Sin, Iniquity, Transgression

[AtlanticMike]

I was taught that all of Gods children will be judged equally, and for us, the followers of Gods true church, our judgement starts here on earth through confession to our priesthood leaders, allowing us to repent and wash ourselves free of past sin. But apparently my view of sin might have some hard core christian leanings sprinkled in because a few people on here have tried to explain the mormon view on sin, and I admit, I dont understand it. 

    The way my family views sin is all sins, transgressions and iniquities, fall under the category of sin. That us mortals have a sinful nature while here on earth. The best way I can explain it is, think of everyone of us having a cup, and when we sin, that sin goes into the cup. Obviously the more we sin the more the cup fills up. The restored gospel allows us to repent to the proper authorities, and in turn the sin in our cup is emptied. And since we are all sinners, we start over again knowing eventually we will probably need to repent in the future.

    As far as people who dont follow the restored gospel, I was taught that their sins, iniquities and transgressions, are always in the cup, but taken care of if they choose when they die through a plan in spirit prison called "salvation for the dead." Their punishment will be lessened because they were unknowingly committing the acts of sin while on earth. So, how far off am I ?

     So, if you dont mind I would like opinions on a scenario I'm going to set up to see if my view of sin is out of whack. Ok, there's two people in a room, one is mormon and understands the word of wisdoom and the other is not mormon and has never heard of it. Both choose to smoke a cigarette. Who's sinning? Let's say the mormon is because he knows that smoking is breaking a commandment, what is the other guy committing? And lastly, what if the mormon takes 15 minutes and explains to the other guy the word of wisdom and tells the other guy that it's considered a sin to smoke, now that the other guy knows that God commanded us not to smoke, is he now committing a sin everytime he lights one up? 

    Yes, I know I think to much🤣🤣. Anyways. Thanks in advance if you choose to answer, I love learning and understanding people's opinions. 

    

     

Edited February 9, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Ok, there's two people in a room, one is mormon and understands the word of wisdoom and the other is not mormon and has never heard of it. Both choose to smoke a cigarette. Who's sinning? Let's say the mormon is because he knows that smoking is breaking a commandment, what is the other guy committing? And lastly, what if the mormon takes 15 minutes and explains to the other guy the word of wisdom and tells the other guy that it's considered a sin to smoke, now that the other guy knows that God commanded us not to smoke, is he now committing a sin everytime he lights one up? 

Well, it's questionable if smoking is sinful in and of itself.  Obedience is more the rule when it comes to the word of wisdom.

So there may be no sin if the command was never received.

IF smoking were sinful as an act regardless of instruction given (like say lying or adultery or stealing) then both would be sinners, but the Mormon would be under greater condemnation because he sinned against greater light.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I was taught that all of Gods children will be judged equally, and for us, the followers of Gods true church, our judgement starts here on earth through confession to our priesthood leaders, allowing us to repent and wash ourselves free of past sin.

I wonder if it would be helpful for you to provide citations to the Church's teachings, rather than just say "I was taught..."

There is a lot to be said for returning to primary sources (scriptures, conference talks, etc.).  Doing so helps refine our recollections and differentiate truth from error.

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

But apparently my view of sin might have some hard core christian leanings sprinkled in because a few people on here have tried to explain the mormon view on sin, and I admit, I dont understand it. 

    The way my family views sin is all sins, transgressions and iniquities, fall under the category of sin.

Again, let's get to some primary sources.  

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

That us mortals have a sinful nature while here on earth.

Hmm.  I just did a search on https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org for "sinful nature" and came up with zero hits.  

This article (on Book of Mormon Central) has some interesting things to say about whether we have a "sinful nature."

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

The best way I can explain it is, think of everyone of us having a cup, and when we sin, that sin goes into the cup. Obviously the more we sin the more the cup fills up.

That seems quite a different proposition that having a "sinful nature."  I think we sin because we live in a fallen world and succumb to temptations.  

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

The restored gospel allows us to repent to the proper authorities, and in turn the sin in our cup is emptied. And since we are all sinners, we start over again knowing eventually we will probably need to repent in the future.

