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

[zerinus]

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?

There are a set of standard questions that are asked by bishops when interviewing someone for a temple recommend, and they don't normally deviate from those standard questions, or "probe" into people's sins. The last question on the list, as best I can recall is, "Do you believe you are worthy to enter the house of the Lord?" So people are ultimately their own judges of worthiness.

[Arkholt]

Yeah, I know I'm a little late in replying to this, but...

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.

Do you believe that one can unknowingly and ignorantly commit sin? In other words, do you believe that someone who has not been taught that something is a sin is held accountable for that sin, or are those things fairly well covered by the Atonement? In other other words, if someone has not been baptized into the Church, are they held to the same standard as those who have?

If you believe all that, why does it pain you so that we would like to have a word besides "sin" to describe the sinful actions that the ignorant, unbaptized person commits?

I'm not trying to propose a middle ground. I'm trying to figure out why this discussion is even happening. I don't think anyone disagrees on the doctrine. I'm fairly certain that you'd say you believe in the things that I asked you about. You just don't want to call those things "transgressions." It's all just a discussion of what word we ought to use, not about doctrine at all.

[altersteve]

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.

We all have our moments when we act like "little devils," not just children. Children, though, are innocent. That, again, is why Christ commanded us to become like little children (sinless and innocent) if we want to enter the kingdom of God.

[zerinus]

Yeah, I know I'm a little late in replying to this, but...

Do you believe that one can unknowingly and ignorantly commit sin? In other words, do you believe that someone who has not been taught that something is a sin is held accountable for that sin, or are those things fairly well covered by the Atonement? In other other words, if someone has not been baptized into the Church, are they held to the same standard as those who have?

If you believe all that, why does it pain you so that we would like to have a word besides "sin" to describe the sinful actions that the ignorant, unbaptized person commits?

I'm not trying to propose a middle ground. I'm trying to figure out why this discussion is even happening. I don't think anyone disagrees on the doctrine. I'm fairly certain that you'd say you believe in the things that I asked you about. You just don't want to call those things "transgressions." It's all just a discussion of what word we ought to use, not about doctrine at all.

Because I don't believe that reinventing the dictionary is a good idea.

[altersteve]

Because I don't believe that reinventing the dictionary is a good idea.

Well, that's fine, but I'd rather go by what God's apostles say the word means. And if they say it means something other than "sin," I believe them.

[zerinus]

Well, that's fine, but I'd rather go by what God's apostles say the word means. And if they say it means something other than "sin," I believe them.

LOL! I think that is daft!

[altersteve]

LOL! I think that is daft!

There's no need to insult me.

[orion88]

We all have our moments when we act like "little devils," not just children.

Why do you believe little children (ages 3-6 for example) act like "little devils"

sometimes?

[Log]

Hey, did you know the word "talent" in Matthew does NOT mean "skill"? It's true.

[altersteve]

Why do you believe little children (ages 3-6 for example) act like "little devils"

sometimes?

Because they're children. They don't know it's wrong. But you still haven't addressed the fact that the Savior has commanded us to become as little children (you conveniently omitted that part from my statement you quoted). What do you think that means? Wouldn't that imply that little children are pure and innocent, which is what we too need to become?

Edited November 12, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

Because I don't believe that reinventing the dictionary is a good idea.

So which dictionary is that? The 1582 one because that was the first? The 1604 one since that included definitions? Johnson's 1755 one as it was recognized as the most authoritative? Webster's 1828 because it was the first major American dictionary?

At what year did English become a dead language in your view?

[Log]

So which dictionary is that? The 1582 one because that was the first? The 1604 one since that included definitions? Johnson's 1755 one as it was recognized as the most authoritative? Webster's 1828 because it was the first major American dictionary?

At what year did English become a dead language in your view?

So, when reading works from the 1800s or earlier, in your view, it is perfectly appropriate to interpret "gay" as "homosexual" because, forsooth, English is a living language!

[Calm]

I am not talking about scriptures, but responding to zerinus' view about how it is currently being discussed in the LDS community and whether that is proper or not, his application of the label "daft" to the usage of our modern apostles of the terms. Your analogy would more closely fit that part of the conversation by suggesting he is reading all current usages of "gay" as happy.

I have no problem with those that point out that the meaning of the terms were used differently in the scriptures. It happens from time to time from what I see, such in the current usage of Eloheim and Jehovah. As long as one is clearly defining one's terms and not insisting on reading them back into the scriptures themselves, I don't see a problem especially as I don't see perfect consistency in the scriptures of word choice to begin with.

I don't see much value being added to understanding by either presentism or its opposite---whatever the term is---that insists that language definitions, punctuation, etc. need to be reverenced to the point of setting it in stone at some arbitrary date...usually having something to do with the year an individual was in middle school from what I've seen over the years.

