What is sin?


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Evil we come to learn through sin and the consequence of sin. Thus G-d created a circumstance in which we could experience evil through sin and death under a veil of ignorance. That is the only way (with one other exception) we could have knowledge of evil and sin. Now for the second part – we come to learn of good through the great sacrifice of Christ – which is like (or a similitude) or after the sacrifice of the Father. Thus Jesus is the example of the goodness and sacrifice of the Father through the atonement of Christ. Through this sacrifice of Christ we are made partakers of good – so because of this mortal existence we fulfill the purpose of the Eden covenant to gain a knowledge of good and evil and are able to choose to become or remain sinful or to deny self and make a sacrifice to end the effects of sin (which is addiction and bondage).

I have come to understand that Lucifer did not complete his first estate and rejected the plan because he was not willing to be merciful and suffer because of the sins of others and wanted all to suffer all consequences because of their sins. This is why he is willing to tempt us – to avenge our opposition to his plan which he claimed to be justice and our damnation as justice.

The Traveler

Thank you. I agree with you. Of the two methods you outline to understand good from evil, I would say the second form you provided is by and far the most important and really the only necessary form. I say that because we know that some will die without ever experiencing sin. Experiencing sin is not the best way to understand the difference between good and evil. The best way is to have faith and maintain faith in Christ and therefore appreciating the difference. Those that die before the age of accountability have already shown their level of faith and don't need to prove it further.

I would also add to the last paragraph that more importantly than not wanting to suffer from the sins of others, Lucifer did not want to revel in the joy of success of others either. He refused to receive the glory based in someone else' success and yet that is the thing that God is offering to all of us. What makes an individual a Celestial person is to love their neighbor as their self. Which means if person A does something good then person B benefits from that good just as much as person A did. It is the sharing of glory that makes God, God and a Celestial Being. The opposite of that is selfishness, as you know but most importantly the selfishness of success not just bad. Lucifer only wanted credit for his own work and not based on the success of others. But that is because he did not and still doesn't comprehend the way joy becomes eternal, when one can experience the success of others as if you were doing it yourself. Exclusive individual achievement is the satanic plan, whereas shared glory is God's plan, to give all that God has. Could they gather up some new sins over time? No, how would it be a place of glory if they did?

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sin is the action required to do evil. Defining evil, requires a just assumption that the one issuing the charge is of an opposite and higher moral fibre. Given our present state, its no surprise when that charge is laid for gain, rather than for justice.

I think it would be more wise to define choices as selfless or self, rather than black and white, good or evil, Satan or Jesus. Where does the injustice lie in self or selfless, but in the actions or inactions that create conflict. Then again, conflict is not necessarily a negative, so how is it that we can conclude what sin is, for anyone but ourselves. There is also a necessity to define categories, other than opposites. The undefined, the ignorant or the scapegoat.

Too often do I define sin for others, and for myself, rather than recognizing that there is a far greater evil or sin, in condemning to judgement, when I am ill suited for such a task. Perhaps one day, I could recognize that the compassionate actions of others outweighs any notions of sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin is the action required to do evil. Defining evil, requires a just assumption that the one issuing the charge is of an opposite and higher moral fibre. Given our present state, its no surprise when that charge is laid for gain, rather than for justice.

I think it would be more wise to define choices as selfless or self, rather than black and white, good or evil, Satan or Jesus. Where does the injustice lie in self or selfless, but in the actions or inactions that create conflict. Then again, conflict is not necessarily a negative, so how is it that we can conclude what sin is, for anyone but ourselves. There is also a necessity to define categories, other than opposites. The undefined, the ignorant or the scapegoat.

Too often do I define sin for others, and for myself, rather than recognizing that there is a far greater evil or sin, in condemning to judgement, when I am ill suited for such a task. Perhaps one day, I could recognize that the compassionate actions of others outweighs any notions of sin.

Agreed.

I think there is a difference between "defining sin" as in the opening post's questions, "what is sin?" versus "Did this person or that person sin?".