Yep.  Sin is, in the main, a choice.

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

    As far as people who dont follow the restored gospel, I was taught that their sins, iniquities and transgressions, are always in the cup, but taken care of if they choose when they die through a plan in spirit prison called "salvation for the dead." Their punishment will be lessened because they were unknowingly committing the acts of sin while on earth.

The same can be said for all of us.  We can all sin ignorantly, I think.

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

     So, if you dont mind I would like opinions on a scenario I'm going to set up to see if my view of sin is out of whack. Ok, there's two people in a room, one is mormon and understands the word of wisdoom and the other is not mormon and has never heard of it. Both choose to smoke a cigarette. Who's sinning?

The first one, who has made covenants to obey the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel, clearly is in the wrong.  Is the second one "sinning?"  I don't know.  That would depend on the individual, I think.  See Mosaih 3:11 ("For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who ... who have ignorantly sinned").

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Let's say the mormon is because he knows that smoking is breaking a commandment, what is the other guy committing?

I don't know.  We don't know his frame of mind.

30 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

And lastly, what if the mormon takes 15 minutes and explains to the other guy the word of wisdom and tells the other guy that it's considered a sin to smoke, now that the other guy knows that God commanded us not to smoke, is he now committing a sin everytime he lights one up? 

I don't know that the Word of Wisdom is binding on those who have not made covenants to keep it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Unless we know how much of the Law (shorthand for principles and commandments for a godly life) a nonmember has not only been exposed to, but understands is a Truth and not just something cooked up by some random guy with no known authority, I don’t see how we can judge.

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.

26 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.

27 But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that trangresseth, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!

The light of Christ is available to teach everyone, but not everyone is capable of understanding what is being conveyed.  Inspiration and revelation for oneself is available for anyone, but how many seek it out and are willing to trust the Lord to that extent needed to learn?

In Canada, our neighbors were Chinese from possibly Hong Kong (been awhile, I may have forgotten).  The wife was interested in being taught the gospel and they came over to our home for a lesson.  She had never heard of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc.  Knew what “God” meant, but had no real concept of him having been brought up atheist in a very nonChristian environment.  Had never heard of the Ten Commandments.  Trying to explain the relationship between God and Man as our Creator and Father went way over her head.

I wish I knew more Chinese because I would have loved to hear her explain what her morality was rooted in.  I wish I was more outgoing at the time and worked on the relationship more.  Her husband was a jerk though and scared me off (turns out he ended up abandoning her for another wife and child back in China, had tried to isolate her, missionaries were helping her find a place to live last I heard).

The few Russian atheists I talked to had a Christian heritage at least a couple of generations back. The cities were filled with Orthodox churches and some history of the RO church had apparently been taught to them.  Much easier for them to grasp the idea of our religious commitments and desire to live god given commandments.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Without Adam’s transgression those children could not have existed; through the atonement they are placed in a state of salvation without any act of their own. These would embrace, according to the opinion of statisticians, more than one-half of the human family, who can attribute their salvation only to the mediation and atonement of the Savior. Thus, as stated elsewhere, in some mysterious, incomprehensible way, Jesus assumed the responsibility which naturally would have devolved upon Adam; but which could only be accomplished through the mediation of Himself, and by taking upon Himself their sorrows, assuming their responsibilities, and bearing their transgressions or sins.

In a manner to us incomprehensible and inexplicable, he bore the weight of the sins of the whole world; not only of Adam, but of his posterity; and in doing that, opened the kingdom of heaven, not only to all believers and all who obeyed the law of God, but to more than one-half of the human family who die before they come to years of maturity, as well as to the heathen, who, having died without law, will, through His mediation, be resurrected without law, and be judged without law, and thus participate, according to their capacity, works and worth, in the blessings of His atonement.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-6?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

In another thread, there was an enlightening quote from Dallin H. Oaks drawing a distinction between sin and transgression. He said that sins are forbidden because they are inherently evil, while transgressions are forbidden because they have been formally prohibited. Murder would be in the first category, while a Word of Wisdom violation would be in the second. 
 

