Sin

[nicolasconnault]

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

Lehi, I have a broader view of Christ's vicarious experience based on Alma 7:11-13

11And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succorhis people according to their infirmities.

13Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

This scripture seems to indicate that his atonement allowed him to become acquainted with the entire gamut of human suffering, whether it be self-afflicted or not. What is your interpretation?

[Mark Beesley]

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").

Greeting Libs,

I would resist characterizing anything I write as LDS doctrine. I have opinions that I have formed over the years which I believe to be scripturally sound, and which to me are logical.

Where you may find the belief in the eternal nature of laws to be a weak spot in LDS theology, I find the converse to be true, and indeed find that a disbelief in the eternal nature of law to be a weak spot in any Christian theology that does not include such a belief. Let me explain why.

If laws are not eternal, existing independent of Heavenly Fatther, then He created them for His own purposes. His Son Jesus Christ came to earth and then suffered the penalty for the violation of those very laws which His Father created, and the purpose for creating them is revealed as being intended to cause the Son to suffer. If the person who disbelieves in the eternal nature of laws also believes in the the doctrine of the Trinity, it becomes even more problematic: God created the law and affixed the punishment so He could suffer? That's what it boils down for the Trinitarian who believes God created all laws.

What is puzzling to me is that someone will reject the notion of eternal natual laws because they think someone (God) had to have created them, but they have no problem accepting the eternal exiistence of God without accounting for how He came into existence. Why is it easier to believe in the eternal nature of God than the eternal nature of laws? So, I would turn your question around and ask, "Where did God come from, if not from the Law?"

I found nicolasconnault's elucidation (in his post in which he addressed you) to be very understandable.

[Mark Beesley]

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

You are correct. My original post was inartfully worded. I have fixed it.

[Libs]

Greeting Libs,

I would resist characterizing anything I write as LDS doctrine. I have opinions that I have formed over the years which I believe to be scripturally sound, and which to me are logical.

Where you may find the belief in the eternal nature of laws to be a weak spot in LDS theology, I find the converse to be true, and indeed find that a disbelief in the eternal nature of law to be a weak spot in any Christian theology that does not include such a belief. Let me explain why.

If laws are not eternal, existing independent of Heavenly Fatther, then He created them for His own purposes. His Son Jesus Christ came to earth and then suffered the penalty for the violation of those very laws which His Father created, and the purpose for creating them is revealed as being intended to cause the Son to suffer. If the person who disbelieves in the eternal nature of laws also believes in the the doctrine of the Trinity, it becomes even more problematic: God created the law and affixed the punishment so He could suffer? That's what it boils down for the Trinitarian who believes God created all laws.

What is puzzling to me is that someone will reject the notion of eternal natual laws because they think someone (God) had to have created them, but they have no problem accepting the eternal exiistence of God without accounting for how He came into existence. Why is it easier to believe in the eternal nature of God than the eternal nature of laws? So, I would turn your question around and ask, "Where did God come from, if not from the Law?"

I found nicolasconnault's elucidation (in his post in which he addressed you) to be very understandable.

Okay, I'd like to back track a little and revise what I said. I don't really believe that "moral" laws were created. They are a natural part of God's character and have existed eternally, as a part of God. At least, that's how I view it, and I think there is plenty of biblical evidence for that view. Physical laws, on the other hand, may have been created along with this universe, which exists in time and space, and did have a beginning and will have an end.

It doesn't make sense, to me, that laws could have somehow always existed on their own. It does make sense, to me, that there could be an eternally existing "intelligence" (God) whose character is the very essence of moral law, and from whom intelligent and orderly physical laws could have been created.

[nicolasconnault]

Okay, I'd like to back track a little and revise what I said. I don't really believe that "moral" laws were created. They are a natural part of God's character and have existed eternally, as a part of God. At least, that's how I view it, and I think there is plenty of biblical evidence for that view. Physical laws, on the other hand, may have been created along with this universe, which exists in time and space, and did have a beginning and will have an end.

It doesn't make sense, to me, that laws could have somehow always existed on their own. It does make sense, to me, that there could be an eternally existing "intelligence" (God) whose character is the very essence of moral law, and from whom intelligent and orderly physical laws could have been created.

