Can Thomas Monson Say Jesus Sinned And Still Be A True Prophet?

[HeatherAnn]

Prophet: A person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God

True: in accordance with fact or reality

I see President Monson as President... a leader of this world wide lds church, who many consider to be inspired to proclaim the will of God.

He doesn't know me personally... he is not aware of my reality... that's my responsibility - to figure out the will of God for me personally.

I see others in history as people who lead others in the will of God... like William Tyndale & Martin Luther King.

Who is Jesus?

To me, an example of love, humility & strength, to follow - an ideal, a personification of spirituality... a way to resonate to God.

Sin: incorrect thoughts (& related feelings & behavior)

Is anybody on earth perfect/sinless?

Is it better to imagine a sinful ideal to follow... or does it help more to imagine a sinless ideal to follow?

Is it best to put Jesus up on a pedestal of perfection that we could never reach?

What would be God's will - what's best/most loving eternally?

Edited November 7, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[HeatherAnn]

Interesting thought but if we can all atone for our own sins, there would be no need for a savior in the the first place.

What are we being saved from, considering, "God is love"? (1John 4: 8 )

Edited November 7, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[CV75]

Interesting thought but if we can all atone for our own sins, there would be no need for a savior in the the first place.

Or, if Jesus atoned for His own sins, He would not have the infinite wherewithal to atone for any/everybody else’s—He would be short of infinite by the amount entailed in His own sins’ payment.

[Cobalt-70]

Interesting thought but if we can all atone for our own sins, there would be no need for a savior in the the first place.

Brigham Young and the members of his First Presidency went ever further than that, saying that the atonement of Jesus was incapable of satisfying the penalty for certain sins--like murder, adultery, and breaking temple covenants. But even outside the blood atonement context, there was (and this is probably still probably the majority Mormon view, I would guess) the view that if you are wicked and do not accept Jesus, you will pay the penalty for your sins in spirit prison before ultimately being pronounced clean and allowed to enter a (telestial) degree of glory.

[Flyonthewall]

In LDS teachings, the atonement required a sinless sacrifice, so if Jesus was a sinner, the atonement would not be.

The atonement is more than just paying for one's own sins.

[ldsfaqs]

I make a distinction between sin and error. I'm sure some time during Jesus mortal life, as the son of a carpenter, he split a tongue groove or hit his hand with a hammer. I'm also equally sure he didn't cheat his customers.

Yep...... But Evangelicals call all "error" sin also, especially when they are contending against us on something, such as the Fall of Adam, Age of Accountability, etc. To them, there is no such thing as transgression, only sin. They don't understand the difference between innocent mistakes and sinful acts.

If I'm remembering right, there is an extra-biblical text in which Christ even killed someone, but of course then raised him from the dead.

[diglot]

Yep...... But Evangelicals call all "error" sin also, especially when they are contending against us on something, such as the Fall of Adam, Age of Accountability, etc. To them, there is no such thing as transgression, only sin. They don't understand the difference between innocent mistakes and sinful acts.

Uh, that does not at all describe the evangelicalism I know. I don't know where you are getting your info on what evangelicals believe, but all streams of evangelicalism I am familiar with, including American Evangelicalism, accept the age of accountability, and that errors and innocent mistakes are not sinful acts.

Edited November 8, 2011 by diglot

[ERayR]

What's further funny is that the Scriptures actually do indicate that Christ WAS a "sinner"..... He was mortal, made mistakes, had to grow grace to grace, etc. Of course, LDS call it transgression, not that he actually was a sinner. But Aarons definition is he would be a sinner, because they don't believe in transgression, they consider all acts of wrong a sin, transgression, no age of accountability, etc. or not.

Really? I think you may have a serious misunderstanding of what grace to grace means.

[altersteve]

Brigham Young and the members of his First Presidency went ever further than that, saying that the atonement of Jesus was incapable of satisfying the penalty for certain sins--like murder, adultery, and breaking temple covenants. But even outside the blood atonement context, there was (and this is probably still probably the majority Mormon view, I would guess) the view that if you are wicked and do not accept Jesus, you will pay the penalty for your sins in spirit prison before ultimately being pronounced clean and allowed to enter a (telestial) degree of glory.

CFR that Brigham Young didn't believe the Atonement covered adultery. Surely he believed the New Testament account of Christ forgiving the adulterous woman.

[BCSpace]

What's further funny is that the Scriptures actually do indicate that Christ WAS a "sinner"..... He was mortal, made mistakes, had to grow grace to grace, etc. Of course, LDS call it transgression, not that he actually was a sinner. But Aarons definition is he would be a sinner, because they don't believe in transgression, they consider all acts of wrong a sin, transgression, no age of accountability, etc. or not.

Sin and transgression are one and the same.

[Rivers]

Brigham Young and the members of his First Presidency went ever further than that, saying that the atonement of Jesus was incapable of satisfying the penalty for certain sins--like murder, adultery, and breaking temple covenants. But even outside the blood atonement context, there was (and this is probably still probably the majority Mormon view, I would guess) the view that if you are wicked and do not accept Jesus, you will pay the penalty for your sins in spirit prison before ultimately being pronounced clean and allowed to enter a (telestial) degree of glory.

