even if no intentional sin has been committed?

[CV75]

I have recently been thinking a lot about the nature of sin. Here is one line of reasoning, from the "traditional" to the more elaborate view I am starting to develop:

1. Sin is any behaviour forbidden by God
2. However, it appears that no individual behaviour is always sinful, all depends on circumstances and motivations.
3. Is a sin also defined by its consequences? No, consequences may include just punishment for sin, but do not define the sinfulness of a behaviour.
4. The internal antecedents of behaviour define its sinfulness: knowledge, motivation and attitude
5. A prideful attitude is an attitude of rebellion. When paired with the knowledge of God's attributes and purposes, it becomes rebellion against God.
6. Sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed after being aware of the goodness of God and the basic principles of the Gospel.
7. If this definition is correct, then how would we label the past behaviour of a new convert to the Church? If he didn't know about the gospel, then his actions were not sinful and he had no need to repent of them.
8. Therefore there is a flaw in this definition

Can you help me identify the flaw in my conclusion (which is not a final conclusion, btw)?

Sin is also an offense against conscience, the Light of Christ, and every accountable person sins in this way. New converts would naturally feel the sting of conscience for such things, and an appreciative amazement at the mercy shown them throughout a life of not abiding in the more formal covenants and commandments they may or may not have been aware of. All members hopefully continue to feel the same way until the perfect day dawns upon them.

[nicolasconnault]

But aren't we still cut off from God by transgression of the law even if no intentional sin has been committed?

No, only transgression to God's law. I don't think transgressing human law cuts you off from the presence of God, unless doing so also violates divine commandments. In some cases Jesus Christ violated what some people considered the law, yet we know He never did anything that would cut him off from the Father.

[nicolasconnault]

Sin is also an offense against conscience, the Light of Christ, and every accountable person sins in this way. New converts would naturally feel the sting of conscience for such things, and an appreciative amazement at the mercy shown them throughout a life of not abiding in the more formal covenants and commandments they may or may not have been aware of. All members hopefully continue to feel the same way until the perfect day dawns upon them.

Excellent! I'll add that to my concept of sin.

[Palerider]

Sin is also an offense against conscience, the Light of Christ, and every accountable person sins in this way. New converts would naturally feel the sting of conscience for such things, and an appreciative amazement at the mercy shown them throughout a life of not abiding in the more formal covenants and commandments they may or may not have been aware of. All members hopefully continue to feel the same way until the perfect day dawns upon them.

I agree in most respects.

[TAO]

Sin would be contradicting against the spirit, and knowledge you have.

So new-members previous mistakes would only be sins if they knew it was wrong. For example, many non-members know it is a sin to be prideful, thus they would be responsible for that.

In other words, degree of knowledge equates to degree of responsibility. No knowledge means no responsibility.

[Palerider]

No, only transgression to God's law. I don't think transgressing human law cuts you off from the presence of God, unless doing so also violates divine commandments. In some cases Jesus Christ violated what some people considered the law, yet we know He never did anything that would cut him off from the Father.

Should have clarified that I was speaking specifically of God's law, not earthly law.

I thought according to LDS theology that there was a difference between "transgression" and "sin" and yet there is a consequence of being cut off from God regardless of which has occurred. No?

[Palerider]

Sin would be contradicting against the spirit, and knowledge you have.

So new-members previous mistakes would only be sins if they knew it was wrong. For example, many non-members know it is a sin to be prideful, thus they would be responsible for that.

In other words, degree of knowledge equates to degree of responsibility. No knowledge means no responsibility.

Perhaps no responsibility but what about consequence?

[Mark Beesley]

Sin is any behavior which violates naturally occuring eternal laws. God does not create or establish these laws. He reveals them to us so that we can avoid behaviors which result in negative consequences, i.e. punishment.

See D&C 130:20, 21

Someone who sins ignorantly has still violated that law and the consequences that flow from such violation cannot be avoided. Someone must pay, as it were.

The atonement of Jesus Christ answers the demands of the law where the actual violator does not.

[TAO]

Perhaps no responsibility but what about consequence?

Mark has it correct... Jesus suffers for them for us... he's so wonderful to us!

