Is Sin Arbitrary Sometimes?

[JDave]

We are much more responsible for our response to eternal principles than we are to temporal policies.  Remember that it is all about what we are BECOMING.  If we are drawing closer to our Savior, and seeking out the Spirit, then we are striving to live in accordance with eternal principles and we are becoming more like our Savior.  One leader's interpretation of doctrine/worthiness/etc. versus another leader's interpretation isn't going to affect the person we are becoming.  Our leaders are meant to facilitate our journey in becoming like our Savior, not dictate that journey.  Discrepancies will not affect our eternal state or destination unless we choose to let them by being offended.

 

I don't see anything that you've brought up so far that would indicate a true dilemma where I would have to choose between my understanding of the eternal principles of the gospel and what some local leader instructed.  Most often it will be some policy, program, goal, effort, etc.  If we fall short in any of those programs, etc., then we might well feel disappointed and there is nothing wrong with such a feeling.  But what is there to repent of?

[ZelphtheGreat]

Of course it is and just as he talks about, a lot depends on who interviews you.

 

When President Bill Clinton made his infamous statement " I never had sex with that woman" I found it interesting. Mainly from the point of view in knowing at least three Bishops and two Stake Presidents from my time at BYU who would agree with the statement. No intercourse, no sex even though sexual activity took place.

 

At the same time I know other Bishops and Stake Presidents who consider much less than the activity of Clinton and Lewinsky as "Sex" and would deny recommends, discipline, disfellowship and even excommunicate for what others consider minor offence or 'kids being kids' in the back seat.

 

Sin is not a hard and fast concept and in religion it is used mainly as a control mechanism. "The Natural Man is an Enemy to God" and similar are pure BS in my estimation. Why would God create 'natural enemies'? Those who brand folks this way usually want to control them in some way, get something from them or need to be in charge.

 

The 'love your neighbor as yourself' and do good to others is all that is needed. We have civil and criminal law for slights and poor treatment of others beyond what is acceptable - depending on the society.

 

So yes, sin is 'arbitrary'.

[WmLaw]

I have to disagree.  Sin is a religious term and is defined by God.  Some leaders try to define it with their own definition but that doesn't change the nature of sin.  It is breaking God's law.

'Sin' may be defined by God, but the lines of communications between God and man are somewhat muddled.  Who can say definitively that we know God's will in these regards?

 

The definitions and understandings of sin will always be somewhat arbitrary, depending on who are your leaders and in what century you are born in.

[ERayR]

I hear what you are saying and I love your guts and all but I don't want to get to the other side and then God says to me well, you know what Bishop J. Horton Hickenlooper told you in 2002 was actually wrong so get out of my sight! how are we to determine what is actually wrong and right and not these interpretations of local leaderships? You may feel the spirit or not and still get a recommend and people can do things that they think are right or wrong despite what their Bishop thinks that somewhere down the line another leader says don't worry about that!

 

You are required to make those judgments for yourself.  That why it is called personal revelation.  You are then responsible for your own choices.  That is what it is all about.  Do you qualify for a Celestial glory and in what capacity.  To get there you really have to be a self starter and willing to take responsibility.

[ERayR]

'Sin' may be defined by God, but the lines of communications between God and man are somewhat muddled.  Who can say definitively that we know God's will in these regards?

 

The definitions and understandings of sin will always be somewhat arbitrary, depending on who are your leaders and in what century you are born in.

 

See post #29 above.

[foster]

You are required to make those judgments for yourself.  That why it is called personal revelation.  You are then responsible for your own choices.  That is what it is all about.  Do you qualify for a Celestial glory and in what capacity.  To get there you really have to be a self starter and willing to take responsibility.

Which, for me, explains the issue quoted in Duncans opening statement; an individual is largely responsible for determining if he/she worthy to participate in various ordainences of the Gospel.

[ZelphtheGreat]

There really is no such thing as sin. It is a construct made up to control people. Usually done by those who want something - money, power or such - from those they try to get it from.

 

It really fits in with the riches so many churches pile up at the expense of so many who really would benefit by keeping the money to improve their own lives.

 

One excellent example of this greed by those who are shamed by this emphasis in sin is LDS members taking the fillings from their teeth to donate to the church for a temple. Donating while hurting themselves.

 

Another is those such as the members in Enoch, Utah who borrowed money to donate to pay for a new Stake Center.... and the Stake President took nearly $10,000 of it to decorate his new office. What a greedy fool to take the money. Members who can hardly afford house payments go into further debt only to have it wasted like this. The SIN here is the church creating a 'need' and pressuring members to fill it when they can't really afford to do so.

 

Once again - sin is emphasized as a form of control or to get something.