Sin vs. Transgression

[SouthernMo]

In correlated LDS settings, we are taught that Adam and Eve’s choice to partake of the tree of knowledge was not a sin, but a transgression.  That teaching is used to convey that their choice was part of God’s plan, and not something that they needed to repent of.

However, I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to what the difference between a sin and a transgression is. 

Most recently, I’ve been told that a transgression isn’t as bad as a sin.  When I prodded further, asking if it’s OK for us to transgress, but not sin, and for more applicable examples of what a transgression (but not a sin) are, I didn’t get an answer.

Would love to hear thoughts. What is the difference?

To be clear, I am not interested in a thread about why Adam and Eve needed to partake of the forbidden tree, but more interested in understanding the difference between two words (ideas) we have been taught are distinct.  What application does this nuanced difference in terms have for me?

[strappinglad]

What's the difference between a square and a quadrilateral ? 

All squares are quadrilaterals , but not all quadrilaterals are squares.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

What's the difference between a square and a quadrilateral ? 

 All squares are quadrilaterals , but not all quadrilaterals are squares.

Go on... my dense skull is not picking up on your teaching.

[smac97]

Elder Oaks addressed this issue in a 1996 article: Sins and Mistakes.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Oaks addressed this issue in a 1996 article: Sins and Mistakes.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I read that talk just today.  The message here is is that a scripturally, transgression is the same as a sin sometimes, but most of the time, a transgression means a mistake.

Here’s what doesn’t make sense under Oaks’ teachings: did Adam and Eve make a mistake by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?  If we’re taking him at his word that a transgression is a mistake, then they did make a mistake, which is not correlated teaching today regarding the fall.

Still searching, but thanks for the suggestion.

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I read that talk just today.  The message here is is that a scripturally, transgression is the same as a sin sometimes, but most of the time, a transgression means a mistake.

Here’s what doesn’t make sense under Oaks’ teachings: did Adam and Eve make a mistake by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?  If we’re taking him at his word that a transgression is a mistake, then they did make a mistake, which is not correlated teaching today regarding the fall.

Still searching, but thanks for the suggestion.

You've misunderstood.  A mistake is simply something that caused you a problem, like hitting your thumb with a hammer, or looking for a gas leak with an open flame.  A transgression is breaking a commandment.  A transgression is a sin when you know the law and break it anyway.  A transgression is not a sin when you don't know that it is against God's law.  You don't need to repent for a transgression which is not a sin, because Christ's atonement has you covered due to your ignorance.  But for a transgression which is a sin, because you knowlingly violated God's law, does require repentance in order to take advantage of Christ's atonement.

Adam and Eve were very clearly taught that they were not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  And did so anyway.  Even if God knew they would do it, they were taught that it was a sin/transgression, and they transgressed the commandment they had received, and did so knowingly.

Would you be so kind as to provide a "correlated" statement to the effect that Adam and Eve's transgression was not a sin?  

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Would you be so kind as to provide a "correlated" statement to the effect that Adam and Eve's transgression was not a sin?  

Current Gospel Principles manual chapter 6.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Current Gospel Principles manual chapter 6.

Thanks for the thoughts.

OK, I had a look.  I take you are referring to:

"Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. .."

The wording does not say that A&E did not commit a sin.  The "however" negates only "serious sin."  What would be a serious sin?  I'd start with murder, and go from there.  The Bible clearly teaches that A&E were well aware that partaking of the ToKoG&E was forbidden.  They did so in defiance of the commandment -- not in ignorance of it.

 

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

OK, I had a look.  I take you are referring to:

"Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. .."

The wording does not say that A&E did not commit a sin.  The "however" negates only "serious sin."  What would be a serious sin?  I'd start with murder, and go from there.  The Bible clearly teaches that A&E were well aware that partaking of the ToKoG&E was forbidden.  They did so in defiance of the commandment -- not in ignorance of it.

 

But in their innocent state they did not yet comprehend the difference between good and evil. They were told not to do it, but didn't understand why or the consequences of what doing it would bring.  They did what seemed to them the logical thing to do because of what Satan told them.
Most children under the age of 8 might transgress a commandment but it cannot be called sin because they don't understand that doing it is wrong. When they do understand it is wrong and then willingly choose to do it, then it can be called a sin.

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The wording does not say that A&E did not commit a sin.  The "however" negates only "serious sin."  What would be a serious sin?  I'd start with murder, and go from there.  The Bible clearly teaches that A&E were well aware that partaking of the ToKoG&E was forbidden.  They did so in defiance of the commandment -- not in ignorance of it.

So, is it LDS teaching that Adam and Eve did sin (although maybe not a major sin)?  And if so, their sin was necessary, and part of the plan (not in opposition to it).

Is sin necessary?