Edited November 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

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.

But luckily, when he did those things, he didn't swear afterward. (What would he have said, "Me, dang it!"?)

Sorry. Couldn't resist! Carry on!

[zerinus]

So which dictionary is that? The 1582 one because that was the first? The 1604 one since that included definitions? Johnson's 1755 one as it was recognized as the most authoritative? Webster's 1828 because it was the first major American dictionary?

At what year did English become a dead language in your view?

I am not talking about scriptures, but responding to zerinus' view about how it is currently being discussed in the LDS community and whether that is proper or not, his application of the label "daft" to the usage of our modern apostles of the terms. Your analogy would more closely fit that part of the conversation by suggesting he is reading all current usages of "gay" as happy.

I have no problem with those that point out that the meaning of the terms were used differently in the scriptures. It happens from time to time from what I see, such in the current usage of Eloheim and Jehovah. As long as one is clearly defining one's terms and not insisting on reading them back into the scriptures themselves, I don't see a problem especially as I don't see perfect consistency in the scriptures of word choice to begin with.

I don't see much value being added to understanding by either presentism or its opposite---whatever the term is---that insists that language definitions, punctuation, etc. need to be reverenced to the point of setting it in stone at some arbitrary date...usually having something to do with the year an individual was in middle school from what I've seen over the years.

So when somebody make an arbitrary decision to reinvent the meaning of a scriptural word to cater for a peculiar interpretation of a verse in the Bible; does that reinvention apply to all the occurrences of that word in the Bible, or to that one verse only? If it is made applicable to that one verse only, how would you rewrite the dictionary definition of that word for the benefit of others to clarify that reinvention? Would you rewrite your dictionary definition to say, “Transgression normally means ... in the rest of the Bible, but when used in Genesis ..., we have decided to define it as ...”? If, on the other hand, you have decided to apply your reinvention of that definition to all the occurrences of that word in the Bible, how would you answer the objection that you are actually changing the meaning of the Bible?

And what are you going to do about the original Hebrew (or Greek) word for which it was a translation? The word “transgression” was used by the translators of the KJV to stand for the relevant Hebrew (or Greek) words. How are you going to reinvent the definition of “transgression” without actually changing the meaning of the scripture in which it was used? And how are you going to cope with those verses in which Adam’s “transgression” is literally made synonymous with “sin,” as in the following verses:

Job 31:

33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom

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.

In the first verse, “transgression” is made synonymous with “iniquity,” which is another word for wickedness or sin. In the second verse it is made synonymous with “sin”. So are you going to create a localized reinvention of the words “sin” and “iniquity” in order to cater for your peculiar interpretation of the Bible too? And how are you going to rewrite that new definition in the dictionary? And what about the Greek and Hebrew words for which it stood in the first place? Are you going to redefine the Hebrew and Greek lexicon too? Do you realize how silly this is all beginning to look?

Edited November 12, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

You misunderstood my comment so your scriptural analysis is meaningless as a rebuttal. I am making no claims about the use in scriptures, just saying that if the modern apostles feel there is value in pointing out the distinctions between certain types of wrong doing, if they think it will be easier to convey the idea by creating/modifying definitions so the result is two distinct terms instead of one or rather several with the same meaning, I don't have a problem with it as long as they are clear about the definitions so that those listening or reading their comments understand their point. Trying to demonstrate the distinction from scripture based on the terms themselves is problematic in my view, but if the scriptural context is used instead (as in discussions about children or those without law) I see no problem with applying labels to those concepts/definitions even if the application is not completely consistent with the scriptures.

I think the distinction is seen as significant enough to warrant the use of two different terms by the apostles due to the teachings in the temple, the idea of original sin and certain applications of that concept interacting with others (such as 'easy grace'). It seems to me they want to make it obvious in certain discussions they are not even approaching the idea of easy grace or sola fide in the way they are used today and might be 'baggage' concepts of converts or those not as familiar with LDS belief as they should be as members of the community. At other times the topic is not likely to lend itself to that type of confusion and they appear to be quite comfortable to use the terms interchangeably.

It would appear from the multiple Hebrew terms, that the ancient Jews also viewed the distinction important enough to come up with two unique terms rather than simply relying on qualifiers. I find the apparent fact that their usage was reversed to the modern usage somewhat amusing and confusing, but it is not the first time a word has ended up meaning the opposite.