However, I seem to recall that the two terms are often used synonymously. 
 

I wonder if it could be said that all sins are transgressions but not all transgressions are sins. It’s like saying all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if it would be helpful for you to provide citations to the Church's teachings, rather than just say "I was taught..."

There is a lot to be said for returning to primary sources (scriptures, conference talks, etc.).  Doing so helps refine our recollections and differentiate truth from error.

Again, let's get to some primary sources.  

Hmm.  I just did a search on https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org for "sinful nature" and came up with zero hits.  

This article (on Book of Mormon Central) has some interesting things to say about whether we have a "sinful nature."

That seems quite a different proposition that having a "sinful nature."  I think we sin because we live in a fallen world and succumb to temptations.  

Yep.  Sin is, in the main, a choice.

The same can be said for all of us.  We can all sin ignorantly, I think.

The first one, who has made covenants to obey the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel, clearly is in the wrong.  Is the second one "sinning?"  I don't know.  That would depend on the individual, I think.  See Mosaih 3:11 ("For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who ... who have ignorantly sinned").

I don't know.  We don't know his frame of mind.

I don't know that the Word of Wisdom is binding on those who have not made covenants to keep it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that vague expressions such as “I was taught that ...” have limited value and application. Just because one recalls being taught something, that doesn’t necessarily make it valid or binding on others. 

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In another thread, there was an enlightening quote from Dallin H. Oaks drawing a distinction between sin and transgression. He said that sins are forbidden because they are inherently evil, while transgressions are forbidden because they have been formally prohibited. Murder would be in the first category, while a Word of Wisdom violation would be in the second. 

There are similar concepts in the law. The Latin phrases are malum in se and malum prohibitum. The former meaning 'wrong (or evil) in itself,' and the latter meaning 'wrong because prohibited.'

I tend to think that the Word of Wisdom, much like the ancient Hebrew dietary law, falls into the latter category. 

 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

That us mortals have a sinful nature while here on earth.

From an LDS perspective, I think it might be more accurate to say that we mortals will invariably commit sin while dwelling here on earth.

The notion that we have a fallen (or sinful) nature is more in line with the mainstream Christian concept of original sin.

That's not really our bag.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

From an LDS perspective, I think it might be more accurate to say that we mortals will invariably commit sin while dwelling here on earth.

The notion that we have a fallen (or sinful) nature is more in line with the mainstream Christian concept of original sin.

That's not really our bag.

 

Although we do have the doctrinal and scriptural concept of “the natural man” being “an enemy to God” and that, absent “the enticing s of the Holy Spirit” and yielding thereto, is “carnal sensual and devilish.”

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

There are similar concepts in the law. The Latin phrases are malum in se and malum prohibitum. The former meaning 'wrong (or evil) in itself,' and the latter meaning 'wrong because prohibited.'

I tend to think that the Word of Wisdom, much like the ancient Hebrew dietary law, falls into the latter category. 

 

That makes sense, though I would hesitate to dismiss the Word of Wisdom as merely pro forma. When I consider how often use of some of the substances it prohibits is associated with behavior that is, in and of itself, evil, I am inclined to regard it as a protection. As the name denotes, it truly is “a word of wisdom.”

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Amulek said:

From an LDS perspective, I think it might be more accurate to say that we mortals will invariably commit sin while dwelling here on earth.

The notion that we have a fallen (or sinful) nature is more in line with the mainstream Christian concept of original sin.

That's not really our bag.

I agree.  I found this article on Book of Mormon Central that has some interesting things to say:

Quote

In Section 74, as in several others, the Lord himself interprets the Bible for Joseph.  In doing so he subtly solves an important theological problem that often occurs to parents of three-year-olds. It concerns original sin. Are mortals sinful by nature or not? Ask a group of Latter-day Saints if they believe that people are inherently evil and, all evidence from themselves and their own children aside, they will overwhelmingly answer no.