I think there is a difference between suffering for sins and atoning for sins.

[Rivers]

What are we being saved from, considering, "God is love"? (1John 4: 8 )

From not being able to reach our fullest potential.

[ldsfaqs]

Uh, that does not at all describe the evangelicalism I know. I don't know where you are getting your info on what evangelicals believe, but all streams of evangelicalism I am familiar with, including American Evangelicalism, accept the age of accountability, and that errors and innocent mistakes are not sinful acts.

It's from years and years of dealing with anti-mormons. Yes, I'm well aware that there are all kinds of beliefs with other religions and individuals that belief different things. But, in order to condemn LDS doctrine, some do believe what I've stated, and others simply hold a double standard in order to try and condemn LDS theology.

[ldsfaqs]

Sin and transgression are one and the same.

Why in the world do you have to say things like this BCspace???

As an LDS you should be very well familiar that they ARE most certainly different.

I'm really getting concerned about you BCspace.

[Cobalt-70]

CFR that Brigham Young didn't believe the Atonement covered adultery. Surely he believed the New Testament account of Christ forgiving the adulterous woman.

See Young, Mar. 2, 1856, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247 (If "you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God....There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.") What he thought about the tale of Jesus pardoning the adulterous woman, I don't know.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[altersteve]

See Young, Mar. 2, 1856, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247 (If "you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God....There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.") What he thought about the tale of Jesus pardoning the adulterous woman, I don't know.

He's talking about those who commit adultery after they covenant with God that they would not.

[Cobalt-70]

He's talking about those who commit adultery after they covenant with God that they would not.

Anyone who is married, at least in a religious ceremony, has made such a covenant.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

I am curious about this concept of blood atonement; I have always considered BY's errant speculation similar to the Adam-God theory. What are your thoughts?

[Storm Rider]

Anyone who is married, at least in a religious ceremony, has made such a covenant.

No, they are not similar. Some marriages are sealed by the authority of God (they are sealed in heaven as well as on this earth) and others are not (i.e. without any sealing authority). Their intentions may be similar, but the authority is lacking.

[Mansquatch]

Interesting thought but if we can all atone for our own sins, there would be no need for a savior in the the first place.

Kinda missing the whole resurrection part of things there. Without that one would be truly eternally condemned and not be able to have D&C 19 apply to them.

[HeatherAnn]

From not being able to reach our fullest potential.

I love the idea of striving for our full potential!

How is this done IN LIFE?

And how can anybody reach our full potential besides, us?

The root of sin is incorrect thoughts (& related feelings & behavior).

How is using a scapegoat of human sacrifice going to correct our thoughts for us?

Isn't that irresponsible thinking, which is "sinful" in itself?

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

Sin is doing what you already know is wrong. Repentence is the removing the Heavenly penalty for that sin.

We mere mortals of course will not be perfect in this life. But we are still required to keep trying anyway.

[LeSellers]

CFR that Brigham Young didn't believe the Atonement covered adultery. Surely he believed the New Testament account of Christ forgiving the adulterous woman.

More than a quibble:

Jesus did not "forgive the adulterous woman". He did not condemn her. There is a difference, and it is not trivial.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Sin and transgression are one and the same.

Sorry, they are not "one and the same."

All "sin" is "transgression", but not all "transgression" is "sin".

"Sin" requires knowledge of the law, and a willful rebellion against the Lawgiver.

"Transgression" is any breaking of a God-given law, and while a child of, say, 4 years, may transgress, it is impossible for him to "sin" because he does not know (and understand) the law, and he is not in willful rebellion against God (although it may be that he is "rebelling" against his parents). He does not know what rebellion is.

Lehi

[HeatherAnn]

HeatherAnn:

Sin is doing what you already know is wrong. Repentence is the removing the Heavenly penalty for that sin.

We mere mortals of course will not be perfect in this life. But we are still required to keep trying anyway.

Thesometimessaint,

I agree that we will not be perfect in this life, but it's good for us to keep trying anyway... to finish strong.

We have lots of guesses of what happens after we die. Truth is, nobody really knows for sure.

What we know & what our concern should be is NOW... this life.

The greatest commandments are to love God & love others AS ourselves. On these commandments "hang all the laws & the prophets."

Before you do "what you already know is wrong" - you think about it, feel about it & only THEN do you act on it.

So the ROOT of sin is thought... especially those that break the greatest commandments.

Why would there be a "Heavenly penalty for sin" when GOD designed us to sin?

Does that make any sense at all?

Of course not.

Does it make any sense to use a scapegoat in the form of human sacrifice to pretend to appease a God who we IMAGINE demands it?

Of course not.

It's incorrect thinking... which leads to an avoidance of exploring one's "psychology" ("study of the soul")- & IMO, is why so many in the church struggle with some type of mental illness.