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

[Log]

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.)

Ah, thank you for that. Quite interesting. I learned something today! A more accurate translation would therefore be "sins and rebellions."

Edited November 9, 2011 by Log

[Pahoran]

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."

CFR for your mind-reading act, please.

AFAICT, in Elder Smith's usage, as in standard Mormon usage, "transgression" represents a category that includes all infractions of divine law, whether intentional or inadvertent, informed or uninformed. The set of all sins is the set of all transgressions for which the transgressor is morally accountable. The notion that "transgression" equals "pseudo-sin" appears to be original to yourself; rather, transgression is the superset, and sin the subset.

It is orthodox Mormon doctrine that, prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were without understanding of good and evil, and therefore incapable of committing sin. Thus, they were then analogous to little children, who, we are told, are likewise unable to sin until they reach the age of accountability.

I suppose that, on your theory, it must have been the highly unorthodox Joseph Fielding Smith who, decades before his birth, persuaded his great-uncle Joseph to adopt that same distinction in the second Article of Faith. Yes, that must be it.

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?

In the same way that a small child disobeying her parents commits no sin; it is because she is not accountable, not because the act is not wrong.

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.

No. It does not.

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.)

But that is merely a translation choice. You are not "speaking in Hebrew terms" at all, and you know it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

It is orthodox Mormon doctrine that, prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were without understanding of good and evil, and therefore incapable of committing sin. Thus, they were then analogous to little children, who, we are told, are likewise unable to sin until they reach the age of accountability.

I must disagree, esteemed sir. While that may indeed be an accurate understanding within Mormon culture, it cannot be held to be an accurate reading of the scriptures.

And it must needs be that the devil should ^btempt the children of men, or they could not be ^cagents unto themselves; for if they never should have ^dbitter they could not know the sweet—

Wherefore it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and ^btransgressed the commandment, wherein he became ^csubject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

The ability to be tempted constitutes agency, apparently.

47 Wherefore, [children] cannot ^asin, for power is not given unto Satan to ^btempt little children, until they ^cbegin to become ^daccountablebefore me;

So, if children could be tempted then they could sin. Adam and Eve were tempted, therefore they could sin, and in fact did sin, by yielding to temptation.

Which, BTW, is why children cannot sin, and wherein they do not have agency, for they are unable to yield to the Devil, that being the scriptural meaning of agency - having the ability to yield to the temptations of the devil, or the enticements of the Holy Spirit.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Log

[Deborah]

Which, BTW, is why children cannot sin, and wherein they do not have agency, for they are unable to yield to the Devil, that being the scriptural meaning of agency - having the ability to yield to the temptations of the devil, or the enticements of the Holy Spirit.

They may not be able to yield to the Devil but they can disobey parents, and believe me, even toddlers know when they've done a No-no which is why they say they didn't or try to hide what they did. The difference is they are not accountable for their disobedience, at least in the eternal sense though they may be sent to their rooms as a consequence. Even acts that are done without malicious intent are subject to accountability.

[orion88]

They may not be able to yield to the Devil but they can disobey parents

When you look at some of the behaviour of little children (ages four through

eight as an example) you would think they were acting like "little devils." This

is the result of the Adamic nature which they have inherited from the Fall.

[ldsfaqs]

It's also an example of their eternal agency, that they can still choose. As mortals they may not understand all the consequences of a choice, but they have some intellect and can choose.

It is an interesting thing to me. It's likely not all children are the same, but when I look back on my youth to my earliest and youthful memory's, I remember the things I saw and thought. I remember the choices and observations I made about people, things, religions etc.. I remember my intelligence and analytical skills back then compared to know, not really being too different. And then I look at my own children and others and how innocent an not as intelligent seeming, but then wonder, do the same things run around in their minds as did in mine? Are children actually smarter? Or are only some wiser than others?

[Cobalt-70]

But that is merely a translation choice. You are not "speaking in Hebrew terms" at all, and you know it.