Ask the Book of Mormon writers and you get a different answer. They knew andtaught that mortals are inherently evil, at least in part (2 Nephi 2:29; 2 Nephi 4:17–20). As the brother of Jared put it, “Because of the fall our natures have become evil continually” (Ether 3:2). Though the scriptures are plain on this point, sometimes modern Latter-day Saints underestimate the effects of the Fall. Perhaps we fear that it makes us sound too much like other Christians. But by merely being born as mortals, we inherit a sinful nature. We are naturally vicious, selfish, carnal, mean, and often flat-out evil. 
...
Doesn’t section 74 say that little children are holy? Yes. They are, but not because they are inherently so. The revelation says they are “sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ.” Section 74 teaches us one more of the profundities of Christ’s infinite atonement: Since children inherit fallenness helplessly, without having exercised any agency in the matter, Jesus Christ atones for them. He sanctifies them and sets them on a course to become free agents at about age eight if properly taught the law of the gospel (see sections 29 and 68). As long as children are not yet free agents, too helpless to understand or do much about the fallen part of their nature, Jesus sanctifies them according to his will. That is what section 74 teaches. It is beautiful doctrine, restored through Joseph Smith, and it resolves an important theological problem.

I'm not sure I agree with the foregoing exegesis.  I think it is somewhat contradictory to attribute evil actions to our environment (that we are born into and grow up in a "fallen world") and then characterize consequent wrongful actions as the product of a "sinful nature," such that we are "naturally vicious, selfish, carnal, mean, and often flat-out evil."

Consider these remarks by Robert Millet:

Quote

No, we do not believe, with Calvin, in the moral depravity of men and women. No, we do not believe, with Luther, that man does not even have the power to choose good over evil. And we do not believe that children inherit the so-called sin of Adam through either sexual union or by birth. Rather, children are born into a world of sin; conception is simply the vehicle by which the effects of the Fall (not original guilt) are transmitted to Adam’s posterity. Lehi taught Jacob that in the beginning God “gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.” (2 Ne. 2:21.)

This article by Bruce Satterfield has some interesting things to say as well:

Quote

The Lord then explained why men have need of repentance and baptism: “Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good” (Moses 6:55). The meaning of this statement is clear when the following is understood: Though Adam’s transgression in the garden was unconditionally forgiven, the consequences of his transgression would have lasting effects upon all mankind. With the Fall, the physical nature of Adam and Eve changed. They became mortal or natural, subject to all the ills of mortality including the capacity to sin. This mortal condition would be passed on to their posterity. Of this, Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “The natural birth creates a natural man, and the natural man is an enemy to God. In his fallen state he is carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature. Appetites and passions govern his life and he is alive — acutely so — to all that is evil and wicked in the world”(A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985], p. 282). Further, the world into which Adam’s posterity would be born is a sinful world where men have become “carnal sensual and devilish” (Moses 5:13). Therefore, the enticement of sin will be continually before Adam’s posterity. Being born in a natural body and into a sinful world, Adam’s posterity would thus be “conceived in sin.” In such a condition, when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.”

When this happens, each person suffers a personal fall, doomed to endure the eternal consequences of their own actions. Though man is not responsible for Adam’s fall, they are accountable for their own actions while in mortality. (This is the meaning of the second Article of Faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” – see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:49.) 

As I see it, it is one thing to talk about a "natural man" who has been born into a fallen world, and who thereafter succumbs - to varying degrees - to temptations, impulses and so on.  It seems quite another to say that man's nature is evil.

John Tvedtnes has some very good thoughts here: Overcoming the Natural Man

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that vague expressions such as “I was taught that ...” have limited value and application. Just because one recalls being taught something, that doesn’t necessarily make it valid or binding on others. 

