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

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

As God can not look upon sin with any degree of allowance.The penalty is separation from God. When we sin we separate ourselves from God. Repentence re-establishes the unity. Jesus the Christ paid the penalty for all of us if we will but believe in him, and do as he commands.

Actually Pschology is the study of the mind. Old psychology joke: One out of every one of us is neurotic, and two out of every one of us is schizophrenic.

[HeatherAnn]

TheSometimesSaint,

Funny joke!

I know you're so used to hearing the repeated gospel lesson answers in church.

But saying something over & over again doesn't make it true, unless you're saying, "I'm repetative."

God is love... Love is basically progression... hoping & striving for what's best through trial & error (faith).

"Love covereth a multitude of sins."

God doesn't look at sin with disgust... God looks at sin as God's PLAN (sometimes painful) of progressing... live & learn!

When we sin, we may be further from love/God... but in the big/eternal perspective, sin is our way of learning to become more like God/LOVE. Repentance has to do with acknowledging in what ways we're off from love... & correcting those thoughts, feelings & behavior. We're like guided missiles... we must keep moving (be not luke warm) because only when we're moving can we be corrected to reach our target. The essence of correction/repentance is improving thinking. Jesus didn't correct our thoughts... how could he? Well, personally applying teachings about Jesus lead us closer to goodness. But that still is our responsibility.

In a way, Christ is our ideal to follow... like a goal we'll never reach but we keep trying... a personification of spirituality - easier to resonate to than abstract concepts of spirituality. Christ may also represent the subconscious, intuittive/spiritual part of us... which "after all we can do" - takes it from there in ways our superficial intellect could never.

Edited November 8, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[zerinus]

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.

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

I don't always agree with BCspace, but on this one I am going to have to agree with him. The scriptures do not make a distinction between sin and transgression. They are two different words for the same thing. Sin and transgression are the same thing.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Brigham Young didn't seem to make a distinction between the civilly married and the temple married. He once said that the best way for the law to deal with adulterers in the Utah territory (as well as thieves and murderers) is for "their cursed heads to be cut off that they may atone for their crimes." (John D. Lee Diary, March 3, 1849).

[Cobalt-70]

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

The author of 1 John sees it differently: "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

[zerinus]

That "interview" was a disaster. I never answer hypothetical questions. I say, if you have facts on the ground, bring them, and we will talk about them. That guy doesn't speak for the Church, or for me. He shouldn't be going around giving "interviews".

Edited November 8, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

There is no scripture that teaches or implies that Jesus was a sinner. Jesus progressed form childhood to adulthood, until He received a "fullness;" but that did not entail or necessitate committing sins.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

No one is arguing that. All sin is a transgression of law, but all transgression is not sin.

[ERayR]

There is no scripture that teaches or implies that Jesus was a sinner. Jesus progressed form childhood to adulthood, until He received a "fullness;" but that did not entail or necessitate committing sins.

As I posted above I think there is a misunderstanding of grace to grace.

[zerinus]

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.

All wrongdoing are sins; but in the case of those who sin in ignorance, such as children, or those who "have not the law given to them" (2 Nephi 9:26; also Mosiah 3:11), the Atonement of Christ compensates for their sins.

[zerinus]

Cobalt-70:

No one is arguing that. All sin is a transgression of law, but all transgression is not sin.

All transgression is sin.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70:

No one is arguing that. All sin is a transgression of law, but all transgression is not sin.

As is clear from the entire verse, 1 John 3:4 was defining sin, not giving an example: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." In other words, it is saying that not only is sin a transgression of the law, sin is the transgression of the law.

[LeSellers]

All transgression is sin.

Not it is not.

All sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. Sin requires more knowledge and a willful disobedience that transgression (may include, but) does not require.

In the second article, the Prophet states "that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." It was a revolutionary thought when it was given 126 years ago. Man is not "born in sin," as is taught by many churches in Christendom. Man is a child of God and had an existence before his sojourn in mortality. He came to the earth pure and sinless. To claim otherwise is to attribute the capacity for sin to one who does not know right from wrong.

