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

[Log]

Clearly, there is a distinction.

That is unclear. Consider the following (and examples can be multiplied greatly): 47 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah: Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech; for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

Does Lamech intend to refer to two separate murders, or one? Therefore it is unclear - permanently so, unfortunately - that there is a scriptural distinction between sin and transgression. Each of your references appear to follow this pattern.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Log

[Calm]

If we are to rely solely on the scriptures for our doctrine, why do we have prophets and apostles who do not add to our canon, but add to our teachings plenty? Why do we have anything published besides scriptures? Why is Conference anything more than just recitation of scriptures?

It may not be crystal clear in the scriptures, but it has been taught enough times across the pulpit and in official church publications it seems quite strange to deny it.

Elder Oaks' quote, besides being given in Conference, is used in the OT manual:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. …  

“… We celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. … Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin.’ …  

“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, and not for Adam’s transgression” (italics 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).

---------

Seems very specific in the differentiation.

Edited November 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Log]

Seems very specific in the differentiation.

It is still irrelevant to the topic: there is no scriptural distinction between transgression and sin. They are used synonymously. Unless and until that particular point is actually internalized and addressed adequately, there is no purpose to responding.

[Calm]

What in your view would be addressing it adequately and how would it move the topic forward to do so?

Even if the scriptures don't make the differentiation, do you see it acceptable for our prophets and apostles to do so when speaking of events in the scriptures? If not, why not especially if they have been given additional information not in the scriptures through revelation?

Edited November 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

What in your view would be addressing it adequately and how would it move the topic forward to do so?

Even if the scriptures don't make the differentiation, do you see it acceptable for our prophets and apostles to do so when speaking of events in the scriptures? If not, why not especially if they have been given additional information not in the scriptures through revelation?

We are supposed to exercise our own independent judgement, and not just accept what someone else says just because they happen to be a prophet or an Apostle.

Edited November 9, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

We are supposed to exercise our own independent judgement, and not just accept what someone else says just because they happen to be a prophet or an Apostle.

And your independent judgement here is to ignore all latter day teachings on the subject and rely solely on your perception of how the scriptures use the terms and then insist that everyone else continue to use them the same way or they are wrong?

[Calm]

Log, I hope you actually address all of my post and not just dismiss it as zerinus has, focusing solely on one aspect. Thank you in advance.

[zerinus]

And your independent judgement here is to ignore all latter day teachings on the subject and rely solely on your perception of how the scriptures use the terms . . .

First of all it is not "all latter day teachings;" it is some latter-day teachings. Secondly, my "independent judgement" is not to "ignore" anything; but simply to conclude that that interpretation is wrong, after taking into consideration what others have said, and based on all relevant scriptural, philological, and lexicographical information.

. . . and then insist that everyone else continue to use them the same way or they are wrong?

I am not "insisting" on anything. I am merely stating my conclusion, and defending it when challenged. And what about you? Do you think that just because you prefer to blindly follow what someone else has said, rather than exercise your own independent judgement, it gives you the right to impose your views on me, or deny me the right to express mine, or to defend it when it is challenged?

[zerinus]

If we are to rely solely on the scriptures for our doctrine, why do we have prophets and apostles who do not add to our canon, but add to our teachings plenty? Why do we have anything published besides scriptures? Why is Conference anything more than just recitation of scriptures?

Because the same prophets and Apostles have told us to test all teachings by the standard works. If it cannot be supported by the standard works, it is speculation; and if it contradicts it, then it is false. If you are so keen on following the prophets and Apostles, why do you pick and choose which teachings to follow? Why don't you follow all of them, including the ones just mentioned?

It may not be crystal clear in the scriptures, but it has been taught enough times across the pulpit and in official church publications it seems quite strange to deny it.

I am not sure it has been taught that many times; and in either case, the frequency of the teaching does not make it truer.

Elder Oaks' quote, besides being given in Conference, is used in the OT manual:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. …

“… We celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. … Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin.’ …

“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, and not for Adam’s transgression” (italics 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).

That is irrelevant to the discussion. See above.

Seems very specific in the differentiation.

Specific but wrong.