That would be based on the assumption that God is not subject to any laws of his own creation. Do you believe that God subjects himself to any laws at all?

[TAO]

I believe that there are eternal laws actually... and they are binding to God, I think, because of promises he made to keep.

[Mark Beesley]

Okay, I'd like to back track a little and revise what I said. I don't really believe that "moral" laws were created. They are a natural part of God's character and have existed eternally, as a part of God. At least, that's how I view it, and I think there is plenty of biblical evidence for that view. Physical laws, on the other hand, may have been created along with this universe, which exists in time and space, and did have a beginning and will have an end.

It doesn't make sense, to me, that laws could have somehow always existed on their own. It does make sense, to me, that there could be an eternally existing "intelligence" (God) whose character is the very essence of moral law, and from whom intelligent and orderly physical laws could have been created.

Since the title of the thread is Sin, and the participants were talking about the nature of sin, I guess I assumed the discussion was about that which you have termed "moral" law. It appears that you agree that laws, the violation of which would constitute sin, are eternal in nature and not created.

If that is the case, I find it rather curious that you can accept the notion of eternal "moral" laws but not eternal "physical" laws. It is probably unimportant to our salvation, but interesting to muse on whether God created the universe in accordance with co-existing physical laws, or created the universe and then adopted a code of laws with which to govern the planets, stars, etc. It is particularly interesting for a Latter-day Saint who believes that he/she may one day participate in the creation of worlds and universes. I can think of a few physical laws I'd like to change . . . like how people procreate.

[LeSellers]

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succorhis people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

This scripture seems to indicate that his atonement allowed him to become acquainted with the entire gamut of human suffering, whether it be self-afflicted or not. What is your interpretation?

Nothing in this passage even hints that Jesus' sacrifice removes the physical results of sin, only the spiritual effects are absorbed in His Atonement.

I certainly do not rebut any argument you or anyone else would make that Jesus' life and sacrifice provided Him with the full range of human experience. But that's not what I said, and no reasonable inference like it is possible from what I did say.

Lehi

[nicolasconnault]

Nothing in this passage even hints that Jesus' sacrifice removes the physical results of sin, only the spiritual effects are absorbed in His Atonement.

I certainly do not rebut any argument you or anyone else would make that Jesus' life and sacrifice provided Him with the full range of human experience. But that's not what I said, and no reasonable inference like it is possible from what I did say.

Actually what you said is this:

He does not suffer all of the consequences for us

That is the point I was discussing. You never mentioned removing physical results of sin. If you agree that Christ suffered all, that "all" must include our suffering endured because of the consequences of our actions. I never argued that through this suffering the Saviour actually removed the consequences. Alma 7 says that He suffered these things that He may know how to succor us.

[TAO]

Uh Lehi... I would kinda disagree... there are several verses which speak of Jesus taking on for the pain caused by our physical infirmities (not the infirmities themselves, just the pain caused by them).

Matthew 8:17 says "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, ^aHimself took our ^binfirmities, and bare our ^csicknesses." As of such, I think that although this could refer to spiritual sickness, it could as well refer to physical sickness as well.

Also, as nic pointed out, Alma 7:11 mentions "suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind", which could also be taken physically (although it does not have to).

D&C 18:11 also states, "For, behold, the Lord your ^aRedeemer suffered ^bdeath in the flesh; wherefore he ^csuffered the ^dpain of all men, that all men might repent and ^ecome unto him."

For me, the pain of all men signifies physical pain as well, but I suppose it could mean emotional pain and the likes... however, I tend to think the pain caused by physical infirmities is also carried by him. I do remember being taught in seminary about such, but they may have gotten it wrong.

[Libs]

That would be based on the assumption that God is not subject to any laws of his own creation. Do you believe that God subjects himself to any laws at all?

Hi nicolas. I started to answer your other long post, but was interrupted by "real life" .. and this question, you posed above, was the main thing that caught my eye.

The honest answer is, I really don't know. But, here is what I believe, right now (how it appears to me, from my various studies and intuition). In regards to moral laws, I think, perfect love, goodness and justice, etc., is simply who God is, not something outside of him. So, I wouldn't say he is "subject to" those laws, but is rather the very embodiment of those laws. So, when we sin, we are sinning against WHO GOD IS, which separates us from him. That's my perception.