I don't think anyone was discussing did this person or that person sin. I agree, that would be a judgement left for God. But, that does not preclude us from trying to define sin. I believe the scriptures attempt to teach us the definition of sin. Humans have a tendency to define things based on their current situation. If someone is called poor for example in this country, the same person might be called rich in Bolivia. Those various scales, only God knows about ... what is given and what is required. But, God is not a respecter of persons, all have the opportunity to reach the Celestial Kingdom no matter what the circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I agree with you. Of the two methods you outline to understand good from evil, I would say the second form you provided is by and far the most important and really the only necessary form. I say that because we know that some will die without ever experiencing sin. Experiencing sin is not the best way to understand the difference between good and evil. The best way is to have faith and maintain faith in Christ and therefore appreciating the difference. Those that die before the age of accountability have already shown their level of faith and don't need to prove it further.

I would also add to the last paragraph that more importantly than not wanting to suffer from the sins of others, Lucifer did not want to revel in the joy of success of others either. He refused to receive the glory based in someone else' success and yet that is the thing that God is offering to all of us. What makes an individual a Celestial person is to love their neighbor as their self. Which means if person A does something good then person B benefits from that good just as much as person A did. It is the sharing of glory that makes God, God and a Celestial Being. The opposite of that is selfishness, as you know but most importantly the selfishness of success not just bad. Lucifer only wanted credit for his own work and not based on the success of others. But that is because he did not and still doesn't comprehend the way joy becomes eternal, when one can experience the success of others as if you were doing it yourself. Exclusive individual achievement is the satanic plan, whereas shared glory is God's plan, to give all that God has. Could they gather up some new sins over time? No, how would it be a place of glory if they did?

This is a good post - thank you. However there is one statement that when I read it I thought you expressed it in a way it came out to me in a manner that convinced me you made a gross error. The statement is:

I say that because we know that some will die without ever experiencing sin.

It is my understanding that death is the experience of sin (evil). It is the one experience and understanding or knowledge of evil (sin) that could only happen for mankind by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even Christ, who did not sin obtained a knowledge of evil (sin) through the experience of suffering death because of sin and evil as part of his sacrifice and suffering for us. I am thinking that is what you meant to say - but it did not come across that way.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good post - thank you. However there is one statement that when I read it I thought you expressed it in a way it came out to me in a manner that convinced me you made a gross error. The statement is:

It is my understanding that death is the experience of sin (evil). It is the one experience and understanding or knowledge of evil (sin) that could only happen for mankind by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even Christ, who did not sin obtained a knowledge of evil (sin) through the experience of suffering death because of sin and evil as part of his sacrifice and suffering for us. I am thinking that is what you meant to say - but it did not come across that way.

The Traveler

Thanks for your response. I think when you use the word "suffering" it brings to mind the human experience, what we feel here and what we actually experience.

Having studied neuroanatomy and as a nurse for many years, please tell me something that I do not understand about your statement - What does a one day old experience about death? What can you remember about being one day old?

Now, if you tell me, they do not have to remember it, it will be recalled to them, then there is no difference between actually experiencing something and having an experience placed into a person's mind. Because I can tell you from my understanding of human anatomy that a one day old does not have the capacity to maintain any sort of "experience" that you or I would call "experience" and especially in terms of "suffering" the way you are using the word suffering.

Not all die at one day old of course, but the point is that even if only one dies at one day old or dies a stillbirth but was quickened inside her mother's womb without ever having any "life" experience then there is one exception to the rule. Therefore, it is not a rule. We do not have to "suffer" anything that is memorable as an experience. It can be obtained vicariously.

One great message from the Savior's story is that experiences can be had vicariously. If one of our faith does not believe that then one does not also believe that Christ "suffered" as you are using the word. The thing to keep in mind is that "suffering" can be done vicariously. That is a method that we absolutely believe in. Therefore, experience can also be had vicariously. Of what type and how much, I do not know. But it does not have to be an exclusively individual process. Satan wanted it to be that way, that every individual do their own work and only get credit for their own work. I think he still tries to implant that in our minds today as if that must be a necessary thing. The idea of, you can only experience it for yourself in reality and not vicariously and nobody else can do it for you, is a false idea. Just keep that in mind when we talk about "suffering". Because, the baby that died in one hour of life does not have a brain that is capable of experiencing much of anything at one hour old when it is 5 weeks premature, for example. One cannot "remember" something that was never felt in the first place, it would have to be planted into the "experience" de novo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very good post, I wish I had checked it out earlier. I like Travelers thoughts especially. I would suggest that defining "what evil is" would be interesting in the light of this discussion.