[Arkholt]

Here's how I look at it: Putting aside the two words we're quibbling about, it does still seem pretty clear and doctrinal that sometimes people knowingly transgress the law and sometimes unknowingly transgress the law, right? If you haven't been taught, how can you follow it? Right? Those two conditions exist in the world, and that's taught. I guess you could argue that no one ever unknowingly transgresses the law, but that would be a different discussion, I think.

So, let's take it as doctrine that you can knowingly or unknowingly transgress the law, and to unknowingly transgress the law isn't as bad, because you didn't know any better. Is that fair?

With that said, I think it would make sense to try and come up with two different easy to remember words to describe these two conditions. Would it be fair to use "sin" as the knowing transgression, and "transgression" as the unknowing transgression? If not, perhaps you'd like to come up with some new terms for both of those conditions, because I think that's the real problem. We have these two conditions, but some people just don't want to define them in a certain way.

Maybe if we all agreed on how each condition was defined, we could get back to the real discussion.

[zerinus]

Here's how I look at it: Putting aside the two words we're quibbling about, it does still seem pretty clear and doctrinal that sometimes people knowingly transgress the law and sometimes unknowingly transgress the law, right? If you haven't been taught, how can you follow it? Right? Those two conditions exist in the world, and that's taught. I guess you could argue that no one ever unknowingly transgresses the law, but that would be a different discussion, I think.

So, let's take it as doctrine that you can knowingly or unknowingly transgress the law, and to unknowingly transgress the law isn't as bad, because you didn't know any better. Is that fair?

With that said, I think it would make sense to try and come up with two different easy to remember words to describe these two conditions. Would it be fair to use "sin" as the knowing transgression, and "transgression" as the unknowing transgression? If not, perhaps you'd like to come up with some new terms for both of those conditions, because I think that's the real problem. We have these two conditions, but some people just don't want to define them in a certain way.

Maybe if we all agreed on how each condition was defined, we could get back to the real discussion.

You don't need to invent any new terms. Sinning in ignorance is called sinning in ignorance, and sinning with knowledge is sinning with knowledge. See Mosiah 3:11-12.

[Storm Rider]

I still do not understand this entire thread. The initial proposal is so rediculous that it makes me want to hit something everytime I read it. If every EV says Mormons are right, are Martians green makes just as much sense.

[Flyonthewall]

Latter-day prophets have taught the distinction between sin and transgression, it is nuanced, but it is still there.

It sounds as if some have not accepted the words of those prophets and and are still waiting for their individual clarification. That is okay. We are told to gain our own testimony of things, and not everyone is at the same place on all topics.

[Vance]

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.

See what I mean.

Transgression, Not Sin

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!”¹

Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “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, 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.”²

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9).

http://lds.org/ensig...y=transgression

“Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode, called the Fall. … Brigham Young declared, ‘We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least’ (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!’[Doctrines of Salvation, 1:114–15]” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

Moses 4:12. The Difference between Transgression and Sin

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said that 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’ (italics 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).

http://lds.org/manua...y=transgression

Edited November 9, 2011 by Vance

[Arkholt]

You don't need to invent any new terms. Sinning in ignorance is called sinning in ignorance, and sinning with knowledge is sinning with knowledge. See Mosiah 3:11-12.

I didn't think I needed to invent a new term, but since no one seems to be able to agree on what the term is, or agree that we already have one, perhaps it's the only solution.

[zerinus]

I didn't think I needed to invent a new term, but since no one seems to be able to agree on what the term is, or agree that we already have one, perhaps it's the only solution.

You can't resolve a gospel related disagreement by proposing a middle ground, like putting your money on a horse. Either I am right or they are right. There is no middle ground.

[Log]

Log, I hope you actually address all of my post and not just dismiss it as zerinus has, focusing solely on one aspect. Thank you in advance.

My sole focus is, and ever has been within this thread, the fact that sin and transgression are used synonymously within the scripture. Thanks for not insisting that I address something that I have not addressed within this thread in advance.

[Deborah]

I haven't read this whole thread but the title and opening post I just wanted to grit my teeth. Why propose a hypothetical that will never happen. Christ did not sin nor did he transgress the law. He fulfilled the law that he himself created.

[Grundelwalken]

I'm sorry, but this whole discussion seem to be a waste of good bandwidth. Hypothetical questions are of no use unless one is attempting to create dissension. Why do we allow people to do this to us?

