Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Transgression vs. Sin


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 kmfor

kmfor

    Junior Member

  • Inactive 3+ Months
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 03:42 PM

This "sin vs transgression" question is one I've had for several years and I've heard many theories and personal opinions. What I'd really like is references that lead me to actual official church doctrine that answers this question, if there is any. Someone mentioned the talk by Dallin H Oaks and I'm going to check it out. If the prophets/Apostles have answered this question then that would be the true answer and any ideas that aren't in harmony with it are not correct. If they have not answered it then I guess to each his own.

#22 Vort

Vort

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 10214 posts
  • LocationSeattle area

Posted 18 February 2014 - 03:46 PM

There is an idea that the Church has an "official doctrine" on all points of the gospel. This is actually not so. Some things are simply not known. The exact nature of Adam and Eve and the transgression in the garden of Eden is one of these.
As if anyone could knowingly commit sin without being changed both in spirit, body, and mind. Let me say this again, sin changes who we are! --james12
***********************
Nice hand, friend, but those are not the cards I dealt you.

***********************
Impenetrability! That's what I say!

#23 kmfor

kmfor

    Junior Member

  • Inactive 3+ Months
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 04:05 PM

There is an idea that the Church has an "official doctrine" on all points of the gospel. This is actually not so. Some things are simply not known. The exact nature of Adam and Eve and the transgression in the garden of Eden is one of these.


Oh there's definitely no such book, like you said. There are many answers to many questions we will never know in this life. Just needed to throw it out there and see if anyone knew of an official answer because I cant find one.

Don't we know that Adam & Eve had physical bodies of flesh and bone but no blood though?

#24 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2355 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 04:43 PM

Oh there's definitely no such book, like you said. There are many answers to many questions we will never know in this life. Just needed to throw it out there and see if anyone knew of an official answer because I cant find one.

Don't we know that Adam & Eve had physical bodies of flesh and bone but no blood though?


They had physical bodies of flesh and bone. Speculation beyond that is, well... speculation.

We can reasonably conjecture that the scriptures use the term "flesh and blood" to mean mortal, and "flesh and bone" to mean immortal.

Examples:

1 Corinthians 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


Galatians 1:16
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:



Genesis 2:23
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Luke 24:39
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Edited by bytebear, 18 February 2014 - 04:49 PM.


#25 kmfor

kmfor

    Junior Member

  • Inactive 3+ Months
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 05:07 PM

https://www.lds.org/...e-fall?lang=eng

Supporting statements A

"There was no blood in his body" "he also had a physical body of flesh and bones."

Edited by kmfor, 18 February 2014 - 05:13 PM.


#26 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2355 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 09:19 PM

https://www.lds.org/...e-fall?lang=eng

Supporting statements A

"There was no blood in his body" "he also had a physical body of flesh and bones."


Not to begrudge Joseph Fielding Smith, but I believe he was speaking from opinion more than declaration. Certainly this is not canonical.

#27 kmfor

kmfor

    Junior Member

  • Inactive 3+ Months
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 09:58 PM

Not Canonical? If its on an official church web site (LDS.org) as a "Doctrines of the Gospel student Manual" I'm pretty sure the church includes it in their list of Canonicle books.

And even if that manual isn't official, the Gospel Principles manual is for sure and in chapter 6 it says "their spirits were housed in physical bodies made from the dust of the earth". That may not cover the "no blood" detail but it certainly covers the "physical body" detail.

Edited by kmfor, 18 February 2014 - 10:11 PM.


#28 kmfor

kmfor

    Junior Member

  • Inactive 3+ Months
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 11:28 PM

I just read "Sins and Mistakes" by Dallin H Oaks and he stated "A deliberately wrong choice in the contest between what is clearly good and what is clearly bad is a sin, but a poor choice among things that are good, better, and best is merely a mistake.

I cant relate it to Adam & Eve though because it wasn't a choice between good, better and best, it was a choice between bad and impossible.

His talk was on Sin vs Mistakes, not Sin vs Transgression. He also stated "that is generally a matter of error (mistake) rather than transgression (sin)." So right there he is using the words 'sin' and 'transgression' as having the exact same meaning.

#29 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8697 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:52 PM

Church manuals aren't technically "canonical" ("Canon", in the LDS Church, is essentially synonymous with "Standard Works"--i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). That said--they're a pretty darned good indicator of the Church's official position.

As for "transgression" and its application to what Adam and Eve--what did you think of the other quote from Elder Oaks that I cited in this post? And, why do you continue to assume that Adam and Eve only had two choices ("eat now" versus "never eat"), rather than three ("eat now", "never eat", or "don't eat now and wait for the further instructions the Father promised to give")?

About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are darned fools and should stop.
 

--Senator Elihu Root


#30 kmfor

kmfor

    Junior Member

  • Inactive 3+ Months
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:08 AM

I understood 'Canonicle' to mean a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a specific religion. The Standard works may be the "standard" books but we know there is much more authoritative scripture than that. The Hymn book for example, and any other book published by the church including manuals. Every member in the entire world is taught out of manuals every sunday. If they weren't official doctrine, they wouldn't be used to teach in such a manor.

I haven't looked into the quote from Elder Oaks that you posted just yet. Thanks for reminding me.

#31 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8697 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 20 February 2014 - 07:23 AM

Canon

About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are darned fools and should stop.
 

--Senator Elihu Root


#32 Finrock

Finrock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 02:21 PM

Good Afternoon Dravin. I hope you're having a good day! :)

At no point will an LDS Bishop (or should he) imply or say that he's forgiving anyone of their sins. He's a judge in Israel and can judge someone's worthiness (to partake in various aspects of the Gospel such as the sacrament or temple attendance) but he doesn't forgive sin.


Just to clarify, if prompted or directed by the Holy Spirit a bishop would be well within his rights to let someone know that God has forgiven the individual who is confessing. It is significant to recognize that the bishop stands as a proxy for the Savior when we confess our sins.

-Finrock




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq