Sin vs. Transgression

[mormonman]

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil. The knowledge of good from evil is requisit for sin. Adam transgressed the law, he didn't sin.

James 4:17 - To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This is one of the many reasons the LDS Church doesn't believe that we are responsible for Adam's "original sin". We can't be responsible for Adam's sin if he didn't sin at all. Anyway, being responsible for someone else's sin is just stupid.

2nd Article of Faith - We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adams transgression.

Note the use of transgression.

Bruce R. McConkie - Knowledge of good and evil is an essential element in the commission of sin, and our first parents did not have this knowledge until after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In the Garden Adam and Eve were in COMPLETE inocence, unable to commit sin.
On a side note, what I have picked up from the rest of Christianity is that Adam wasn't a very good person (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Adam was a great prophet of the Lord and should be respected as such.

 

[Quiddity]

I'll gladly engage in this discussion if you first understand that it's not "blaming us for his/her sin", but rather it's the consequence of sin. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26700&page=1&pp=10 to get further understanding on the matter.

~Victor

 

[dawny0826]

First off and completely off topic...I've been meaning to tell you for a while that I love your Avatar.

As far as my take on Sin vs. Transgression...

Adam transgressed the law WHEN he sinned. Or at least this is how I see things. Adam and Eve disobeyed God...they sinned. The definitions of Sin and Transgression kind of go hand in hand.

(Taken from my trusty Corel Wordperfect 10 Dictionary)

transgress >verb go beyond the limits set by (a moral principle, standard, law, etc.).
-DERIVATIVES transgression >noun transgressive >adjective transgressor >noun.
-ORIGIN Latin transgredi 'step across'.

And...

sin1 >noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offense. >verb (sinned, sinning) commit a sin.
-PHRASES live in sin informal, dated (of an unmarried couple) live together.
-DERIVATIVES sinless >adjective.
-ORIGIN Old English, probably related to Latin sons 'guilty'.

I feel Adam BOTH sinned and transgressed.

This is one of the many reasons the LDS Church doesn't believe that we are responsible for Adam's "original sin". We can't be responsible for Adam's sin if he didn't sin at all. Anyway, being responsible for someone else's sin is just stupid.

Adam simply sinned against God. He and Eve were the first to disobey. And by their sin...eating from the tree of knowledge...giving in to temptation...going against the will of God...sin was introduced into the world and thus became part of the flesh.

I have never been taught nor have I interpreted in my own study of Genesis that WE are responsible for THEIR sin. We each are responsible for our own sin against God. I won't be judged for your sin or my mother's sin or the sins of all of those before me. I am held accountable for MY sin as Adam and Eve were held accountable for their own sin.

They were simply the first to sin...the first to bring sin to the flesh.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil. The knowledge of good from evil is requisit for sin. Adam transgressed the law, he didn't sin.

They didn't...until they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge and then they DID know good from evil. They sinned against God. And as a result were cast out of the Garden of Eden. This is how I read their story in Genesis. And I see Adam as nothing more than the first man. I don't see him as a prophet or anything more than the first man and Eve the first woman.

That's what I get from Genesis.

Interesting thread...looking forward to reading the responses...

 

[jonny]

I believe there is a difference between the spirit of a law and the letter of a law. Wouldn't you say that sometimes there are cases where by breaking commandments you are accomplishing a greater good, but you are still in the spirit of the commandment that was given? Take a doctor, for example. Many believe that working on Sunday is breaking the Sabbath, but the doctor, in performing his duties, is accomplishing a greater good. People need doctors - even on Sunday.

Adam and Eve were given two commandments - they were told to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. They were also told that they should not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In one version of the creation in LDS scriptures, after God gives this commandment, he gives a reason and presents a choice:

Moses 3:13 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam and Eve are presented with free agency in the garden. They have a decision to make. They can either live eternally in the garden and not procreate. The other choice is to partake of the fruit of the tree, be cast out of the garden, and go through life - learning - in order to become like God.

Understanding the Fall of Adam is vital to understanding Christianity in my opinion. The story of Adam and Eve sets the stage for the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

 

[dawny0826]

Understanding the Fall of Adam is vital to understanding Christianity in my opinion. The story of Adam and Eve sets the stage for the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

I don't disagree with this statement at all but I still see the fall of Adam (and Eve) revolving around one little word...sin. Through their disobedience, they brought sin to the flesh.