I do believe Jesus subjected himself to physical laws, when he came to earth (although, I think he worked outside of those physical laws in some respects, like with healings and other miracles), but he did suffer and die and was even subject to temptation, while he was here, so yes, I think God did subject himself to physical law during that period.

[Libs]

Since the title of the thread is Sin, and the participants were talking about the nature of sin, I guess I assumed the discussion was about that which you have termed "moral" law. It appears that you agree that laws, the violation of which would constitute sin, are eternal in nature and not created.

If that is the case, I find it rather curious that you can accept the notion of eternal "moral" laws but not eternal "physical" laws. It is probably unimportant to our salvation, but interesting to muse on whether God created the universe in accordance with co-existing physical laws, or created the universe and then adopted a code of laws with which to govern the planets, stars, etc. It is particularly interesting for a Latter-day Saint who believes that he/she may one day participate in the creation of worlds and universes. I can think of a few physical laws I'd like to change . . . like how people procreate.

I think that's the first time I've heard a man complain about "how" people pro-create. lol

As for physical law, it doesn't much matter to me whether it is eternal or not, as long as I can see that there is some kind of intelligence behind it. I guess, that's what I'm not seeing or understanding, in the LDS system. Where did those eternal laws come from without God?

[TAO]

As for physical law, it doesn't much matter to me whether it is eternal or not, as long as I can see that there is some kind of intelligence behind it. I guess, that's what I'm not seeing or understanding, in the LDS system. Where did those eternal laws come from without God?

From what I understand... just as there is no beginning in the sequence of HFs (although this is highly theoretical), there is no beginning for that truth. There was no beginning, because there was always something before that, and due to things that happened in previous existences, those rules were decided on... the on we know as HF now has agreed to those rules, and that is what I think an eternal law is.

Meh... I don't think I explained it well =/.

[Libs]

From what I understand... just as there is no beginning in the sequence of HFs (although this is highly theoretical), there is no beginning for that truth. There was no beginning, because there was always something before that, and due to things that happened in previous existences, those rules were decided on... the on we know as HF now has agreed to those rules, and that is what I think an eternal law is.

Meh... I don't think I explained it well =/.

No, you did fine. I understand what you're saying.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Besides which, if something "always" existed, it doesn't appear there could have ever been a point of "deciding on something"..y/k?

I donno. That part of LDS theology is a mystery to me. It's kind of like the vague notion of intelligences being eternal, except they were not full blown "gods" or even spirits, yet, so they didn't do any of the creating (I don't think?)..

[paulpatter]

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:

Sin is any behaviour forbidden by God

Your definition is too restrictive. Sin can also be "an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible; an often serious shortcoming (fault)" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11trh ed., p. 1,162). In other words, "sin" can be used in a non-religious context.

: However, it appears that no individual behaviour is always sinful, all depends on circumstances and motivations.

Under what circumstances would the sexual abuse of a two-year-old child, for example, not be a sin?

: 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 oft he Gospel.

If your statement were true, atheists would be incapable of sin; so, too, would non-believing pedaphiles.

". . .how would we label the past behavior 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

This assumes that "sin" is linked solely to a violation of religious principles, which it isn't (see above). More importantly, however, is the fact that once a convert learns about the gospel, he/she--blessed with new light and knowledge--is obligated to repent of past transgressions.

: Can you help me identify the flaw in my conclusion?

The flaw begins with your restrictive definition of "sin," and it is embodied in Item #5 on your list. New converts must repent of past transgressions once they gain an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Moreover, if they are sincere and truly contrite, they want to repent of those transgressions, thus emerging from the baptismal water truly clean.

I appreciate your question, and I hope this is helpful.

[nicolasconnault]

Under what circumstances would the sexual abuse of a two-year-old child, for example, not be a sin?

You are not just describing a behaviour. You are also adding details about intent (abuse) and circumstances (a two-year-old child). You are also making an assumption about knowledge of wrong-doing. The circumcision of 8-days-old children may be viewed as a form of sexual abuse, but the "perpetrators" certainly didn't believe they were committing a sin, to the contrary.