Conference Report, October 1968, Afternoon Meeting, p.132

Here we see that sin and transgression are two different (albeit related) things.

My dear brethren, I am sure that one of the purposes for which this great correlation program is organized and one of the great results which will be accomplished by it, will be the elimination, so far as that is possible, of sin and transgression within the Church.

Conference Report, October 1961, General Priesthood Meeting, p.87

It is true, the Lord warned Adam and Eve that to partake of the fruit they would transgress a law, and this happened. But it is not always a sin to transgress a law. I will try to illustrate this. The chemist in his laboratory takes different elements and combines them, and the result is that something very different results. He has changed the law. … This may be subject to some disagreement by the critics who will say it is not transgressing a law. Well, Adam's transgression was of a similar nature, that is, his transgression was in accordance with law.

Doctrines of Salvation, 1:, p.114

Lehi

Edited November 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

Not it is not.

All sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. Sins requires more knowledge and a willful disobedience that transgression (may include, but) does not require.

Lehi

zerinus and I had this debate before. It won't matter how many scriptures, or lesson quotes, or GA quotes you bring up. He can find one or two GA quotes where the partaking of the forbidden fruit is called a "sin" in passing.

So it won't matter what you can show because he doesn't care. He has his very few quotes that he stands on, and he will ignore the numerous conflicting items you can provide.

So, don't waste your valuable time.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Vance

[LeSellers]

zerinus and I had this debate before. It won't matter how many scriptures, or lesson quotes, or GA quotes you bring up. He can find one or two GA quotes where the partaking of the forbidden fruit is called a "sin" in passing.

So it won't matter what you can show because he doesn't care. He has his very few quotes that he stands on, and he will ignore the numerous conflicting items you can provide.

So, don't waste your valuable time.

Too late.

Thanks for the heads up (I do recall those instances, but ignorance must be illuminated, if only for the unwary who may not yet know).

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

Aaron Shafovaloff has an interview . . .

<Yawn>

[ldsfaqs]

The internet is an interesting place.....

A Fundamental BASIC LDS doctrine concerning Transgression and Sin, and yet two strong LDS defenders on the net for some odd reason don't know and understand this doctrine.

I'm glad I only see this thing mostly on the net only, and almost never at Church. Thank goodness most in the Church actually know it's doctrines.

As others have said. LDS doctrine has always been that all sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. It's the entire theology behind the LDS version of the Fall and children being innocent until the age of accountability, that they can transgress the law, but not actually sin. The fact that well educated LDS get such a basic doctrine wrong, is amazing to me.

[TAO]

I think what we are getting here is different definitions of the word sin. Which is why there is an issue here. I think both are thinking the same thing, just in different ways with different words =P. Could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me XD. I hope you guys don't mind.

[zerinus]

Not it is not.

All sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. Sin requires more knowledge and a willful disobedience that transgression (may include, but) does not require.

Here we see that sin and transgression are two different (albeit related) things.

Lehi

Sin and transgression are the same thing. There is no scriptural distinction, and even the the quotations you cited are inconclusive. Some sins are more serious than others. Murder is more serious than adultery, and adultery is more serious than shoplifting. And there may be a range in between. But no distinction is ever made in scripture between sin and transgression.

[Log]

Sin and transgression are the same thing. There is no scriptural distinction, and even the the quotations you cited are inconclusive. Some sins are more serious than others. Murder is more serious than adultery, and adultery is more serious than shoplifting. And there may be a range in between. But no distinction is ever made in scripture between sin and transgression.

That is true; transgression and sin are synonymous scripturally. Some general authorities have sought to create a distinction between them in order to soften the account of the Fall.

[zerinus]

zerinus and I had this debate before. It won't matter how many scriptures, or lesson quotes, or GA quotes you bring up. He can find one or two GA quotes where the partaking of the forbidden fruit is called a "sin" in passing.

So it won't matter what you can show because he doesn't care. He has his very few quotes that he stands on, and he will ignore the numerous conflicting items you can provide.

So, don't waste your valuable time.