Do you agree with OP in that they did not sin but merely transgressed? Not trying to pick at all...just trying to understand if this is how most LDS believe on this topic and also to see if I understand your post (which, you know...I may have misread ).

 

[Katzpur]

I don't disagree with this statement at all but I still see the fall of Adam (and Eve) revolving around one little word...sin. Through their disobedience, they brought sin to the flesh.

I don't believe that Adam and Eve sinned, because I think that it is impossible to sin without knowing the difference between good and evil. I think they disobeyed the instructions God gave them, but until they ate of the forbidden fruit, they did not have a clear understanding that disobedience was, in fact, sinful.

I guess it's kind of like the situation you might run into with a two-year-old child. If you were to say, "Don't touch the stove. It's hot!" and that child reached up and touched the stove anyway. I don't see that child as having "sinned," but I do see him as having disobeyed. And even though I don't see him as having sinned, he is still going to have to experience the consequences of his disobedience (i.e. getting burned).

Do you agree with OP in that they did not sin but merely transgressed? Not trying to pick at all...just trying to understand if this is how most LDS believe on this topic and also to see if I understand your post (which, you know...I may have misread ).

This would be an accurate way of stating the LDS position. In fact, our second Article of Faith states, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

We believe that, while Adam's and Eve's transgression brought sin and death into the world, Christ atoned for their wrongdoing, just as He atoned for our wrongdoings. Consequently, we believe that we have each inherited -- from Adam and Eve -- the propensity or inclination to sin. We just don't believe that we actually are born into a state of guilt. That's why we don't practice infant baptism. We believe that a person must have reached an age when he can be expected to understand what sin is before he can actually be sinful.

The Book of Mormon puts it like this: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

I guess the best way for me to put it is that we believe we become sinful by sinning. We do not become sinful by being born. By the time we are old enough to voluntarily choose to do something we know is wrong, our sinful nature will have taken hold. It is only by consciously choosing to "yield to the enticing of the Holy Spirit", that we can overcome our inately sinful nature.

 

[jonny]

I don't disagree with this statement at all but I still see the fall of Adam (and Eve) revolving around one little word...sin. Through their disobedience, they brought sin to the flesh.

Do you agree with OP in that they did not sin but merely transgressed? Not trying to pick at all...just trying to understand if this is how most LDS believe on this topic and also to see if I understand your post (which, you know...I may have misread ).

I think that the only difference between a sin and transgression is the amount of knowledge that one has. I don't believe it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin while they were in the garden of Eden, so in that sense I don't believe it was a sin. Were they disobedient? Yep, but they were obedient at the same time.

The Fall of Adam (and Eve ) brought sin into the world. What it interesting to me is WHY it had to be this way. In my opinion, the story of Adam and Eve puts the source of sin, misery, and all that other bad stuff in the hands of Satan. Satan tempted Eve to partake of the fruit, which led to Adam and Eve being cast out of God's presence. Many people like to demonize Eve for this decision, but, since she didn't have knowledge between good and evil, I prefer to place the blame in the hands of Satan.

Anyway, all of us experience the effects of the fall of Adam, but I don't believe we will be held accountable for Adam's transgression. I believe that babies are born pure, without sin.

We are taught to become like little children. While in the garden, Adam and Eve were like little children. We are to become like Adam and Eve were by overcoming the Fall through the Atonement.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't believe that Adam and Eve sinned, because I think that it is impossible to sin without knowing the difference between good and evil. I think they disobeyed the instructions God gave them, but until they ate of the forbidden fruit, they did not have a clear understanding that disobedience was, in fact, sinful.

This would be an accurate way of stating the LDS position. In fact, our second Article of Faith states, "We beliee that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

We believe that, while Adam's and Eve's transgression brought sin and death into the world, Christ atoned for their wrongdoing, just as He atoned for our wrongdoings. Consequently, we believe that we have each inherited -- from Adam and Eve -- the propensity or inclination to sin. We just don't believe that we actually are born into a state of guilt. That's why we don't practice infant baptism. We believe that a person must have reached an age when he can be expected to understand what sin is before he can actually be sinful.

The Book of Mormon puts it like this: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

I guess the best way for me to put it is that we believe we become sinful by sinning. We do not become sinful by being born. By the time we are old enough to voluntarily choose to do something we know is wrong, our sinful nature will have taken hold. It is only by consciously choosing to "yield to the enticing of the Holy Spirit", that we can overcome our inately sinful nature.