[ldsfaqs]

BTW, just to mention..... Transgression isn't simply about being ignorant of your actions, there can also be knowledge.

For example with the Fall: http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-10,00.html

In order for something to happen, they had to transgress, and they knew they were doing it.

Like with Killing for example. We know that to kill is wrong, but sometimes there's a greater purpose, and thus we must kill to accomplish that purpose.

Did we transgress? Yes. Taking life is taking life. Did we Sin? No. Taking life was done for a greater cause, to protect another, create peace, etc.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I trace this notion of trying to distinguish between a lesser category of "transgression" as different from real "sin" to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, who was not always known for preaching the most orthodox Mormon theology. Smith may not have invented the idea (I'm not sure), but he surely popularized it. But this is certainly not traditional Mormon theology.

So why did he do it? He could not reconcile the idea that the fall of Adam and Eve, which modern Mormons believe was a good thing, could be a sin. He did not think that a sin could lead to something good. So it must not have been a sin. So he invented the distinction between "transgression" (pseudo-sin) and bona fide "sin."

But that distinction makes no sense. Adam and Eve knew they were commanded not to eat the forbidden fruit, but they did so anyway, because Satan tempted them. How is that different from a sin? And how could they bring sin into the world without actually sinning? Also, if eating the fruit was not a sin, why did God need to forgive Adam his transgression? (see Moses 6:53). Why would Jesus need to atone for what Adam did if Adam's act was not a sin? The whole Christian atonement theory falls apart if you go down that road.

Actually, if we are speaking in Hebrew terms, there is a distinction between the words in the Old Testament that are translated as "sin" and as "transgression," but not the distinction that Smith is thinking. In the Hebrew Bible, a "transgression" (pesha') is willing rebellion against God, and is worse than a mere "sin" (chatta'ath), but both of them are punished by God (see Joshua 24:19). When Job 31:33 refers to Adam's sin as a "transgression" (pesha'), the author means that it was worse than mere error, but intentional rebellion against God. (Job 31:33 also refers to Adam's sin as an "iniquity" ('avon), which means a depravity or perversion.)

[altersteve]

You can't resolve a gospel related disagreement by proposing a middle ground, like putting your money on a horse. Either I am right or they are right. There is no middle ground.

If I had to choose between you and an apostle of Jesus Christ, I would go with the latter. Now please stop being so confrontational.

[Cobalt-70]

“… We celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. … Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin.’ …

“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, and not for Adam’s transgression” (italics 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).

Elder Smith didn't prefer to call Adam's act a "sin." That's his prerogative, of course. And Dallen Oaks, being a lawyer, is aware of the theory of mens rea, a legal theoretical idea which he is importing here. But the fact is, whether what Adam did was more like murder (inherently wrong), or more like practicing law without a license or tax evasion (technical violations), you can still get in trouble with the law for doing it. In either case, you are a lawbreaker. Adam was a lawbreaker, and he would have been damned for what he did, had he not been forgiven by the grace of Christ. If you want to call that something more euphemistic than a "sin," it doesn't change the fundamental nature of what it is. Christianity, Judaism, and Mormonism all pretty consistently teach that God abhors all violations of his law, regardless of how technical the infraction. I understand the Mormon instinct to paint Adam as a good guy, but where does it get us to speak of his sin euphemistically, other than provide one more reason for evangelicals to think we have departed from traditional atonement and original sin theory.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

{duplicate}

Edited November 9, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[orion88]

Elder Smith didn't prefer to call Adam's act a "sin."

Ensign articles do call it a sin.

"His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family

is held responsible for that sin ... while all members of the human family are freely

given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own, they are not given

a reprieve from their own sins unless they pledge faith in Christ ... and press forward

in faithful endurance the remainder of life’s journey" (Ensign, The Atonement of Christ,

March 2008, subheading "The Gifts of Christ’s Atonement")

source: http://lds.org/ldsor...a____&hideNav=1

"God was willing that his Beloved Son should take upon himself the responsibility of

that mission, namely, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve which brought about the

fall, and, also, that mankind might receive forgiveness for their individual sins, provided

they would keep the commandments upon which salvation and exaltation were based"

(Ensign, A Testimony of Christ, November 1974).

source: http://lds.org/ldsor...a____&hideNav=1