In the scriptures, the words “sin” and “transgression” are used as synonyms. They mean the same thing. The difference between them is rhetorical. They are often used in the same sentence side by side in order to create variety and give interest to the text. The distinction that is made between them in the Church by some is purely arbitrary, and has no basis in fact or linguistics. The following passages taken from all the four standard works demonstrate this:

Leviticus 16:

16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, . . .

* * *

21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, . . .

1 Samuel 14:

33 Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord, in that they eat with the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed: roll a great stone unto me this day.

1 Samuel 15:

24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.

Job 8:

4 If thy children have sinned against him, and he have cast them away for their transgression;

Psalms 32:

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

* * *

5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.

Psalms 51:

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

* * *

13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

Isaiah 43:

25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Isaiah 44:

22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.

Isaiah 53:

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 58:

1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

Isaiah 59:

12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;

Ezekiel 21:

24 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear; . . .

Ezekiel 33:

12 The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.

Daniel 9:

11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

Amos 5:

12 For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right.

Romans 5:

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

James 2:

9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [convicted] of the law as transgressors.

1 John 3:

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Mosiah 2:

33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

Mosiah 15:

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Mosiah 26:

29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; . . .

Alma 7:

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; . . .

D&C 24:

2 Nevertheless, thou art not excusable in thy transgressions; nevertheless, go thy way and sin no more.

D&C 109:

34 O Jehovah, have mercy upon this people, and as all men sin forgive the transgressions of thy people, and let them be blotted out forever.

Articles of Faith 1:

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

The difference between them is like the difference between “see” and “behold”. They mean the same thing; but are used side by side in the same sentence to create the same effect. The following are some examples. (Many more examples using different words can be found.):

1 Nephi 1:

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

1 Nephi 11:

24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.

1 Nephi 11:

29 And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.

1 Nephi 15:

27 And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water.

Ether 12:

19 And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad.

Think how silly you would look by arguing that "see" and "behold" mean two different things. Well that is how silly it is to argue that sin and transgression mean two different thing.

[altersteve]

Think how silly you would look by arguing that "see" and "behold" mean two different things. Well that is how silly it is to argue that sin and transgression mean two different thing.

Except that we're actually taught that "sin" and "transgression" are different. None of the verses you cited show otherwise. All sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. To "sin" is to knowingly break the law of God. To "transgress" is to do break the law of God in general, with or without the knowledge that its wrong. This is what the Church has long taught.

[zerinus]

That is true; transgression and sin are synonymous scripturally. Some general authorities have sought to create a distinction between them in order to soften the account of the Fall.

Thank you, I agree. I also agree that Adam’s sin was an unusual kind of sin, because God told him “Thou mayest choose for thyself …” Nevertheless, sin it was, because God had also commanded: “I forbid it …” It is possible explain the theology of it without having to resort to such unnecessary philological juxtapositionings which will only appear arbitrary, and does not serve an intelligent purpose to explain the doctrine.

[zerinus]

Except that we're actually taught that "sin" and "transgression" are different.

Whoever did was wrong, whoever they may have been.

None of the verses you cited show otherwise.

I think that they do.

All sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. To "sin" is to knowingly break the law of God. To "transgress" is to do break the law of God in general, with or without the knowledge that its wrong.

That distinction is arbitrary, and is not found in any English dictionary, nor can it be supported by any scripture.

This is what the Church has long taught.

I am not sure that it has. Some people may have taught it; but they were wrong to do so. They shouldn't have.

[altersteve]

Whoever did was wrong, whoever they may have been.

I think that they do.

That distinction is arbitrary, and is not found in any English dictionary, nor can it be supported by any scripture.

I am not sure that it has. Some people may have taught it; but they were wrong to do so. They shouldn't have.

Dallin H. Oaks' view is the one myself and others also have:

This suggested 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' date='[/i'] and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). 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).

Maybe you should learn how to just agree to disagree and not tear apart everything they say in such a confrontational manner. You seem to do that a lot.

By the way, the view that "sin" and "transgression" are not the same thing is, in fact, supported by scripture:

"Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O Lord" (Psalms 25:7).

"And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins" (Joshua 24:19).

Clearly, there is a distinction.

Edited November 9, 2011 by altersteve