I like to try to keep things simple so lets see if I can. I think sin is a choice of self interest over the will of God.

I don't think sin is evident as "doing something wrong", so much as it is "as a man thinketh" or in my words, it is who we have become already, at least to some degree. I think it shows in our countenance. Our living shows it. Our mouths speak it. "It" being who we are or what we want. In physically sinning, we are only showing what has already been accepted in our minds, thoughts and hearts. When giving in to our desires, passions and self interest the choice was already made within, even if we superficially don't want to do something, but internally, deeply we do. We get close to the edge because we really want to, and...not (at the same time), until we go over.

It is in giving in to the will of the Father that bends our wills and attitudes until they reflect His, little by little until we become like Him. It is in "trying" or repentance that brings the blessings of the Atonement (going through the whole process of course). It is in continuously trying with realizations that we have other weaknesses, while overcoming some and struggling with others, that we begin to purge our thoughts, minds, attitudes and hearts of unrighteous desires and replace them with righteous desires until we delight in doing good instead of,... dare I say... doing EVIL! :o

There's that word again. Evil. A condition or state opposite, or in contrast to the condition or state of God. A polar opposite of being righteous, if you will.

What then is righteous?

Oh here we go again...

Edited by Magen_Avot
Refrasing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know sin By God's law, so then by law is the accurate knowledge of sin. But where there is no law, neither is there any transgression. So then God's law is our teacher, that we might know, that, sin is a violation of God's law, his perfect standard. Furthermore, law was added to make transgressions manifest. Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness. All unrighteousness is sin. Just as one act of sin lead to the whole human family liable to death, because it is written "the wages sin pays is death". Then to thru one act of justification the result to all men is a declaring of them righteous for life. For this reason the Son of God came among us, that sin and all other works of the devil may be erased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know sin By God's law, so then by law is the accurate knowledge of sin. But where there is no law, neither is there any transgression. So then God's law is our teacher, that we might know, that, sin is a violation of God's law, his perfect standard. Furthermore, law was added to make transgressions manifest. Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness. All unrighteousness is sin. Just as one act of sin lead to the whole human family liable to death, because it is written "the wages sin pays is death". Then to thru one act of justification the result to all men is a declaring of them righteous for life. For this reason the Son of God came among us, that sin and all other works of the devil may be erased.

Agreed ... and we all signed up for the second estate law and are under the effects of that law by passing the first estate test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I hadn't been too busy the last few months to be an active member of this forum. This quote is taken from a blog that I started (but haven't finished yet) about repentance:

"What is sin? And why do we sin?

20. There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. [1]

First, we need to define sin. Simple enough right? Sin is anything that goes against God's will, be it thought, action, or inaction. But why would these things be so inherently evil? Does Heavenly Father simply get to make the rules as he chooses? Does he simply do as he pleases and make up rules on a whim? No, absolutely not.

In Doctrine and Covenants, we learn that Heavenly Father's power as deity is his honor. He perfectly understands and willingly obeys all of the laws of The Universe, and therefore, the very elements themselves willingly obey him. [2] Two of the greatest laws of the The Universe are the Law of Justice and the Law of Mercy. (These two laws create a paradox that we will discuss later.) So, in God's infinite knowledge, he creates rules that we should follow if we want to do things in the best possible way. They aren't just good rules; they're perfect rules based on a perfect understanding of perfect laws. ( I feel it's important to note here than we never are forced to obey although we do have an obligation to follow any of these rules; I will also cover that later on.)

This understanding gives us a more in-depth look into why sin is so grievous, for as the scriptures say, God "...cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."[3] Because God's laws are based off of universal and perfect laws, if we violate his laws, we sin not only against our father but against nature itself For example: If someone steals money from another person, he has violated the Law of Justice. He has not put forth the required work for the money to be rightfully his; likewise, the person from whom he stole the money is now out the money for which he is rightfully owed because the person from whom the money was stolen actually did put for the required work to have a claim on the money. If we look at sin from this viewpoint we see Heavenly Father's laws not as overbearing or controlling but as wise and loving. It's all based off perfect understanding of perfect principles.