My point was that the sinfulness of a behaviour is not defined by that behaviour alone, but by the thoughts or motivations that promoted the behaviour. I could add the example of religious zealots who perform suicide bombings, feeling that they are performing their duty to God. Can we judge for certain that they are all aware that their actions are sinful in the eyes of God? What are their real intentions? What is their knowledge?

The flaw begins with your restrictive definition of "sin," and it is embodied in Item #5 on your list. New converts must repent of past transgressions once they gain an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Moreover, if they are sincere and truly contrite, they want to repent of those transgressions, thus emerging from the baptismal water truly clean.

I appreciate your question, and I hope this is helpful.

Yes thank you, and I largely agree with you, although most of what you said has already been said by previous posters.

[paulpatter]

You are not just describing a behaviour. You are also adding details about intent (abuse) and circumstances (a two-year-old child).

The behavior speaks for itself and cannot be understood absent context. As for intent, what detail can possibly ameliorate the behavior? The same question applies to circumstances. Surely you aren't suggesting that there's a circumstance by which the sexual abuse of a two-year-old child is defensible (although I suppose one could call on the insanity defense).

: You are also making an assumption about knowledge of wrong-doing.

Of course I am. If the sexual abuse of a two-year-old child isn't sinful, what is? How far are you willing to go before saying "Enough!?"

: The circumcision of 8-days-old children may be viewed as a form of sexual abuse, but the "perpetrators" certainly didn't believe they were committing a sin, to the contrary.

Forgive me, but I don't think your comparison is applicable. Circumcision is a cultural/religious phenomenon (LDS practice it, in fact); and the "perpetrators" do not derive sexual satisfaction from performing it (or having a doctor perform it).

: My point was that the sinfulness of a behaviour is not defined by that behaviour alone, but by the thoughts or motivations that promoted the behaviour.

The consequences of those thoughts/motivations, by themselves, constitute sin; you cannot separate the behavior from its consequences. The madman who killed

six and injured scores of others in Arizona sinned when he fired off the shots (behavior) and sinned when he took human life (consequences).

: I could add the example of religious zealots who perform suicide bombings, feeling that they are performing their duty to God. Can we judge for certain that they are all aware that their actions are sinful in the eyes of God? What are their real intentions? What is their knowledge?

Their religion has been perverted by fanatics seeking military and political power. Mainstream Muslims have repeatedly condemned their actions. Moreover, Ignorance of the law (civil and doctrinal) is no excuse for murder. Every human being has within him/her the light of Christ. To deny that light is, in my opinion, to commit sin.

: Yes thank you, and I largely agree with you, although most of what you said has already been said by previous posters.

You're welcome.

[elguanteloko]

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:

What is 'sin' a consequence of? If you say "a prideful attitude", then "a prideful attitude" is not a sin, something which I don't think you can agree with. If you say that "sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed", then pride and greed are not sins. Also, think about why we needed a Christ and couldn't just remain in a state of ignoreance until death and be saved (since no knowledge, no sin and, thus, no need for anything to be atoned for).

[nicolasconnault]

What is 'sin' a consequence of? If you say "a prideful attitude", then "a prideful attitude" is not a sin, something which I don't think you can agree with. If you say that "sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed", then pride and greed are not sins. Also, think about why we needed a Christ and couldn't just remain in a state of ignoreance until death and be saved (since no knowledge, no sin and, thus, no need for anything to be atoned for).

Actually I don't believe attitudes are sins, but they can lead to sins. Regarding death in ignorance, which applies to young children, I think that Christ's atonement is required to overcome their fallen state inherent to the human condition, but not to overcome any sins they have committed.

[Libs]

Actually I don't believe attitudes are sins, but they can lead to sins.

What about Christ's admonition in Matthew 5:28:

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

[nicolasconnault]

What about Christ's admonition in Matthew 5:28:

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Looking at a woman lustfully is a behaviour accompanied by thoughts, not an attitude. An attitude is a general disposition towards certain thought patterns and ideas.

[Libs]

Looking at a woman lustfully is a behaviour accompanied by thoughts, not an attitude. An attitude is a general disposition towards certain thought patterns and ideas.