[JLHPROF]

Transgress - literally "to step across" or "go beyond".  Another definition is "to go beyond a boundary or limit."

That's what Adam and Eve did in removing immortality.  That's what Christ did in resurrection.  He went beyond the law of nature concerning death.

Sin on the other hand means guilty.  It has reference to missing the mark or committing offense against God.

Transcending or going against a natural law is very different from making a mistake and creating offense.

[Stargazer]

22 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So, is it LDS teaching that Adam and Eve did sin (although maybe not a major sin)?  And if so, their sin was necessary, and part of the plan (not in opposition to it).

Is sin necessary?

It's not necessary. In the case of Jesus it was essential that he did not sin.  In the case of the rest of us, it is unavoidable.

[Stargazer]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But in their innocent state they did not yet comprehend the difference between good and evil. They were told not to do it, but didn't understand why or the consequences of what doing it would bring.  They did what seemed to them the logical thing to do because of what Satan told them.
Most children under the age of 8 might transgress a commandment but it cannot be called sin because they don't understand that doing it is wrong. When they do understand it is wrong and then willingly choose to do it, then it can be called a sin.

Ok, I see where you're coming from.  Yes, if they did not were not yet accountable, then of course their transgression was not a sin.  And you're suggesting that that is what their state was.

But I don't agree that Adam and Eve were not accountable.  I believe they were fully accountable, and understood the consequences of transgressing the commandment not to partake, and they knew that Father forbade it, and that it was prima facie wrong for that reason.  They were created as adults, not toddlers, even if they had only been in the flesh for a couple of days or a couple of months, whatever it was.  It isn't that the forbidden fruit made them accountable -- all the fruit could do was damage their bodies so that they would die eventually, and make them become subject to the ills of the flesh.  Placing A&E in a position where they could "accidentally" or by "misadventure" cause mortality to come to them is the equivalent of putting a toddler into a room containing a loaded pistol in plain sight.  I don't think that's what God was doing.  

As I said, the fact that they had not committed serious sin, in the words of the lesson Mo brought to our attention, does not mean that they had committed no sin.

And I also challenge the appropriateness of bringing in a principle from an arguably simplified lesson intended for investigators and new members as evidence for the sinlessness of Adam and Eve.  Especially when the wording does not say what Mo says it says.

I need an unequivocal statement of doctrine, and Gospel Principles Lesson 6 doesn't have it.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Stargazer

[strappinglad]

I'm big on metaphors today for some reason. Adam and Eve pulled into the intersection while the light was still red. I am sure that in time the light would have turned green and the intersection could have been crossed , no problem. What they did was not evil in itself , they just did it out of order. As for my previous statement , replace squares with sins and quadrilaterals with transgressions.

[Coop]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Oaks addressed this issue in a 1996 article: Sins and Mistakes.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with Elder Oaks that there is a distinction between a sin and a mistake, and that God is concerned with both.  I would further argue that there is also a distinction between; iniquity, sin, transgression, and a mistake.  Here is how I define the first three items from the most significant to the least.

 

To begin with I believe that there are two dimensions to these three concepts.  The first is that iniquity, sin, and transgression are all behaviors.  In this my belief departs from a common narrative in the Church that thoughts and feelings can be sinful.  I don’t believe God will hold us accountable for our thoughts and feelings.

 

The second dimension is in the number of people involved.  In the case of iniquity there are multiple people involved.  A good example of iniquity from the Book of Mormon is the story of Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah.  The Old Testament is replete with examples of the Israelites committing iniquity and how God punished them showing how seriously He takes this behavior.

 

The next most significant behavior is sin and sins are those behaviors that involve the sinner and at least one other person.  Take the Ten Commandments for example.  The second five commandments are concerned with sin because they involve an actor and a person acted upon.  The main issue with sin is that it impacts on the agency of the person being acted upon.  Take murder for example.

 

The least significant behavior is transgression and in the case of the Ten Commandments the first five commandments are concerned with transgression.  We can see this distinction between sins and transgressions in the story of Adam and Eve.

 

When Eve partook of the forbidden fruit she was only committing a transgression because she was only person affected by her behavior.  This changes however when Eve tries to influence Adam to also partake of the forbidden fruit.  In this case Eve was committing a sin because her behavior had a direct affect of someone else while Adam’s behavior was only a transgression.  We see this distinction reflected in the second Article of Faith wherein Adam will be held accountable for his own transgression while we will be held accountable for our own sins.

 

All the best,

Bob

[rpn]

Did Joshua commit sin by killing all the people in the Jerico?    Did Nephi commit sin by by slaying Laban?   If sin is the act of separating yourself from God, then neither of them were sins.   Were they transgressions?   I don't agree that one needs to repent of transgressions, because there isn't any scriptural support for that.   Adam and Eve were merely acting on a choice, and nothing they did separated themselves from God, at all.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I read that talk just today.  The message here is is that a scripturally, transgression is the same as a sin sometimes, but most of the time, a transgression means a mistake.