Given that the Adam and Eve story was originally told in Hebrew, and Mormon terms like "sin" and "Adam's transgression" are based on the King James version of the Bible, it stands to reason that Mormon usages of those terms should have their biblical (KJV) meanings.

[Cobalt-70]

It is orthodox Mormon doctrine that, prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were without understanding of good and evil, and therefore incapable of committing sin. Thus, they were then analogous to little children, who, we are told, are likewise unable to sin until they reach the age of accountability.

Under standard Mormon doctrine, Adam and Eve were capable of committing two sins: (1) eating the forbidden fruit, and (2) failing to multiply and replenish the earth, because those were apparently the only two commandments given them. They knew that they should not eat the forbidden fruit, and that they had been commandment not to eat it. Plus, like any good sin, it was the devil that made them do it. In the temple ceremony, Adam and Eve are portrayed as knowing at least enough "good and evil" to weigh the ethical consequences of their actions. They consciously and intentionally violated God's commandment. Then, they experienced guilt, incurred the anger of God, and received a curse. Then later, God forgave them (Moses 6:53). How is this not a sin? If Adam and Eve were not accountable, then there would be no need for forgiveness, there would have been no fall, and there would have been no need for an atonement.

For Adam and Eve, as portrayed in the temple ceremony, this was a conscious ethical weighing. Eve broke the law because she weighed the options and made the conscious choice that it was worth committing the sin in order to gain wisdom. Adam intentionally broke the law because he weighed the consequences and decided that being able to follow Eve, who was expecting to be cast out of the garden, and to procreate with her, was worth committing the sin.

[Cobalt-70]

I suppose that, on your theory, it must have been the highly unorthodox Joseph Fielding Smith who, decades before his birth, persuaded his great-uncle Joseph to adopt that same distinction in the second Article of Faith. Yes, that must be it.

That Adam's sin is often called a "transgression" does not mean that it was not a sin. If we use the word "transgression" in its KJV biblical sense, it is in fact not just a sin, but a rebellion--worse than a sin. Even in a popular modern English sense, to say that someone has committed a "transgression" seems more dire and serious than to say that someone has "sinned." Why should we think that by using the term "transgression," Joseph Smith meant that it was something less onerous than a typical sin? Just from the language, I would assume the opposite.

[altersteve]

When you look at some of the behaviour of little children (ages four through

eight as an example) you would think they were acting like "little devils." This

is the result of the Adamic nature which they have inherited from the Fall.

No, it's the result of parents these days not knowing how to control their children. There are certainly children who do not act like "little devils," and I'll be willing to bet that most of them have good parents (I know several kids in my family, who all fall under the age range you set, who have wonderful parents and are "little angels" as a result of that). If a child does act like a "little devil," then you can probably bet that his or her parents really don't know how to be parents at all. I'm not even a parent, but even I know how to take care of and control kids better than many people who are. It's disgusting.

The point, though, is that Satan has no influence on little children. I think the Savior made that perfectly clear when He commanded us to become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of God.

Edited November 10, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

Not all cases. I know of one child that I would not have been the least surprised to have turned out to be a serial killer, knew and taught him in nursery and other primary classes, babysat him and visit taught his mother, good friends with the family. The parents were about ideal...the only thing I disagreed on with them is whether or not to include medications in his treatment. Once he was in school, they accepted this would be for the best (hia younger brother was beginning to imitate some of his agression) and along with anger management courses, he was completely turned around into a wonderful young man. When I babysat him, he would be perfectly normal for an hour or so and then it was as if a switch was pulled and he became his Hyde version. That 'little devil' was most likely a result of an imbalanced brain chemistry and it was only his parents' efforts that preventEd much worse behaviour.

I am not saying this is common, but I always think twice before judging parents these days solely on their child's behaviour.

Edited November 10, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Unfortunately while Satan/evil may not have direct influence on children, there are plenty of people who have given into evil themselves that do...which can result in evil actions by a child.

