Sin vs. Transgression

[theplains]

On 6/26/2018 at 8:14 AM, Glenn101 said:

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.

Alma chapter 42, with the context of the Fall, refers to Adam the sinner, punishment, and the breaking of God's law.

Jim

[JLHPROF]

Just now, theplains said:

Alma chapter 42, with the context of the Fall, refers to Adam the sinner, punishment, and the breaking of God's law.

Jim

Interchangeable usage of terms with differing nuances is a human trait.  Happens all the time if we aren't precise.

And it has led to numerous errors of belief.  But there are times to take scriptures literally and times to recognize poetic word choices.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Alma chapter 42, with the context of the Fall, refers to Adam the sinner, punishment, and the breaking of God's law.

Jim

This chapter does not refer to Adam as the / a sinner in his pre-fallen state.

Verse 1 gives context for the teachings “concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner.” Never is Adam referred to as a sinner.

Verse 15 gives additional context by applying the principles of redemption,mercy, justice and atonement to “the sins of the world.” This is why neither sin nor transgression is used in relation to Adam’s act, and the account is neutral toward Adam regarding his disobedience (verse 12) which took place was while he was still in Eden.

Chapter 42 is about the redemption of mankind after the fall (verse 9 onward).

[CV75]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Interchangeable usage of terms with differing nuances is a human trait.  Happens all the time if we aren't precise.

And it has led to numerous errors of belief.  But there are times to take scriptures literally and times to recognize poetic word choices.

Note that the Bible has 3 verses that refer to Adam as a transgressor and none that classifies him as a sinner.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

Alma chapter 42, with the context of the Fall, refers to Adam the sinner, punishment, and the breaking of God's law.

Jim

Some additional comment copied from elsewhere:

Satan introduced evil into the world by instigating and beguiling Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, thus creating the world out of Eden. He was evil with evil intent; Adam and Eve were not. But as a result of their physical and spiritual separation from God, they and their offspring could now be tempted to commit sin, and once sin was committed, that is the evil referred to.

Adam and Eve (and obviously their posterity, which wasn' yet born) were not tempted to commit sin in Eden. They were tempted to use their agency to partake of the forbidden fruit, which is not an inherently evil act since it is inherently godlike to desire and obtain knowledge of good and evil (moral agency). Adam and Eve only had agency, the power to choose, but not between right and wrong, which had not yet been established, but between opposing principles, a tree of life and a tree of knowledge (see Alma 29:5: “Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless”; and 2 Nephi 2:22-23: “22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”).

It is not wise to follow or honor Satan, and this is not what Eve and Adam did in being beguiled by Satan. See Moses 5:9-12: “And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.” They were clearly honoring God and rejoicing in their redemption and His justice and mercy toward their having been beguiled to transgress, not Satan.

They transgressed, not sinned. Nowhere in the Bible are Adam and Eve referred to as sinners, only as transgressors. There is a difference. See:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10/sins-and-mistakes?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

They transgressed, not sinned. Nowhere in the Bible are Adam and Eve referred to as sinners, only as transgressors. 

While I agree with your main points and distinction between sin and transgression, and find the distinction useful in LDS theology, I am not convinced that all the Bible writers viewed sin and transgression as distinct from each other.    

For example, this passage suggests that the fall/death came about by the sin of Adam:

Quote

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin... (Rom 5:12).

 

 

 

[theplains]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Chapter 42 is about the redemption of mankind after the fall (verse 9 onward).

I agree with you here but Alma uses Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden as the primary example
to explain the need and benefit of the Atonement (verses 1-5).  Then it continues to build with other verses.

"Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a
law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought
remorse of conscience unto man.   But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted;
which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law
inflicteth the punishment; if not so,  the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." 

Later in the Pearl of Great Price - "And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must
repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression
in the Garden of Eden."

Sin is the transgression of the law.  The law was 'do not eat from the forbidden tree' (which was transgressed) 
and the punishment was spiritual/physical death.  There are other LDS teachings that also depict the original
(i.e. first sin) of Adam.  See attached.

What first/original sin do you believe Adam committed that he needed to repent of?

Jim

lds_sin_of_adam.pdf

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

While I agree with your main points and distinction between sin and transgression, and find the distinction useful in LDS theology, I am not convinced that all the Bible writers viewed sin and transgression as distinct from each other.    

For example, this passage suggests that the fall/death came about by the sin of Adam:

I like that passage because it says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

To paraphrase, by Adam sin entered the world. It does not say by Adam's sin, sin entered the world. Sin entered the fallen world as a consequence of the Fall, and was not a feature in Eden. Sin came into the world when the law of the Gospel did (the Redemption, after the Fall); the law of the Gospel was not a feature of Eden, where sin could not be imputed.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I agree with you here but Alma uses Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden as the primary example
to explain the need and benefit of the Atonement (verses 1-5).  Then it continues to build with other verses.

"Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a
law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought
remorse of conscience unto man.   But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted;
which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law
inflicteth the punishment; if not so,  the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." 

Later in the Pearl of Great Price - "And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must
repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression
in the Garden of Eden."