Here’s what doesn’t make sense under Oaks’ teachings: did Adam and Eve make a mistake by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?  If we’re taking him at his word that a transgression is a mistake, then they did make a mistake, which is not correlated teaching today regarding the fall.

Still searching, but thanks for the suggestion.

The correlated teaching is that Eve was beguiled (deceptively influenced or misguided in her judgment by someone "more subtil"). A mistake of course is an an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong. So I think Elder Oaks is teaching a correlated concept. He is using "mistake" to strengthen the focus away from sin and more accurately describe what Adam and Eve did in context.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In correlated LDS settings, we are taught that Adam and Eve’s choice to partake of the tree of knowledge was not a sin, but a transgression.  That teaching is used to convey that their choice was part of God’s plan, and not something that they needed to repent of.

However, I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to what the difference between a sin and a transgression is. 

Most recently, I’ve been told that a transgression isn’t as bad as a sin.  When I prodded further, asking if it’s OK for us to transgress, but not sin, and for more applicable examples of what a transgression (but not a sin) are, I didn’t get an answer.

Would love to hear thoughts. What is the difference?

To be clear, I am not interested in a thread about why Adam and Eve needed to partake of the forbidden tree, but more interested in understanding the difference between two words (ideas) we have been taught are distinct.  What application does this nuanced difference in terms have for me?

Some are trying to keep the old idea that "Adam sinned" be cause supposedly that is a Christian belief. Fergitabout it.

No sin, no transgression just the will of the Lord.

They did what the Lord knew and wanted all along. 

[Glenn101]

In the early church many seemed to use transgression and sin interchangeably. But the Second article of Faith seems to make a distinction. Since I became old enough to have some kind of cognition on the subject, I have been taught and read that Adam and Eve did not commit a sin in partaking of the forbidden fruit. It has been noted by many Apostles, such as Joseph Fielding Smith. I do not believe that you will find a talk by any of the General Authorities over the years or articles in any of the LDS magazines that would suggest that Adam and Eve committed a sin. That is good enough for me.

Glenn

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Is sin necessary?

It is a necessary option for intelligent beings, depending on the kingdom in which we reside (D&C 88: 38-39). So is transgression. The kingdom in which we currently reside is different from Adam and Eve's in many respects, hence the need to distinguish between sin and transgression. 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, rpn said:

Adam and Eve were merely acting on a choice, and nothing they did separated themselves from God, at all.

Huh?  I  thought that was the whole result of the fall, and the entire need for a Savior and the plan of salvation.

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The correlated teaching is that Eve was beguiled (deceptively influenced or misguided in her judgment by someone "more subtil"). 

Interestingly, the scripture indicates that it was the serpent that was actually deceived.

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Some are trying to keep the old idea that "Adam sinned" be cause supposedly that is a Christian belief. Fergitabout it.

No sin, no transgression just the will of the Lord.

They did what the Lord knew and wanted all along. 

Exactly.  Well, a law was transgressed (stepped across).  That's what caused the fall.  But it was the plan.

Edited June 24, 2018 by JLHPROF

[SouthernMo]

Elder Oaks’ 1993 talk, which sheds light on the subject: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

—Their choice was NOT a sin (he quotes Joseph Smith)

—It was a transgression of the law (he quotes Joseph Fielding Smith)

He goes on to explain that sin is inherently wrong, while a transgression is formally prohibited.  Which begs the question, is breaking the word of wisdom a transgression (and not a sin)?  What about failure to pay tithing?  What other commandments fall under the category of “formally prohibited”, as opposed to “inherently wrong?”

Hopefully, using a teaching from Elder Oaks is more appropriate (@Stargazer)  than using a gospel principles manual as a basis for discussion?

[SouthernMo]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No sin, no transgression just the will of the Lord.

Be sure to read the 1993 talk from Oaks I posted. He clearly quotes prophets and confirms that there was a transgression. Also, see Articles of Faith 2. If we accept those as scripture, it does seem that LDS teaching is that Adam (and Eve) did transgress.

The question is why it matters that there is a distinction between sin and transgression. What is the implication for the delineation between these two categories of wrong-doing?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The question is why it matters that there is a distinction between sin and transgression. What is the implication for the delineation between these two categories of wrong-doing?

The implications are numerous, especially as we ponder the idea of transgressing a lower law to live a higher one.

Sin however is something to repent of.  Adam and Eve never needed to repent, and instead rejoiced.  But because a law was transgressed a consequence had to be dealt with to satisfy justice.  And we see Adam sacrificing and the first revelation of the atonement.