mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think we need to be wary of drawing generalized conclusions from specific instances. Note this remark from that same talk by Elder Oaks: So the words “are not always used to denote something different.” Like all dogs are mammals but not every mammal is a dog, perhaps we could say that all sins are transgressions but not every transgression is a sin. I say we should be wary, because I’ve seen someone on this board try to rationalize homosexual violation of the law of chastity by calling it a transgression. The meaning of words often change within a context. Context IS meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principle 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The meaning of words often change within a context. Context IS meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principle I fully agree with this. That’s why I am so contemptuous of the act of taking a word or phrase or expression out of context. A corrolary to that would be taking the meaning of a word or expression from one context and erroneously applying it to the same or similar word or expression in another context. It’s an insidious form of deception. It is sophistry.
clarkgoble Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The meaning of words often change within a context. Context IS meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principle Or if you prefer you don't start with the literal and adjust it a bit to get the metaphoric. You start with the metaphoric and in some cases get the literal. 2
Glenn101 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Whatever. The distinction is in God's hands, and always has been. Whether or not I think/believe that Adam and Eve sinned (or did not sin) is really irrelevant because I am not God. In any even, the Atonement by Jesus the Christ covered it. Glenn 1
theplains Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 On 6/24/2018 at 3:27 PM, 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. The March 2008 Ensign article "The Atonement of Jesus" refers to this as sin. Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin. Other aspects of Christ’s atoning gift are conditional. They depend on one’s diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own ... Jim
pogi Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 I haven't read all the posts, but here are some helpful scriptures: Quote “… to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17.) Quote Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state! (2 Nephi 9, 25-27) One cannot be accountable for sin in ignorance (if such a thing is possible). They may be accountable for transgression of a law, but they are not accountable for sin. Sin requires moral agency. Adam and Eve had none.
pogi Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, theplains said: The March 2008 Ensign article "The Atonement of Jesus" refers to this as sin. Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin. Other aspects of Christ’s atoning gift are conditional. They depend on one’s diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own ... Jim Sin and transgression are often used interchangeably in scripture. The Bible often refers to the "sin" of Adam. I think it is best to distinguish between the two though, and the church does try to do that (though not perfectly). To me, sin connotes moral accountability, while transgression is simply the violation of a law, in ignorance or not.
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Or if you prefer you don't start with the literal and adjust it a bit to get the metaphoric. You start with the metaphoric and in some cases get the literal. Well for me there really IS no "literal" because words are all symbols/ signs and not "things" This very idea of "things" is itself a metaphor when we speak No one ever stepped on a word and fell down, or jumped off the word "cliff" or had trouble walking through the word "wall". But we have been here numerous times haven't we.? People have done a lot of "bad deeds" but no one yet ever committed the WORD "sin". So it all gets a little hard to define. Edited June 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
CV75 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 38 minutes ago, theplains said: The March 2008 Ensign article "The Atonement of Jesus" refers to this as sin. Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin. Other aspects of Christ’s atoning gift are conditional. They depend on one’s diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own ... Jim In this talk, Elder Holland uses “sin” to include the breaking of any law, whether such an act has moral ramifications or not. To commit sin as you would have Adam and Eve commit it, they would have had to have had moral agency, a gift they did not possess. They did have agency, which can be used to transgress (without moral ramification) before the Fall, and moral agency, which can be used with moral ramification (to sin) after the Fall. This gets back to 2 Corinthians 11:3 (“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”). Eve was beguiled by a more “subtil” serpent because she did not have all the necessary elements to exercise moral agency (see this article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?lang=eng ). She did not become corrupted until after the Fall. In the case of the teaching in 2 Corinthians 11, wickedness and pride (see verses 18-19) incline us to sustain false apostles and ministers. These are attributes Adam and Eve did not possess.