Okay. What if one's constant attitude towards women is one of lust? Wouldn't that be sinful?

[elguanteloko]

Actually I don't believe attitudes are sins, but they can lead to sins.

An attitude of hatred toward others isn't a sin? Again, "if you say "a prideful attitude", then "a prideful attitude" is not a sin, something which I don't think you can agree with. If you say that "sin can therefore be defined as anything we do out of pride or greed", then pride and greed are not sins." So, are attitudes of hatred towards your brethern, pride and greed not sins?

Regarding death in ignorance, which applies to young children, I think that Christ's atonement is required to overcome their fallen state inherent to the human condition, but not to overcome any sins they have committed.

I wasn't talking about young children. If John Doe never heard of the Gospel and wasn't under the law, will he get punished by the law? Did Mr. Doe sin by having sex before marriage (he never saw anything wrong with it)?

[elguanteloko]

Looking at a woman lustfully is a behaviour accompanied by thoughts, not an attitude. An attitude is a general disposition towards certain thought patterns and ideas.

I don't get it, then. You said the following in the OP:

The internal antecedents of behaviour define its sinfulness: knowledge, motivation and attitude

I thought a sin was "any behaviour forbidden by God" (from what you wrote in the OP). Is a sin the behavior forbidden by God or the attitude (since you said an attitude is not a sin but here you say the attitude makes a behavior a sin)? I also don't see how an ex-mormon as myself, by rejecting mormonism, could qualify as sinning under my conditions. I have the knowledge that mormonism is not true at its core, the motivation to do a greater good outside mormonism, and I guess my attitude is one of good intentions. How can I be sinning by reject LDS teachings and core practices (e.g. praying, temple) other than by God forbidding the action (not the knowledge I have, not the motivation I have, and not the attitude I have; just the action)?

It would be of great help for all of us trying to figure what you are saying in this thread for you to define these critical terms, please. Examples are just as important, if you don't mind.

[TAO]

No, you did fine. I understand what you're saying.

Ok that's good =).

It just doesn't make sense to me. Besides which, if something "always" existed, it doesn't appear there could have ever been a point of "deciding on something"..y/k?

Well hmm... let me explain perhaps... ok... so let's say you have a graph of sin and cosine. They seperate... and then they grow close together... and then they seperate... and then they grow close together... etc. Now, you can go infinitely in the positive direction (moving forward in time), and they will always continue crossing at constant intervals. You can also move in the negative direction (moving backwards in time), and they will always continue crossing at constant intervals.

Now let's imagine it a little bigger. Let's say that the sin and cos graphs represent the average radii of the universe. It opens... and then closes... and then opens... and then closes... repetively for all future. Also repetitively for all time in the past. Each of those intersections in the graph represent 'a decision point'.

In other words, the cycle that has been happening with us will not only happen infinitely in the future... but also has been happening infinitely in the past. The only difference between this, and how other Christians view God is that we view it as a very dynamic cycle, with work being done... whereas other Christians tend to think 'one God, always that way, never changing' before the beginning of the universe... which would mean God would be doing nothing infinitely for the past (in universe time terms).

Perhaps I should post an excel graph... would that be helpful?

I donno. That part of LDS theology is a mystery to me. It's kind of like the vague notion of intelligences being eternal, except they were not full blown "gods" or even spirits, yet, so they didn't do any of the creating (I don't think?)...

From what I know, intelligences still had a life they were doing in the pre-pre-existance (before the plan was even made, before they were even spiritually born). But then, their time came (there is a time set for all intelligences just as there is for us), and they became spiritually born (part of the duties of Heavenly Father and Mother)... and then later... some were sent to Earth to get a body (the ones that chose to). Now you might ask... how many intelligences exist? Actually... there is an infinite amount of them. Just as universe-relative time extends infinitely in the past and the future, there is also an infinite number of spirits out there... covering the infinite amount of 'universe space'. The farther we look, the more we find... however, when we look in a limited area of the 'universe space', there is a finite amount of intelligences needing to be 'embodied'.

Hope that didn't get too obscure =P. And it's quite theoretical, so yah... some parts/all of it may be incorrect.