I respectfully disagree with you on this sir. I personally think the expression "I was taught that" is the opposite of vague. I think it was Aristotle who said "give me a child until he is seven and I'll show you the man."  If someone is willing to tell you what they were taught growing up, you can for the most part understand who they are today. By writing these post I'm letting you see the version of Mormonism I live, what i was taught. Culturally,  Mormonism is different in alot of ways depending  on where you live. Some mormon teachings are mixed together with other religions all around the world, which I personally think is fine. I know some Samoans who laugh at parts of the gospel teachings and dont follow some of the teachings because of their culture, and they're some of the most devout mormons I know. So I personally think the expression " I was taught " and the story that accompanies it, can sometimes be more beneficial than any citation you can find.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In another thread, there was an enlightening quote from Dallin H. Oaks drawing a distinction between sin and transgression. He said that sins are forbidden because they are inherently evil, while transgressions are forbidden because they have been formally prohibited. Murder would be in the first category, while a Word of Wisdom violation would be in the second. 
 

However, I seem to recall that the two terms are often used synonymously. 
 

I wonder if it could be said that all sins are transgressions but not all transgressions are sins. It’s like saying all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. 

I like this thought a lot.
I'll have to think about the actual application.  For example, you can say that disobeying the word of wisdom isn't a sin but a transgression.  But disobeying God is a sin isn't it?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That makes sense, though I would hesitate to dismiss the Word of Wisdom as merely pro forma. When I consider how often use of some of the substances it prohibits is associated with behavior that is, in and of itself, evil, I am inclined to regard it as a protection. As the name denotes, it truly is “a word of wisdom.”

I don't know that I would characterize the Word of Wisdom as being a pro forma commandment. That's probably taking it a bit far.

I truly do see the wisdom in following its precepts. 

That being said, it clearly isn't an eternal, unchangeable law either. 

For example, Jesus, the ancient Apostles, and the early Saints all drank wine - though we abstain from doing so presently. That seems to indicate that consuming wine isn't sinful in and of itself.

And if it isn't inherently immoral, it probably falls more in line with the "transgression" category, rather than the pure "sin" category (if that makes sense).

Sort of like God's people were once commanded not to eat certain animals...until that changed. 

Personally, I think we have got a lot to be grateful for on the dietary front. I'm not missing out on much by being asked to give up coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol.

Especially if you're going to give me BBQ.

I'm reminded of the following exchange from the Simpsons...

Quote

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?

Lisa: No.

Homer: Ham?

Lisa: No.

Homer: Pork chops?

Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.

Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

Magical indeed.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I like this thought a lot.
I'll have to think about the actual application.  For example, you can say that disobeying the word of wisdom isn't a sin but a transgression.  But disobeying God is a sin isn't it?

And in this instance, one that renders a person ineligible for temple admission or to hold most callings. That’s pretty serious. 
 

And a nonmember cannot be baptized without having ceased it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I respectfully disagree with you on this sir. I personally think the expression "I was taught that" is the opposite of vague. I think it was Aristotle who said "give me a child until he is seven and I'll show you the man."  If someone is willing to tell you what they were taught growing up, you can for the most part understand who they are today. By writing these post I'm letting you see the version of Mormonism I live, what i was taught. Culturally,  Mormonism is different in alot of ways depending  on where you live. Some mormon teachings are mixed together with other religions all around the world, which I personally think is fine. I know some Samoans who laugh at parts of the gospel teachings and dont follow some of the teachings because of their culture, and they're some of the most devout mormons I know. So I personally think the expression " I was taught " and the story that accompanies it, can sometimes be more beneficial than any citation you can find.

But I think Smac’s point — and I agree with him — is that some things that get taught might have little or no authoritative weight or basis in fact. To determine whether they do, it is necessary that they be documented or substantiated, as for example with a scriptural citation or reference to a general conference talk or a written source published by the Church. 
 

You are, of course, free to offer recollections of what you have been taught; no one is saying otherwise. But if you want that recollection to bear any weight or have much persuasive value, you probably should make some effort to substantiate it as I have described above. 

[Derl Sanderson]

Whenever I am in any Church-related setting and someone begins a comment with the phrase "I was taught that" or "we are told," I have come to find that what follows is invariably crap.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Derl Sanderson

[Mark Beesley]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if it would be helpful for you to provide citations to the Church's teachings, rather than just say "I was taught..."