Edited November 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It can be awkward in a discussion dealing with a central theme of wrongdoing on a variety of levels to have to keep adding qualifiers to the terms to avoid confusion, it streamlines the conversation to assign specific meanings to two similar terms IMO, plus it emphasizes the difference if one consistently uses unique terms rather than using several interchangeable ones with qualifiers.....something that seemed very important to Elder JFS from the quote where he states he would never call Adam's action a sin. I think many LDS have adopted this view and while I agree with making the distinction as clear as possible, at this point in the language culture I think there is too much inconsistency to insist that only one usage is correct for modern conversations (I think scripturally speaking one can reliably establish the accepted usages depending on context which appears to be either interchangeable or assigning the terms the opposite distinction that we do today).

[zerinus]

You misunderstood my comment so your scriptural analysis is meaningless as a rebuttal. I am making no claims about the use in scriptures, just saying that if the modern apostles feel there is value in pointing out the distinctions between certain types of wrong doing, if they think it will be easier to convey the idea by creating/modifying definitions so the result is two distinct terms instead of one or rather several with the same meaning, I don't have a problem with it as long as they are clear about the definitions so that those listening or reading their comments understand their point. Trying to demonstrate the distinction from scripture based on the terms themselves is problematic in my view, but if the scriptural context is used instead (as in discussions about children or those without law) I see no problem with applying labels to those concepts/definitions even if the application is not completely consistent with the scriptures.

I think the distinction is seen as significant enough to warrant the use of two different terms by the apostles due to the teachings in the temple, the idea of original sin and certain applications of that concept interacting with others (such as 'easy grace'). It seems to me they want to make it obvious in certain discussions they are not even approaching the idea of easy grace or sola fide in the way they are used today and might be 'baggage' concepts of converts or those not as familiar with LDS belief as they should be as members of the community. At other times the topic is not likely to lend itself to that type of confusion and they appear to be quite comfortable to use the terms interchangeably.

It would appear from the multiple Hebrew terms, that the ancient Jews also viewed the distinction important enough to come up with two unique terms rather than simply relying on qualifiers. I find the apparent fact that their usage was reversed to the modern usage somewhat amusing and confusing, but it is not the first time a word has ended up meaning the opposite.

Without attempting to get into a protracted debate with you on this subject, all I can say is that from my point of view you still appear to be trying to reinvent the dictionary, which I don't think is a good idea. I think you are actually doing something more than that. I think you are trying to justify that reinvention at all cost on the grounds that it appears to have the sanction of a prophet or an Apostle; whereas I think that a bad idea is always a bad idea, even if it happens to come from a prophet or an Apostle.

[zerinus]

It can be awkward in a discussion dealing with a central theme of wrongdoing on a variety of levels to have to keep adding qualifiers to the terms to avoid confusion, it streamlines the conversation to assign specific meanings to two similar terms IMO, plus it emphasizes the difference if one consistently uses unique terms rather than using several interchangeable ones with qualifiers.....something that seemed very important to Elder JFS from the quote where he states he would never call Adam's action a sin. I think many LDS have adopted this view and while I agree with making the distinction as clear as possible, at this point in the language culture I think there is too much inconsistency to insist that only one usage is correct for modern conversations (I think scripturally speaking one can reliably establish the accepted usages depending on context which appears to be either interchangeable or assigning the terms the opposite distinction that we do today).

More entrenched reinventions of the dictionary I hear. Definitely not a good idea!

[Calm]

Language was made for man, not man for language.

PS: if you haven't noticed already, I will point out the continual issuing of new editions of dictionaries. It is a fact of human culture that such are always being reinvented. In fact, any dictionary is probably out of date by the time it is published.

Edited November 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

A transgression is a legal term denoting a violation of law, a command or duty. A sin is a transgression of divine law. In a religious setting I see no difference. In a secular setting I think it would be improper to call a violation a sin unless you could tie it to a religious purpose.

So the way I see it there would be a difference in the secular realm but not in the religious realm.

[Calm]

ERR, why do you think the distinction has been made in a religious setting by some modern apostles as has been quoted in this thread?

[ERayR]

ERR, why do you think the distinction has been made in a religious setting by some modern apostles as has been quoted in this thread?

You would have to ask them. For me it is a distinction without a difference in a religious setting.

Edited to add: I honestly don't see that it is worth splitting hairs over. If you are sinning or transgressing you are out of step with God.

Edited November 12, 2011 by ERayR

[Calm]

In many cases I would agree with you, but I think that some people exaggerate some forms of wrongdoing either in judging themselves or in judging others.

Also I think in the case of children and ultimately understanding the need for baptism or the lack of the need, it is essential to understand the distinction in a religious setting (I think it does exist myself).

I think there are other cases where it is important to understand the difference (as in Eve and Adam's actions to understand their impaction us and why it occurred).

[altersteve]

zerinus, the dictionary is always being reinvented. It happens all the time. That's what language does; it evolves.