[nicolasconnault]

Sin is any behavior which violates naturally occuring eternal laws. God does not create or establish these laws. He reveals them to us so that we can avoid the natural consequences of our actions.

See D&C 130:20, 21

Someone who sins ignorantly has still violated that law and the consequences that flow from such violation cannot be avoided. Someone must pay, as it were.

The atonement of Jesus Christ answers the demands of the law where the actual violator does not.

I agree with that. So it is the law that defines sin, not the behaviour. For example, it would have been sinful for Nephi to have refused to heed the Spirit's command to kill Laban.

[Libs]

The biblical definition of sin is "missing the mark", which means, when we sin, we are off center (thinking of a "target"). That makes us less that perfect.

[nicolasconnault]

The biblical definition of sin is "missing the mark", which means, when we sin, we are off center (thinking of a "target"). That makes us less that perfect.

I don't think that is the only biblical definition...

[Libs]

Yes, there seem to be many, but I think that one is the most common.

[nicolasconnault]

Yes, there seem to be many, but I think that one is the most common.

[Libs]

Thanks for that quote, very informative.

You're very welcome. I thought it was kind of interesting, as well..especially all of the different words used for sin, in the New Testament.

[Libs]

Sin is any behavior which violates naturally occuring eternal laws. God does not create or establish these laws. He reveals them to us so that we can avoid the natural consequences of our actions.

See D&C 130:20, 21

Someone who sins ignorantly has still violated that law and the consequences that flow from such violation cannot be avoided. Someone must pay, as it were.

The atonement of Jesus Christ answers the demands of the law where the actual violator does not.

Hi Mark.

I was pondering this and wondering, by this definition...we are not sinning against God, but rather this law?

This part of LDS doctrine always confuses me. Where did the law come from, if not from God? (I know I've asked this before, but for me, it's one of those "weak spots").

[nicolasconnault]

Hi Mark.

I was pondering this and wondering, by this definition...we are not sinning against God, but rather this law?

This part of LDS doctrine always confuses me. Where did the law come from, if not from God? (I know I've asked this before, but for me, it's one of those "weak spots").

Libs, my view is that the "eternal laws" are not created because they cannot be, they are not something that have even a need to be created. They are simply natural causal links that happen to directly affect our behaviour and their consequences. They are intrinsic to the fabric of the universe, and while we may be very adroit at devising "alternate" laws through our fertile imagination, we do so with an infinitesimal degree of relevant knowledge, including an even smaller amount of true knowledge. We do not know how altering a law would affect the universe in which we live.

In fact, I consider these laws to be essential even to the existence of God. An orderly God (assuming we agree that God is a being of order) could not exist within a chaotic, lawless universe, as indeed nothing could. As human beings we have a tendency to reduce every concept, however abstract, to something tangible, limited, fallible and alterable. Some things, like universal laws, must be thought about in different ways.

When we think of God's laws, we tend to imagine that they are neatly written in godly handwriting somewhere in a huge leather-bound arcane book, and that they were decided upon by a God who thought that doing things this way would be good. My understanding is that even God is bound by eternal, universal laws, and that he is happy to comply with these laws. In fact, I believe He has grown to fully comprehend and master them, and this is precisely what makes Him a God. As long as we fight against natural laws (such as consequences for self-destructive behaviours), we will be bound by our own rebellion and unable to progress.

[CV75]

My understanding is that even God is bound by eternal, universal laws, and that he is happy to comply with these laws. In fact, I believe He has grown to fully comprehend and master them, and this is precisely what makes Him a God. As long as we fight against natural laws (such as consequences for self-destructive behaviours), we will be bound by our own rebellion and unable to progress.

Showing that these laws cannot of themselves integrate and constitute themselves into a God, but have to be applied by beings as co-eternal as the laws are.

[LeSellers]

Mark has it correct... Jesus suffers for them for us... he's so wonderful to us!

He does not suffer all of the consequences for us, as many may infer from your statement. For instance, were I to start drinking alcohol, I'd still suffer the hangovers, the cirrhosis, the blackouts, and all the accompanying legal problems resulting from my drinking. But, if I repent of this sin, then He suffers the spiritual penalties of my sinning, which I would have to do absent my repentance.

Lehi