Close Topic Options

No Act Is Inherintly A Sin? - Page 2

Excellent post Dbackers!

I agree. I will consider this more before responding.

I would love to hear others thoughts too... Please post your thoughts, for and against. Questions or statements. I want to hear them.

Sin Inherintly Act No

How can someone truly sin if they have no knowledge?

Notice that what Adam and Eve committed was a transgression and not a sin since they did not know good from evil.

I know the two terms are used as the same but in my opinion they are different.
Every sin is a transgression, but not every transgression is necessarily a sin.

No Act Is Inherintly A Sin? Studies Doctrine Mormon

I think it is a matter of accountability. Breaking a commandment is a sin regardless of who commits the act. If the sinner had no prior knowledge that their actions constituted sinning then they will not be held accountable. However, now that it has been brought to the sinner's attention, should they commit the same sin in the future they will be held accountable.

A sin is still a sin regardless of who commits it. However, accountability depends upon foreknowledge and responsibility for the choices we make.

Page 2 Sin Inherintly Act No

Many people in this world are sinning without knowledge.

Evidence for sinning without knowledge can be found in the scriptures. Though the Lamanites did not have the truth (being without knowledge) they had to be convinced of their sins.

Notice that those who were brought to the truth (implying they lacked knowledge of the truth) and had to be convinced of their sins (they were sinning, but were not knowledgeable of these sins).


Also work of the dead is done for those who have died in their sins (those that have sinned without knowledge)

So one can sin who is ignorant of that sin, but the Atonement of our Savior is able to cover these sins.

In the scripture Mosiah 3:11 it implicitly states those who have ignorantly sinned . So, this would hint that there are individuals who are sinning who are ignorant (not knowledgeable) of their sins.

I believe that their are sins that I commit that I am not knowledgeable
of, and that I have need of forgiveness for. I know I can be redeemed from these sins if I come before the Lord with a contrite spirit and a humbled heart.

This is just my observation, thinking back at my teenage years. I am great full that I will not be judged exclusively on those years and that the Lord has taken into account my attempts at drawing nearer to him.

Sin Inherintly Act No

After considering the previous post, I put together this response:

Very good point! I agree in the concept and application. Would like to agree on the semantics. I believe we are discussing the difference between a sin and transgression. Both are considered having broken the Law of God or acting against the will of God. But a transgression is always covered by the atonement freely without question. Two examples would be Adam and Eve transgression (not Sin), and another would be children.

You shared Mosiah 3:11 - notice the use of the word transgression in relation to the clarification "ignorantly sinned". "Ignorant sin" is a great definition for Transgression.

Here is where I first got my definition for transgression as compared to sin:

I would debate this one. As Transgressions are covered by the atonement freely and without effort, they are also immediately forgiven without repentance. Just as young children do not need to repent, so to those without the law are not considered unclean nor do they need repentance. And if forgiven and covered by the grace of the atonement then they are clean. So, little children and those unable to commit sin because they are not under the law will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. This was the essence embodied in Christ's statement, "Forgive them for (because) they know not what they do". Forgiveness based on no other point than not knowledge"¦
"¦ considering that further, who was he speaking about? What was their motive/intent?

Although we seem to agree on everything except the semantics I would change this statement to, "So bad intent and knowledge is not necessary for someone to transgress." I found it interesting that you said 'something was a sin" (noun), and I instinctively said, 'someone sins or transgresses" (verb)"¦

So, are they covered by the atonement if they truly believe they are innocent? Or are they only covered by the atonement based on condition of repentance? This seems like a silly question with an obvious answer, but it feels like there might be more to it"¦

Commit a transgression, yes, not yet convinced on the sin part.

Dbackers - But your main premise is that an act is not inherently a sin. This comes down to the words we use to actually label a particular act.

QUOTE

Very good point!  I wonder if we could reasonable say that the words you used to denote Sin's include the hint of an intent.  For example, kill is an act without intent included.  Murder is to kill the innocent.  But then again, it is not just about killing the innocent or God and the people doing the deed would be murderers for the slaughter of many innocent babies.  So it isn't just the killing of the innocent, it would have to be defined differently to be a sin every time.  How would you define Murder to make it a sin every time, and not when God orders the destruction of babies? But to your point, the words that refer to sins seem to have motive attached.  For example, "Assault".  This creates a picture in our minds which includes a ill meaning person attacking an innocent person.  So perhaps Assault would always be a sin because it would include ill intent.  I am reminded of the movie Edward Scissor Hands.  At one point he shoved a boy out of the way of a drunk driver, saving his life.  The boy was scared and as Edward tried to calm the boy and make sure he was ok, he cut the boys face with his scissor hands.  The town folks began to say things like, "did you see him assault that poor innocent boy?"  The question is, was Edward assaulting the boy or not?  How do we know?  From an outsiders view point it appeared to be an obvious malicious attack!  But having the screen writers viewpoint into who Edward really was and what he was doing we saw the different story.  I think Edward was not assaulting the boy because his intent was not to harm.  If his intent was to harm, then I would say that Edward was assaulting the boy, and the movie might be called, Freddi Scissor Hands on Elm Street.  QUOTE Dbackers - In these instances different words are used to describe similar activities. There are many acts which are always inherently sins"¦ I see what you are saying about how words can sum up the entire situation, and intent. For example, adultery refers to sex in a certain situation. Where the word "Consummate" could refer to sex as a means of sealing or confirming covenants and commitments. So, considering that words are symbols meant to encapsulate a concept, and if that concept included insights into the heart of the person, and that heart of the person described in the symbolic representation, (The word used), always referred to the negative intent, then YES, that word would always be a reference or symbol of a sin or a transgression. The problem I have is that these words more often consider the law only and not the situation, circumstance or the reasoning behind why a person was motivated to that action. One person might call it murder, and another might call it self protection. The real question I want to know is what the doer of the deed calls it? And Why? Thoughts? +  1 2   ◀ Previous Page    Add Comment As A Guest  Close Topic Options    TOPIC: No Act Is Inherintly A Sin? « Next Oldest | Mormon Doctrine Studies | Next Newest »   ▲ TOP International Discussions Coded by: BGID® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2024 Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,

Dbackers - But your main premise is that an act is not inherently a sin. This comes down to the words we use to actually label a particular act.

I see what you are saying about how words can sum up the entire situation, and intent. For example, adultery refers to sex in a certain situation. Where the word "Consummate" could refer to sex as a means of sealing or confirming covenants and commitments.

So, considering that words are symbols meant to encapsulate a concept, and if that concept included insights into the heart of the person, and that heart of the person described in the symbolic representation, (The word used), always referred to the negative intent, then YES, that word would always be a reference or symbol of a sin or a transgression.

The problem I have is that these words more often consider the law only and not the situation, circumstance or the reasoning behind why a person was motivated to that action. One person might call it murder, and another might call it self protection. The real question I want to know is what the doer of the deed calls it? And Why?


Thoughts?