There is a lot to be said for returning to primary sources (scriptures, conference talks, etc.).  Doing so helps refine our recollections and differentiate truth from error.

Again, let's get to some primary sources.  

Hmm.  I just did a search on https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org for "sinful nature" and came up with zero hits.  

This article (on Book of Mormon Central) has some interesting things to say about whether we have a "sinful nature."

That seems quite a different proposition that having a "sinful nature."  I think we sin because we live in a fallen world and succumb to temptations.  

Yep.  Sin is, in the main, a choice.

The same can be said for all of us.  We can all sin ignorantly, I think.

The first one, who has made covenants to obey the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel, clearly is in the wrong.  Is the second one "sinning?"  I don't know.  That would depend on the individual, I think.  See Mosaih 3:11 ("For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who ... who have ignorantly sinned").

I don't know.  We don't know his frame of mind.

I don't know that the Word of Wisdom is binding on those who have not made covenants to keep it.

Thanks,

-Smac

. . . Never mind.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Mark Beesley

[AtlanticMike]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I think Smac’s point — and I agree with him — is that some things that get taught might have little or no authoritative weight or basis in fact. To determine whether they do, it is necessary that they be documented or substantiated, as for example with a scriptural citation or reference to a general conference talk or a written source published by the Church. 
 

You are, of course, free to offer recollections of what you have been taught; no one is saying otherwise. But if you want that recollection to bear any weight or have much persuasive value, you probably should make some effort to substantiate it as I have described above. 

Honestly, I'm here to learn and give my opinion. If someone learns something from me that will make me extremely happy. I'm not a citation kind of guy, I've lived this long without worrying to much about the rules why start now😁. I'll give some as I go but I dont rely on "facts🤣" when it comes to religion. Especially in our church, things change constantly. But I will say, I've learned alot from you and smac97. So thanks for caring enough to write me back..

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Whenever I am in any Church-related setting and someone begins a comment with the phrase "I was taught that" or "we are told," I have come to find that what follows is invariably crap.

That's sad you feel that way. There's a 1000 way to morm. Depending where you live Mormonism can be influenced by cultural surroundings and especially influenced on the way your parents grew up. If one or both of your parents were Converts can make a huge difference. Some members with one mormon parent and one non mormon parent have a mixture of beliefs, doesn't mean they're any less faithful than you.

     

[Mark Beesley]

12 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I was taught that all of Gods children will be judged equally, and for us, the followers of Gods true church, our judgement starts here on earth through confession to our priesthood leaders, allowing us to repent and wash ourselves free of past sin. But apparently my view of sin might have some hard core christian leanings sprinkled in because a few people on here have tried to explain the mormon view on sin, and I admit, I dont understand it. 

    The way my family views sin is all sins, transgressions and iniquities, fall under the category of sin. That us mortals have a sinful nature while here on earth. The best way I can explain it is, think of everyone of us having a cup, and when we sin, that sin goes into the cup. Obviously the more we sin the more the cup fills up. The restored gospel allows us to repent to the proper authorities, and in turn the sin in our cup is emptied. And since we are all sinners, we start over again knowing eventually we will probably need to repent in the future.

    As far as people who dont follow the restored gospel, I was taught that their sins, iniquities and transgressions, are always in the cup, but taken care of if they choose when they die through a plan in spirit prison called "salvation for the dead." Their punishment will be lessened because they were unknowingly committing the acts of sin while on earth. So, how far off am I ?

     So, if you dont mind I would like opinions on a scenario I'm going to set up to see if my view of sin is out of whack. Ok, there's two people in a room, one is mormon and understands the word of wisdoom and the other is not mormon and has never heard of it. Both choose to smoke a cigarette. Who's sinning? Let's say the mormon is because he knows that smoking is breaking a commandment, what is the other guy committing? And lastly, what if the mormon takes 15 minutes and explains to the other guy the word of wisdom and tells the other guy that it's considered a sin to smoke, now that the other guy knows that God commanded us not to smoke, is he now committing a sin everytime he lights one up? 

    Yes, I know I think to much🤣🤣. Anyways. Thanks in advance if you choose to answer, I love learning and understanding people's opinions. 