So if God's laws are based on perfect principles, why then would we ever go against them? The scriptures have many answers, but perhaps the best one is found in the Book of Mormon:

28. O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.[4]

It's similar (very similar) to a child or teenager ignoring the counsel of a parent. We sometimes think that we know better, but we don't see the consequences of our actions. It's like driving in a city we've never been to before. We know what our destination is, and we have very detailed instructions on how to get there, written by someone who knows the city, and we have others who can help us understand the instructions. Sometimes though, we see a turn ahead, and we decide that we should take that turn; we think the turn is a shortcut and will get us there quicker; unfortunately, we see the turn, but we don't see the road after it. We realize, sometimes quickly and sometimes after a long driver, that our choice to turn away from the course that was laid out wasn't as prudent as we thought.

We have a goal of gaining eternal life. We have detailed instructions written out in the scriptures. We have the benefit of prophets, apostles, parents and church leaders who can guide us and help us gain greater understanding of the roadmap placed before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, we need to define sin. Simple enough right? Sin is anything that goes against God's will, be it thought, action, or inaction.

In Doctrine and Covenants, we learn that Heavenly Father's power as deity is his honor. He perfectly understands and willingly obeys all of the laws of The Universe, and therefore, the very elements themselves willingly obey him. [2] Two of the greatest laws of the The Universe are the Law of Justice and the Law of Mercy. (These two laws create a paradox that we will discuss later.) So, in God's infinite knowledge, he creates rules that we should follow if we want to do things in the best possible way. They aren't just good rules; they're perfect rules based on a perfect understanding of perfect laws. ( I feel it's important to note here than we never are forced to obey although we do have an obligation to follow any of these rules; I will also cover that later on.)

Great descriptions. Thanks.

I think the problem people have though is that it is hard to comprehend how sin can occur without fully having the understanding that God has when he made the laws in the first place. The hardest thing to swallow for some is the idea that we could sin without full knowledge or a "perfect understanding". Sins occur when faith is not sufficient. The definition of "sin", in this world must also include some statement of faith to satisfy the problem most people have about there being sins in the first place. As soon as one realizes that "sin" has to exist only in situations where faith is called upon then there is an immediate realization that full knowledge can not be part of that test, as full knowledge takes away faith. We do not know God's will fully but can have faith in it and His servants.

Satan wanted everything before the test of faith. 'Give me all your glory and knowledge and I will make everyone like God' is a lie. The truth is that the molding of our spirits to be more like God requires faith to overcome the sin of demanding knowledge before claiming accountability for the sin. It is a tool of Satan to believe that we have to fully understand the consequences of our actions before sin is possible. "I know not why" I do the will of God but I will do it anyway .... is the way to avoid sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Having studied neuroanatomy and as a nurse for many years, please tell me something that I do not understand about your statement - What does a one day old experience about death? What can you remember about being one day old?

Now, if you tell me, they do not have to remember it, it will be recalled to them, then there is no difference between actually experiencing something and having an experience placed into a person's mind. Because I can tell you from my understanding of human anatomy that a one day old does not have the capacity to maintain any sort of "experience" that you or I would call "experience" and especially in terms of "suffering" the way you are using the word suffering.

Not all die at one day old of course, but the point is that even if only one dies at one day old or dies a stillbirth but was quickened inside her mother's womb without ever having any "life" experience then there is one exception to the rule. Therefore, it is not a rule. We do not have to "suffer" anything that is memorable as an experience. It can be obtained vicariously.

...

I wanted to respond to your question - What do you remember as an adult with full capabilities of memory; concerning July 27th of 2011? Without looking it up - can you even tell me what day of the week it was?

I have a brother that can - but I cannot. But there are other "things" I remember that my brother does not remember - but I do not remember such things by the day in which they occurred.

It is my understanding that a child at 1 day old remembers the sound of it's mothers heart beat and can find comfort in being held close by it's mother remembering her heart beating. And I also find the first years of an infant's life - including life within the mother's womb that a child is an intelligent being and is learning things that will effect many things through it's life. Thus a mother should take care of her child even before the child is born. Do you not agree - do you think such things have no benefit for a child?