SouthernMo Posted June 25, 2018 Author Posted June 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Whatever. The distinction is in God's hands, and always has been. Whether or not I think/believe that Adam and Eve sinned (or did not sin) is really irrelevant because I am not God. In any even, the Atonement by Jesus the Christ covered it. Glenn This is a fascinating position to me. I am naturally curious, and seek to know the mysteries of God, and strive to understand (as humbly as my arrogant mind can) as much of God’s plan and the truth as possible. In some ways I admire people who can say “whatever” to some of these gospel teachings (in this case about understanding the Fall and God’s will concerning our choices). Your mind seems to find peace in its current understanding while mine is restless and wants to understand more.
SouthernMo Posted June 25, 2018 Author Posted June 25, 2018 51 minutes ago, theplains said: The March 2008 Ensign article "The Atonement of Jesus" refers to this as sin. Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin. Other aspects of Christ’s atoning gift are conditional. They depend on one’s diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own ... Jim This is interesting. Thank you for sharing this! In this message you shared, Holland clearly labels the Fall as a sin, contradicting Oaks’ and Joseph Smith’s labels of the Fall NOT being a sin (rather a transgression). The plot thickens! How does one study and understand what appears to be an intentional distinction of vocabulary & message when there isn’t consistency in language? At what point are we over-analyzing as opposed to being lazy in our study of truth?
Calm Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, theplains said: The March 2008 Ensign article "The Atonement of Jesus" refers to this as sin. Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin. Other aspects of Christ’s atoning gift are conditional. They depend on one’s diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own ... Jim Yes, LDS treatment is not consistent.
Calm Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: This is interesting. Thank you for sharing this! In this message you shared, Holland clearly labels the Fall as a sin, contradicting Oaks’ and Joseph Smith’s labels of the Fall NOT being a sin (rather a transgression). The plot thickens! How does one study and understand what appears to be an intentional distinction of vocabulary & message when there isn’t consistency in language? At what point are we over-analyzing as opposed to being lazy in our study of truth? In order to get an understanding of how LDS in general view the Fall, imo it is probably best to stick with discussions/talks/articles that specifically deal with the question rather than general summaries of events where traditional usage might influence word choice rather than a careful examination of nuanced. Edited June 25, 2018 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: This is a fascinating position to me. I am naturally curious, and seek to know the mysteries of God, and strive to understand (as humbly as my arrogant mind can) as much of God’s plan and the truth as possible. In some ways I admire people who can say “whatever” to some of these gospel teachings (in this case about understanding the Fall and God’s will concerning our choices). Your mind seems to find peace in its current understanding while mine is restless and wants to understand more. Now we are getting somewhere. The issue becomes what is unknowable as opposed to what is knowable. If anyone has an arrogant mind around here I'm sure it's me. But the truth is I am actually not arrogant at all and actually quite humble about trying to learn things about the gospel. But I have actually studied Philosophy for 50 years to find out what things we can know about what knowledge means and what is unknowable. There is a branch of philosophy called epistemology that deals precisely in that question. So I am pretty darn confident about what humans are able to understand about knowledge. I firmly believe in the atonement for example but I know that no one will ever have a clue how at exactly works. So I accept it on faith and simply receive the peace that it provides. Studying the philosophy of language I have learned that there are simply some things that language cannot do. If language cannot communicate such things we need to learn them only by the spirit, and not worry about putting them into words. It has been said that the eye cannot see nor the ear hear or for us to know the things that God has prepared for those who love him. It is on these occasions we're even in my arrogance I am willing to just say "whatever" as well, and leave it to that which cannot be said but yet known through direct spiritual experience. On this side of the veil we will always see things through a glass darkley, in a way that is inexpressible in language. Just as we know through direct experience what the color red is we cannot describe that to a blind person. We could not describe the sound of a trumpet or in language distinguish it from the sound of a flute so that one who cannot hear would understand. I think the attempt to distinguish the difference between a transgression and a sin comes down to the question of trying to judge another person. We cannot know what is in their hearts. Even a crazy person may murder someone blamelessly because they were crazy. Because we are not to judge others I don't think I'm in a position to judge whether or not Eve committed a transgression or a sin, and to be perfectly honest I don't think anyone else is either. Anyone. I found this church by following the spirit and I am not about to follow blindly someone else telling me anything that the spirit does not confirm. It would be self-contradictory to do so. Why should I even be in the church if I am not listening to the spirit? And so I sound arrogant. But the reality is quite logical in my opinion. Before we follow a prophet we need to be prophets ourselves simply to recognize one when we see one. There are too many pretenders out there. Some here call that sophistry but I dare them to take on that logic. They will find that there is no way to tell sophistry from religious truth without spiritual confirmation. Edited June 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 3