Well, although we may see things a little differently...I don't think our views are so way off, here. And I appreciate the elaboration. I've never really thought of Christ's atonement to cover past sins...but it's an interesting thought to ponder. I do agree that we are held accountable for own sins and that Christ is the atonement for our sin. I don't think that I'm held accountable for the sins of Adam and Eve but I believe that they introduced sin to the flesh. I can't really get outside of my mental box on the whole sin vs. transgression deal but regardless...I find it very interesting to learn the differences in our interpretations of Genesis.

I don't believe in infant baptism either. We do baby dedications. In fact, my fourteen month old, Ruthie will be having hers very shortly. (Sorry for the diversion, there. )

 

[dawny0826]

I think that the only difference between a sin and transgression is the amount of knowledge that one has. I don't believe it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin while they were in the garden of Eden, so in that sense I don't believe it was a sin. Were they disobedient? Yep, but they were obedient at the same time.

The Fall of Adam (and Eve ) brought sin into the world. What it interesting to me is WHY it had to be this way. In my opinion, the story of Adam and Eve puts the source of sin, misery, and all that other bad stuff in the hands of Satan. Satan tempted Eve to partake of the fruit, which led to Adam and Eve being cast out of God's presence. Many people like to demonize Eve for this decision, but, since she didn't have knowledge between good and evil, I prefer to place the blame in the hands of Satan.

Anyway, all of us experience the effects of the fall of Adam, but I don't believe we will be held accountable for Adam's transgression. I believe that babies are born pure, without sin.

We are taught to become like little children. While in the garden, Adam and Eve were like little children. We are to become like Adam and Eve were by overcoming the Fall through the Atonement.

Thanks for the elaboration. I agree with very much of this.

 

[jonny]

I don't believe in infant baptism either. We do baby dedications. In fact, my fourteen month old, Ruthie will be having hers very shortly. (Sorry for the diversion, there. )

Sounds like it might be similar to what we do in the LDS church. Babies are given a "name and a blessing" in Sacrament meeting after they are born.

 

[Katzpur]

I can't really get outside of my mental box on the whole sin vs. transgression deal but regardless...I find it very interesting to learn the differences in our interpretations of Genesis.

I think the difference is really pretty insignificant.

I don't believe in infant baptism either. We do baby dedications. In fact, my fourteen month old, Ruthie will be having hers very shortly. (Sorry for the diversion, there. )

We also do something like that. We just call it a "blessing." It's done in Church in front of the congregation. (Congrats to Ruthie, by the way. )

 

[dawny0826]

I think the difference is really pretty insignificant.

We also do something like that. We just call it a "blessing." It's done in Church in front of the congregation. (Congrats to Ruthie, by the way. )

That's exactly what we do.

Thanks again for the elaboration.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Jonny, let me say this, you have a very errr *unique* and *special* way of looking at scripture, it just happens to disagree w/ thousands upon thousands of years of understanding...

With that said...

Many believe that working on Sunday is breaking the Sabbath, but the doctor, in performing his duties, is accomplishing a greater good. People need doctors - even on Sunday.

Who is the many? You will not find one Jew who finds working on Sunday is a sin. Furthermore, you will be hard pressed to find Christians who even understand the 39 melachot (forbidden activities). Also, when a life is in danger, you're obligated to save that person and throw all but 3 laws aside:

• Adultery
• Idolatry
• Murder

Adam and Eve were given two commandments - they were told to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Where does it say to replenish the earth? Other then that, I agree.

They were also told that they should not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In one version of the creation in LDS scriptures, after God gives this commandment, he gives a reason and presents a choice:
"Moses 3:13 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

First of all, that's the verse 2:16-17 in Bereishis that Mr. Smith is attempting to translate... Also, I'm looking at the hebrew, and there are a lot of words added in your translation. This is the hebrew... וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת
Very literally it plainly says... "But of that Tree of knowledge of Good and Bad, you must not eat thereof for on the day that you eat of it you will die surely."
Again, that's not a perfect translation as I just translated it myself and I'm sure you could find someone with a better English vocabulary. However, the whole part that you bolded, is just not found in the MT or the DSS or the Septuagint. So where that came from, was obviously not revealed to Moshe, but you know, you're more then free to continue...

Now, I'm not a 100% sure what the "Book of Moses" was, so I entered into Wikopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Moses

It says that it was revealed to him through revalation, correct? Well if not, you can go edit that entry to something more accurate, until then, I'll assume this book came from one persons "revalation".