    

     

I have always viewed sin as anything which tends to increase my separation from God. I use the commandments as a starting point. As to how God will then judge me, I believe God will judge my heart and the desires of my heart. It is entirely personal between me and God. The critical factor is being in tune with the Spirit. If you are not in tune, you cannot tell if you are moving toward or away from God.

Let me give you an example. For most of my life I was blessed with a weakness that made me very susceptible to a particular behavior. For most of my life, try as I might, I could not overcome that weakness. I would fast. I would pray. I would confess. I tried everything. I thought. But a desire for this behavior persisted. I could not shake it.  Then something happened. One evening as I was pondering these things, I had an epiphany, I.e. the Holy Ghost spoke to me. I did not have to overcome this weakness. My Savior had already overcome it for me. I just had to trust my Lord. From that moment on, things changed. My objectionable behaviors did not cease immediately, but the desires of my heart did, and my post-behavior state of mind changed. I quit beating myself up. I concentrated on trusting Christ. Within a relatively short time (considering my years of struggle) I found the hold of the weakness lessening, and my spiritual strength magnified. For the first time in half a century, I was free.

In my opinion, the Lord would judge my pre-epiphany objectionable behavior differently than my post-epiphany objectionable  behavior because God is not judging the behavior, He is judging the heart. Glory be to the Lord though, because the atonement of Christ eliminates the judgment for all objectionable behavior. Repentance is the result of a changed heart.

So, on the question of how God will judge, in the end it is presumptuous for us to impose any type of parameters on the Almighty. Everyone’s circumstance is unique. Trust God, and check the desires of your heart regularly. If God has not changed the heart, the person has some work to do.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

     So, if you dont mind I would like opinions on a scenario I'm going to set up to see if my view of sin is out of whack. Ok, there's two people in a room, one is mormon and understands the word of wisdoom and the other is not mormon and has never heard of it. Both choose to smoke a cigarette. Who's sinning? Let's say the mormon is because he knows that smoking is breaking a commandment, what is the other guy committing? And lastly, what if the mormon takes 15 minutes and explains to the other guy the word of wisdom and tells the other guy that it's considered a sin to smoke, now that the other guy knows that God commanded us not to smoke, is he now committing a sin everytime he lights one up? 

The Word of Wisdom is a bad example here because it is one of the few commandments we have that is explicitly temporary and only binding on the saints and not everyone else.

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And in this instance, one that renders a person ineligible for temple admission or to hold most callings. That’s pretty serious. 
 

And a nonmember cannot be baptized without having ceased it. 

I have broken the second rule as a missionary. I am not sure it is even a rule. Some might say it is setting people up for failure but often the process of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost help to beat the problem.

[AtlanticMike]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Word of Wisdom is a bad example here because it is one of the few commandments we have that is explicitly temporary and only binding on the saints and not everyone else.

I know what you mean, but I chose smoking (word of wisdom) because often we use the teachings of the word of wisdom to judge people the first second we meet them. To me the judging of a member or nonmember because their smoking or drinking a cup of coffee is 10x worse than what that person is doing, but most of us would never think to repent about judging. I understand judging isnt a sin. Check out this church video, I think it totally misses the point. https://youtu.be/0RGnEJRkIDA

[AtlanticMike]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

From an LDS perspective, I think it might be more accurate to say that we mortals will invariably commit sin while dwelling here on earth.

The notion that we have a fallen (or sinful) nature is more in line with the mainstream Christian concept of original sin.

That's not really our bag.

 

I understand what your saying. But  here's how I look at a "sinful nature"

 

Group #1 non sinners

1. Jesus Christ 

 

Group #2 sinners

Everyone else (probably around 100 billion sinners have lived on this earth) 

 

How does that not scream sinful nature. Also, apparently in heaven we had the ability to sin if 1/3 of our brothers and sisters sided with Lucifer. Also, Satan will be bound for a thousand years unable to tempt us during the millennium, if we dont have a sinful nature, why does Satan have to be bound?