[altersteve]

Not all cases. I know of one child that I would not have been the least surprised to have turned out to be a serial killer, knew and taught him in nursery and other primary classes, babysat him and visit taught his mother, good friends with the family. The parents were about ideal...the only thing I disagreed on with them is whether or not to include medications in his treatment. Once he was in school, they accepted this would be for the best (hia younger brother was beginning to imitate some of his agression) and along with anger management courses, he was completely turned around into a wonderful young man. When I babysat him, he would be perfectly normal for an hour or so and then it was as if a switch was pulled and he became his Hyde version. That 'little devil' was most likely a result of an imbalanced brain chemistry and it was only his parents' efforts that preventEd much worse behaviour.

I am not saying this is common, but I always think twice before judging parents these days solely on their child's behaviour.

Oh, I completely agree with you. I'm just saying, children who are well-behaved generally have good parents, and children who are not well-behaved ("little devils") generally don't. I was fortunate to have been raised by the best parents anyone could ask for. The values I was taught to have when I was a kid stuck with me, and I give my parents the credit for that. I'm very grateful to them. Simply teaching a child the "ladies first" rule, to always say please and thank you, to not touch what doesn't belong to you, etc. goes a very long way. I plan on teaching the same things to my future children.

Edited November 10, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

Totally agree. I am pleased to see my grandchildren being taught common courtesy by their parents, especially my daughter in law. While my kids weren't the kids everyone wanted to know (never understood either as a kid myself or as a parental observer why for many of them as they were snots, but they had managed to convince others they were the elite), my kids were liked by all as they treated everyone like they would want to be treated themselves...even at the risk of being ostracized. One of the qualities I am most proud of in them and am very grateful for being able to nurture that side of them so that it survived when it didn't in many of their friends.

[Flyonthewall]

No, it's the result of parents these days not knowing how to control their children. There are certainly children who do not act like "little devils," and I'll be willing to bet that most of them have good parents (I know several kids in my family, who all fall under the age range you set, who have wonderful parents and are "little angels" as a result of that). If a child does act like a "little devil," then you can probably bet that his or her parents really don't know how to be parents at all. I'm not even a parent, but even I know how to take care of and control kids better than many people who are. It's disgusting.

The point, though, is that Satan has no influence on little children. I think the Savior made that perfectly clear when He commanded us to become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of God.

Yes, before I had kids, I had all the answers to raising children...then when I finally had kids of my own, I found out just how wrong I was.

Children are not automatons, they each have their own personality. While it may be stated in general terms that kids imitate their parents, but that doesn't mean they don't have behaviors that did not come from their parents. Kids pick things up from other kids, as well as coming up with things on their own.

I hope that when you become a parent, that you read the instruction manual that is issued at their birth, from cover to cover...this will be a great help as it has all the answers to every situation that may come up.

[Calm]

It is remarkable how varied behaviour can be in a family, even with children close to the same age who are constantly interacting. Often one can tell exactly where behaviour has come from and then there's this out of the ether attribute that leaves one clueless.

[orion88]

Oh, I completely agree with you. I'm just saying, children who are well-behaved generally have good parents, and children who are not well-behaved ("little devils") generally don't.

Even those "well-behaved generally kids" have their moments when they act like "little devils"

because they too have the same fallen nature due to the Fall.

[Pahoran]

I must disagree, esteemed sir. While that may indeed be an accurate understanding within Mormon culture, it cannot be held to be an accurate reading of the scriptures.

The ability to be tempted constitutes agency, apparently.

So, if children could be tempted then they could sin. Adam and Eve were tempted, therefore they could sin, and in fact did sin, by yielding to temptation.

Which, BTW, is why children cannot sin, and wherein they do not have agency, for they are unable to yield to the Devil, that being the scriptural meaning of agency - having the ability to yield to the temptations of the devil, or the enticements of the Holy Spirit.

I'm afraid that the passages you are using are not unequivocal enough to support the weight of the interpretation you want to give them.

Children can, as other parents and grandparents have attested, certainly do wrong. Their wrongdoing is not sin because they are not accountable; your interpretation is backwards.