Adam and Eve are presented with free agency in the garden. They have a decision to make. They can either live eternally in the garden and not procreate.

Well, we run into another snag, every major Jewish biblical sage agrees that all the events here including cain and abel occurred on the day that Adam was created... Hence, from the Jewish perspective and mine, your theory about them not procreating in the garden is pretty errr *wild*. But again, you can continue to ignore this for Mr. Smith's "Revalation".

The other choice is to partake of the fruit of the tree, be cast out of the garden, and go through life - learning - in order to become like God.

Can you expand on this a little? I have some skepticm on what this this is suppose to mean, you left it very vauge and open to several different readings.

Understanding the Fall of Adam is vital to understanding Christianity in my opinion. The story of Adam and Eve sets the stage for the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Yes, well, this is an entirely different point, one which I don't feel like debating *again*, especially since the silence from virtually every person on this forum in the determing prophecy thread where I shreded the major prophecies about Mr. J.

Anyways, I don't want this to become in a huge debate, although I find it very interesting you listen to one guys revelation over Moshe. Something to hopefully get you to at least think about your position:

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.

This was given from Moshe thousands of years ago, your verse was given like less then 200 years ago.

 

[dawny0826]

Who is the many? You will not find one Jew who finds working on Sunday is a sin. Furthermore, you will be hard pressed to find Christians who even understand the 39 melachot (forbidden activities). Also, when a life is in danger, you're obligated to save that person and throw all but 3 laws aside:

• Adultery
• Idolatry
• Murder

Where are the 39 melachot, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Deut 13:1]

Where are the 39 melachot, if you don't mind me asking?

http://www.torahtots.com/torah/39melachot.htm

Read the disclaimer VERY carefully.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Satan tempted Eve to partake of the fruit, which led to Adam and Eve being cast out of God's presence. Many people like to demonize Eve for this decision, but, since she didn't have knowledge between good and evil, I prefer to place the blame in the hands of Satan.

Do all serpants = Satan?

 

[jonny]

Jonny, let me say this, you have a very errr *unique* and *special* way of looking at scripture, it just happens to disagree w/ thousands upon thousands of years of understanding...

Thanks for your respectful comments regarding my views. It reminds my why I've had you on ignore for months.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Thanks for your respectful comments regarding my views.

I happen to choose my words very carefully. And that post was very respectful, you do have a unique way of looking at scripture. I actually would be sincerely interested in your opinion w/ ths thread.

 

[Bishka]

Do all serpants = Satan?

I'm probably coming in at the wrong part of the discussion, but where on earth did you get the Satan was ACTUALLY a snake? I was taught to believe that he was as a snake, snakes basically, sly, deceiving, etc.

 

[James the Persian]

Sounds like it might be similar to what we do in the LDS church. Babies are given a "name and a blessing" in Sacrament meeting after they are born.

We have something like that in the Orthodox Church also. It's called churching. Sabina was just churched on Sunday. Having said that, we also agree with the view as expressed by Kat, that nobody is born guilty of Adam's sin but rather we are born with a tendency towards sin that is a consequence of the ancestral sin (not a punishment) but we still baptise infants, because, for us at least, it is not just a washing away of sin.

I am rather perplexed by this idea that you cannot sin at all unless you know you're doing it? Do you really mean that or do you rather mean that you are not held responsible for such a sin? There's a distinct difference. Sin in Greek (sorry, but I don't know Hebrew so I shall restrict this to the NT, though I'd be interested to know how the Hebrew compares if somebody can explain) is amartia. This translates literally as 'missing the mark' which pretty much means falling short of God's standards. It seems to me that it's quite possible to miss the mark without knowing you are doing so. That doesn't mean that God will take note of it in the way He might a wilfull sin.

I don't know if Mormons confess before a priest or alone or whatever but I'm sure you must confess in some way at some time. Don't you ask forgiveness for any sins you might have unwittingly made as well as those you know about? If you do then this distinction between a sin and a transgression is merely playing with words (which is certainly how it appears to me at the moment). I would say that children, for instance, certainly can fall short (sin) but that they are not held accountable until they understand. Is this actually what you mean?

In the case of the Fall, however, I fail to see how you can argue that there was no sin at all. Do you really need to understand good and evil to be able to see that you ought not to disobey one who loves you and gives you life? I wouldn't have said so. Small children usually know they ought to obey their parents without understanding why. It seems to me that Adam and Eve did sin, even if only in the way a child might, without full understanding of what they did.

James