clarkgoble Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Well for me there really IS no "literal" because words are all symbols/ signs and not "things" That more or less is what I'm getting at. (I was paraphrasing Derrida) But the Peircean in me thinks it's signs all the way down. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: That more or less is what I'm getting at. (I was paraphrasing Derrida) But the Peircean in me thinks it's signs all the way down. I have no clue what that means. If it means that language is nothing but symbols then I agree. The word signs to me means something that points at something else. All that words point to are themselves. If that's what you mean by "there are signs all the way down then we agree". But at the core it seems to me you think that signs point to "reality" The problem is you say that in a language. So are using a symbol to point to something not a symbol. But the very word reality is it self itself a symbol. If you said the word Aardvark symbolizes this with an arrow and then an aardvark pops out at you that might work. Unfortunately aardvarks aren't signs so it's not signs all the way down. There really are aardvarks. Words and stuff in the world are ontologically very different and the experience of a smelly Aardvark licking your face is not quite the same as the word. So it can't be signs all the way down. There really are smelly aardvarks. There really are experiences for which we do not have words. The gospel depends on it. The word Heaven" Sho'nuff don't Feel Like Heaven to Me and now in mosquito season the word " itch" doesn't itch at all. Red ain't even red. Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski
JAHS Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, theplains said: The March 2008 Ensign article "The Atonement of Jesus" refers to this as sin. Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin. Other aspects of Christ’s atoning gift are conditional. They depend on one’s diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own ... Jim I think if Elder Holland had better proofread his talk he would have changed the word sin to transgression. There is a reference attached to that sentence that refers to the 2nd Article of Faith, which of course calls what Adam did a transgression. Sometimes the words are used interchangably, which is confusing. I think sometimes church leaders use the word "sin" instead of transgression so that other non-mormon christians can relate to what they are talking about Edited June 26, 2018 by JAHS 2
clarkgoble Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I have no clue what that means. If it means that language is nothing but symbols then I agree. The word signs to me means something that points at something else. All that words point to are themselves. If that's what you mean by "there are signs all the way down then we agree". But at the core it seems to me you think that signs point to "reality" I think some signs are stable. That is effects have stable natures much like most of what's studied in physics. What's stable is as good a way of referring to reality as anything.
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I think some signs are stable. That is effects have stable natures much like most of what's studied in physics. What's stable is as good a way of referring to reality as anything. Sorry, I do not understand these words. "Signs have stable natures?" How does one tell what the "nature" of a "Sign" is? Is its "nature" what it likes to do- ? Yes, observations are repeatable- is that what you mean? And the words "water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level" will yield the experience of bubbles in water under those conditions on a predictable and repeatable basis. Is that what you mean? My point is that the WORD "water" never ever bubbles nor does the word "bubble" bubble either for that matter. So it's NOT "signs all the way down" at all. We have experiences we "put into words" which purport to describe the experience, "The world is out there but descriptions of the world are not" to quote Rorty- turn on signatures and read the below quote. There are experiences which cannot be described. So talking about them becomes a futile exercise. Do you mean "Those experiences which can be described identically repeatedly is "reality"? What counts as "identically" or "repeatedly"? Do descriptions in different languages and cultures count as "identical"? Edited June 26, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 42 minutes ago, JAHS said: I think sometimes church leaders use the word "sin" instead of transgression so that other non-mormon christians can relate to what they are talking about Yes exactly- that is my point. They don't want to come out and say "The fall was a good thing" and so they fudge and call it a "transgression" which sounds ambiguous enough that it will please other alleged "Christians" which is another weasel word in itself.