Sin is the transgression of the law.  The law was 'do not eat from the forbidden tree' (which was transgressed) 
and the punishment was spiritual/physical death.  There are other LDS teachings that also depict the original
(i.e. first sin) of Adam.  See attached.

What first/original sin do you believe Adam committed that he needed to repent of?

Jim

lds_sin_of_adam.pdf

No, Alma uses Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden not as an example, but as the lead into the dynamics of the redemption in our fallen world (“after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden”). Verses 1- 5 are not about Adam and Eve’s transgression in Eden, but their posterity’s sins in this world.

Men must repent and be baptized in water because while Adam was forgiven of his transgression, his posterity (men) are born into a fallen world and bound to sin, requiring them to repent and be baptized. It is for their own sins, for they are initially whole from the foundation of the world (i.e. they do not commit sin by virtue of Adam’s transgression, but of their own agency).

“Repent” also means “change” and “progress,” and this is what Adam did in relation to his transgression in Eden (Moses 6:52), and presumably in relation to any other sins he may have committed after the Fall. Note that it says “transgressions” – plural -- while in Eden he partook of the forbidden fruit, and he did not multiply and replenish the earth, nor subdue it. So he had to repent of those.

Verse 54 says “original guilt,” which does not refer to guilt for Adam’s transgression but to the guilt of our sins (sins which originate with us and not guilt by association with Adam’s transgression).

Now if you want to insist that sin and transgression always mean the same thing in all contexts, have at it, but as a result you continue to misunderstand the scriptures or LDS lesson material and then refuse good answers to your questions rendering them no better than self-inflicted straw-men.

Your last question can be answered with that correct understanding: Adam committed no sin that is in the record, he committed transgression(s) in Eden. The term “original guilt” is not related to Adam’s transgression but to us – that which we do in our probationary state. Adam repented of his transgression(s) by being fruitful and multiplying and subduing the earth, and by doing what he needed to do to return to the presence of the Lord (See 2 Nephi 25:23). He repented of being beguiled to partake of the forbidden fruit by becoming well-informed in all these areas, by becoming wise and choosing between good and evil.

Edited July 2, 2018 by CV75

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To paraphrase, by Adam sin entered the world. It does not say by Adam's sin, sin entered the world. Sin entered the fallen world as a consequence of the Fall, and was not a feature in Eden. Sin came into the world when the law of the Gospel did (the Redemption, after the Fall); the law of the Gospel was not a feature of Eden, where sin could not be imputed.

I agree that it could be interpreted to mean that sin entered as a consequence of the fall, but the part that I have a harder time interpreting any other way is that it suggests that death/the fall was a consequence of sin.  If the fall was the cause of death in the world, this passage states that death entered the world "by sin". 

There are many others that do the same:

Quote

but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

Why would they die?  See:

Quote

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23). 

Quote

 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:21–23). 

Quote

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinth 15:21). 

Quote

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:17)

Even today, apostles and prophets use the terms interchangeably, as has already been pointed out.  It doesn't surprise me that the Bible authors would do the same. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I agree that it could be interpreted to mean that sin entered as a consequence of the fall, but the part that I have a harder time interpreting any other way is that it suggests that death/the fall was a consequence of sin.  If the fall was the cause of death in the world, this passage states that death entered the world "by sin". 

There are many others that do the same:

Why would they die?  See:

Even today, apostles and prophets use the terms interchangeably, as has already been pointed out.  It doesn't surprise me that the Bible authors would do the same. 

Hmmm… maybe I can parse it our better:

When in consequence of Adam’s transgression Eden became a fallen world, sin entered the world, and with it, death (spiritual and physical) … in principle. Sin and death were actualized in this world when the first mortal man sinned, whoever that was; some presume it was Adam (i don't know) but Cain did it worse.

The Bible authors never called Adam a sinner, only a transgressor, which I think informs the interchangeability of sin and transgression in other biblical passages. I haven’t an issue with their interchangeability, but when questions arise about whether Eve celebrates sin and follows the devil, I think we need to allow some specificity in how the terms are used to explain things right.

From your examples:

For [in this world] the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23). In Adam’s Eden, the wages of his beguiled transgression was death, but life and obedience in that he could now keep the commandments to multiply and subdue the earth.

For as in Adam all die [not because he sinned in the fallen world with a knowledge of good and evil, but because he transgressed in Eden without it], even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:21–23). Adam had agency, but not moral agency until he knew good and evil. With agency we can only transgress (change choices), with moral agency we can sin.

For since by man came death [Adam, by transgression in Eden], by man came also the resurrection of the dead [Christ, by overcoming sin in this world and transgression in Eden]. (1 Corinth 15:21).

For if by one man's offence [good word choice! a breach of a law or rule in Eden] death reigned [in the fallen world] by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:17)

Edited July 2, 2018 by CV75

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/24/2018 at 2:08 PM, 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.

Here is how I take the issue because the church never has really given a good explanation on the difference that makes sense to me. Here is how I have come to terms with the difference in my own mind. 