Satan is restrained from tempting them because, being yet innocent, they have not the power to withstand temptation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Given that the Adam and Eve story was originally told in Hebrew, and Mormon terms like "sin" and "Adam's transgression" are based on the King James version of the Bible, it stands to reason that Mormon usages of those terms should have their biblical (KJV) meanings.

Thank you for your opinion. I'm told that that, plus about $2.50, should buy you a coffee at Starbuck's.

Is my information correct?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Under standard Mormon doctrine, Adam and Eve were capable of committing two sins: (1) eating the forbidden fruit, and (2) failing to multiply and replenish the earth, because those were apparently the only two commandments given them.

In which universe?

Under Cobalt doctrine, I suppose anything could happen; but under standard Mormon Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, were capable of committing no sins. They were capable of making conscious choices, but they were not accountable for them.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion on as many subjects as you please. If your opinions on such subjects have ever coincided with Latter-day Saint doctrine, I have not noticed it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

That Adam's sin is often called a "transgression" does not mean that it was not a sin. If we use the word "transgression" in its KJV biblical sense, it is in fact not just a sin, but a rebellion--worse than a sin. Even in a popular modern English sense, to say that someone has committed a "transgression" seems more dire and serious than to say that someone has "sinned."

Call for references, please.

Why should we think that by using the term "transgression," Joseph Smith meant that it was something less onerous than a typical sin? Just from the language, I would assume the opposite.

Yes, you post endlessly about what you assume.

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

Call for references, please.

Yes, you post endlessly about what you assume. Regards, Pahoran

I think that it is neither more or less serious. They all mean doing something wrong, or against the will of God.

The Hebrew words that are commonly translated "sin," according to Strong's Concordance, are:

chata'ah—

1) sin, sin offering

a) sin

b) sin offering

chatta'ath—

1) sin, sinful

2) sin, sin offering

a) sin

b) condition of sin, guilt of sin

c) punishment for sin

d) sin-offering

e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness

chata'—

1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness

a) (Qal)

1) to miss

2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty

3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit

b) (Piel)

1) to bear loss

2) to make a sin-offering

3) to purify from sin

4) to purify from uncleanness

c) (Hiphil)

1) to miss the mark

2) to induce to sin, cause to sin

3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment

d) (Hithpael)

1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way

2) to purify oneself from uncleanness

The words that are commonly translated "transgression" are:

pesha'—

1) transgression, rebellion

a) transgression (against individuals)

b) transgression (nation against nation)

c) transgression (against God)

1) in general

2) as recognised by sinner

3) as God deals with it

4) as God forgives

d) guilt of transgression

e) punishment for transgression

f) offering for transgression

ma'al—

1) unfaithful or treacherous act, trespass

a) against man

b) against God

[Cobalt-70]

Under Cobalt doctrine, I suppose anything could happen; but under standard Mormon Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, were capable of committing no sins. They were capable of making conscious choices, but they were not accountable for them.

Do you have any sources to back up your theory that Adam and Eve were not accountable for their sins? And please explain why, if he was not accountable, the Book of Moses says that God "forgave" Adam of his transgression.

[Cobalt-70]

Call for references [about the term "transgression" seeming more dire than "sin"], please.

For example, in the 2010 CHI, part 1, the most serious and dire sins are called "transgressions." For example, 6.2: "God does not overlook sin, and His servants cannot ignore evidence of serious transgressions." Again, 6.3: "Repentance requires that all sins be confessed to the Lord....Members should also confess to their presiding officer if they have committed serious transgressions. Members who voluntarily and completely confess transgressions demonstrate that they have begun the process of repentance." People who have committed sins potentially worthy of church discipline are called "transgressors."

[orion88]

People who have committed sins potentially worthy of church discipline are called "transgressors."

Which sins committed by a member in the LDS Church results in him or her not being

worthy enough to enter the temple even though they hold a temple recommend? And

how much actually do confess these sins to their presiding officer so they can be

disciplined by losing the card?

Is the level of being worthy enough to enter the temple a matter between the individual

and the Lord or is it between the individual and his presiding officer through an interview

process?