strappinglad Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 Riddle me this, batmen. Why is Christ called the WORD ? Does it refer to His role as Creator in that creation took place by speaking ? Completely off topic, but the statement about' now we see as through a glass darkly '( KJV ) , in other translations uses the word ' mirror ' instead of glass and 'foggy or clouded' instead of darkly. This carries an implication that what we see is a blurry reflection .
clarkgoble Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry, I do not understand these words. "Signs have stable natures?" How does one tell what the "nature" of a "Sign" is?Ω What it signifies is the same over time. Quote Yes, observations are repeatable- is that what you mean? And the words "water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level" will yield the experience of bubbles in water under those conditions on a predictable and repeatable basis. A little bit more than that, but that's close enough. Quote My point is that the WORD "water" never ever bubbles nor does the word "bubble" bubble either for that matter. Yup they're signs. It's just what they signify is also a sign. Quote There are experiences which cannot be described. So talking about them becomes a futile exercise. I'm not sure that's true since I'm not sure descriptions exhaust what is useful. Look at Buddhism which has a rather developed sense of the ineffable but has found rather interesting strategies to talk about the ineffable. For that matter look at Anselm and negative theology in our own cultural history. So the ineffable can make signifiers quite well even if we might not be able to do satisfactory representations.
Glenn101 Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 13 hours ago, SouthernMo said: This is a fascinating position to me. I am naturally curious, and seek to know the mysteries of God, and strive to understand (as humbly as my arrogant mind can) as much of God’s plan and the truth as possible. In some ways I admire people who can say “whatever” to some of these gospel teachings (in this case about understanding the Fall and God’s will concerning our choices). Your mind seems to find peace in its current understanding while mine is restless and wants to understand more. It is not that I am not seeking more knowledge on this and other subjects, it is just that on this particular subject (and others) there is no consensus. I have followed discussions on this topics over the years, long before the internet made discussions between geographically and culturally far flung participants so easy. The "preponderance of evidence" using quotes from the ages seems to make a distinction between a sin and transgression. But then there are quotes such as the one Jim made from Elder Holland. I am at peace with knowing that whatever the actual situation, the Atonement has made this an intellectual exercise because that transgression was covered. Glenn
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 9 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Yup they're signs. It's just what they signify is also a sign. I'm not sure that's true since I'm not sure descriptions exhaust what is useful. Look at Buddhism which has a rather developed sense of the ineffable but has found rather interesting strategies to talk about the ineffable. For that matter look at Anselm and negative theology in our own cultural history. So the ineffable can make signifiers quite well even if we might not be able to do satisfactory representations. Paragraph 1: Huh? Paragraph 2: Good point.
clarkgoble Posted June 26, 2018 Posted June 26, 2018 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Paragraph 1: Huh? The word "apple" is a sign but I just used signs to signify the sign "apple." We refer to and signify signs all the times. Peirce's insight was that even the objects we usually think of as "real objects" are themselves composed of signs. He felt that there was a continuity and during any part of the sign process you could break things down into further signs. So for our discussion you might start with "apple" → 🍎 I then noted I could signify the sign "apple" apple → "apple" → 🍎 But we could break those steps down in various ways too. apple → "apple" → phonemes for word "apple" → concept of apple → mental picture of apple → 🍎 In many semioticians minds this process can be continued indefinitely. If instead of looking at the semiotics of idea-like aspects you could also consider the more physics oriented aspects such as how photons transmit to nerves to the brain and so forth. There's usually many different analysis of the semiotics at work. Underneath them all though is the idea that you have a process of sign → sign → sign → ... 1
Recommended Posts