First the overall view that all sins are transgressions but not all transgressions are sins.  Just like all hurricanes are storms but not all storms are hurricanes.  Sins and transgressions share some similar qualities but there are important differences.  The difference is degree of seriousness and consequence.  Sort of like felonies and misdemeanors.  A sin is a felony and a transgression is a misdemeanor.  A sin is usually something that needs to be repented of and can affect one salvation.  A transgression is disobedience to a command or counsel which has some level of consequence but will not necessarily affect ones salvation.   The Word of Wisdom is a good example of sins and transgressions in action.  If one uses alcohol and tobacco, they can be denied a temple recommend.  These actions are sins because the effect of these actions can affect one salvation.  However if one chooses to not eat meat sparingly their salvation is not affected as they still can go to the temple.  However because they are disobeying the counsel, there still is a consequence.  That being health problems that are associated with that action like clogged arteries, ect.  This action is a transgression but not a sin.  God gives various kinds of commands to do or not do something.  We should not equate the command to keep the law of chastity and not keeping it with the direction to have family home evening and not keeping it.

So in the case of Adam.  He was given a command not to eat of the fruit of the tree.  If he did, there was a consequence of not following the direction.  A transgression in this regard. Nothing was said that Adam or Eve would be eternally damned if they did.  Simply that they would die.  Disobedience of this direction really should not be seen as a big deal.  It was part of the plan for them to die anyway.  For this earth to work right, death is an important part.  Human reproduction without death would make this earth a miserable place.  There would be 500 billion people on this planet right now.  Maybe even more.  Death thins the heard keeps things manageable.  Adam did not need to repent of his action of eating the fruit.  His action did not affect his salvation so it was not a sin.  So that is how I reconcile it.  Sins are actions that can affect our salvation but transgressions not so much.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

I agree with you here but Alma uses Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden as the primary example
to explain the need and benefit of the Atonement (verses 1-5).  Then it continues to build with other verses.

"Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a
law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought
remorse of conscience unto man.   But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted;
which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law
inflicteth the punishment; if not so,  the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." 

Later in the Pearl of Great Price - "And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must
repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression
in the Garden of Eden."

Sin is the transgression of the law.  The law was 'do not eat from the forbidden tree' (which was transgressed) 
and the punishment was spiritual/physical death.  There are other LDS teachings that also depict the original
(i.e. first sin) of Adam.  See attached.

What first/original sin do you believe Adam committed that he needed to repent of?

Jim

lds_sin_of_adam.pdf

You are imposing your paradigm, sola scriptura with God-breathed scripture to be taken literally, on the LDS paradigm, which is what is confusing you.

We believe scripture is "true" - whatever that means- "insofar as it is translated (and passed down through tradition) correctly".

We also have an open canon.  On-going revelation implies that bible / Book of Mormon verses may be subject to future revelation as needed and clarified later by prophets.

We see that in Joseph's inspired "translation" of the Bible which was clearly more of an inspired re-write than anything else.  So trying to parse latter-day scripture and trying to claim inconsistencies misses the point entirely.

We have prophets today who, IF inspired, can re-interpret scripture as the Lord wishes for changing times.   How do we know if they are inspired?  We ask the Lord for our own confirmations !

So in not understanding our paradigm, you continually try to find inconsistencies which ARE THERE but are irrelevant because their interpretation has been understood differently by prophets today

In other words, by continually using this approach you are missing the boat.

Apparent inconsistencies are irrelevant in a changing canon.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/24/2018 at 1:08 PM, 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.

Excellent point, never thought of that one.  TA-DA!

[CV75]

On 6/24/2018 at 4:08 PM, 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.

Inasmuch as there was beguilement involved, and a mistake is an an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong, and being beguiled and deceived is a form of being misguided, I think it's OK to call a transgression a mistake and that partaking of the forbidden fruit was a mistake. Not all mistakes are bad. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beautiful mistake

Edited July 3, 2018 by CV75

[filovirus]

Does a 2-year-old sin by taking a cooking when his mother forbade him from taking one? How were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden similar to a 2-year-old? Did they have have a full knowledge of good/evil? Not until they partook of the forbidden fruit. All they understood was that God forbade it and that if they did they would surly die, but their eyes would be open.

So yes, they were told not to, but they didn't have the full moral capacity to understand why. At least that is how I see it.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, filovirus said:

So yes, they were told not to, but they didn't have the full moral capacity to understand why. At least that is how I see it.

Yep.  They had much less than "full" moral capacity - they in fact had zero moral capacity without the knowledge of good and evil. 

P.S. As an international travel medicine nurse, I am curious at your username - nasty little buggers!

[filovirus]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep.  They had much less than "full" moral capacity - they in fact had zero moral capacity without the knowledge of good and evil. 

P.S. As an international travel medicine nurse, I am curious at your username - nasty little buggers!

Majored in microbiology and Masters in public health with emphasis on epidemiology. The user name is always available. I've had the user name for long before Ebola was a common household name.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Majored in microbiology and Masters in public health with emphasis on epidemiology. The user name is always available. I've had the user name for long before Ebola was a common household name.

Cool, right down my alley!  I occasionally have to warn spelunkers going to certain parts of Africa about the equally deadly, but less well-known Marburg virus.