I submit to you that the one common experience of all humans that come to this mortal existence - regardless of how long their experience is and will be is the experience of death.

I also submit to you that the one unchangeable conclusion to sin (evil) is death. That the scriptures connect sin directly to death and that the two are connected in such a manner that they cannot be separated.

Finely I submit to you that a person or for that matter any being; cannot have knowledge of evil without the experience of death. And that no being can have knowledge of good without the experience of atonement. Even Jesus Christ that is our example of G-d obtained a knowledge of good and evil that we may follow in his example and be as the g-ds, knowing good and evil.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I hadn't been too busy the last few months to be an active member of this forum. This quote is taken from a blog that I started (but haven't finished yet) about repentance:

"What is sin? And why do we sin?

20. There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. [1]

First, we need to define sin. Simple enough right? Sin is anything that goes against God's will, be it thought, action, or inaction.

...

I am not disputing what you are saying here but there is a problem with this definition. The problem is determining G-d's will. At the surface this may seem simple enough but if one does any sanity checking they will discover that there is a great deal of disagreement concerning what exactly is G-d's will. This gives a tempter a great advantage - all that is necessary is to confuse G-d's will (as Satan did with Eve) and sin happens.

I would submit that there are better ways to determine what is sin without the ambiguities. That is understanding what sin does to gain attention and what is in opposition to sin.

Think on this - the first step towards sin is the act or attitude of self indulgence. It is the satisfying of the selfish natural man. The opposite of selfishness is discipline of self sacrifice - specifically in the cause to benefit others.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to respond to your question - What do you remember as an adult with full capabilities of memory; concerning July 27th of 2011? Without looking it up - can you even tell me what day of the week it was?

I have a brother that can - but I cannot. But there are other "things" I remember that my brother does not remember - but I do not remember such things by the day in which they occurred.

It is my understanding that a child at 1 day old remembers the sound of it's mothers heart beat and can find comfort in being held close by it's mother remembering her heart beating. And I also find the first years of an infant's life - including life within the mother's womb that a child is an intelligent being and is learning things that will effect many things through it's life. Thus a mother should take care of her child even before the child is born. Do you not agree - do you think such things have no benefit for a child?

I submit to you that the one common experience of all humans that come to this mortal existence - regardless of how long their experience is and will be is the experience of death.

I also submit to you that the one unchangeable conclusion to sin (evil) is death. That the scriptures connect sin directly to death and that the two are connected in such a manner that they cannot be separated.

Finely I submit to you that a person or for that matter any being; cannot have knowledge of evil without the experience of death. And that no being can have knowledge of good without the experience of atonement. Even Jesus Christ that is our example of G-d obtained a knowledge of good and evil that we may follow in his example and be as the g-ds, knowing good and evil.

The Traveler

All the examples you gave were of people who have had experiences. There is no proof of a baby "hearing the mother's heart beat" other than maybe the auditory evoked potentials of the neurons firing when sound is made. But, you cannot prove to me that it was experienced. When someone is in a coma, they are completely out, I can still tap on their reflexes and make their limb move. Was that experienced? Why not, the nerve was stimulated and it moved? Yes, neurons are active in the womb and start wiring even as early as the 6th to 8th week in the womb but that is not a description of experience.

When I was in school we took frog eyes and stimulated the nerves and measured potentials in the brain related to the optic nerve inputs. Did the frog experience the optic nerve stimulation? No. It's spirit was not connected to the organic tissue we were studying.

Honestly, you do not know what you are talking about. Go spend half a day on a neonatal intensive care unit, look at the flat line brain waves of a neonate that is on life support. Look at the MRI of a baby who has massive cerebral hemorrhage or herniation or even anencephaly.

If you say, well the spirit had an experience; maybe. But the experience was purely a spiritual one, it did not "experience" death in the sense of having a mortal experience. If there is no body (brain) to talk to then the spirit can't experience anything through the brain.

If someone is "brain dead" but kept alive on life support but their brain is not picking up on any sensory information then what "mortal" experience are they experiencing at that moment?

What I believe is that there are spirits born in this world that will not remember one mortal experience (i.e. - information interpreted through the brain) while here. You can't prove me wrong anymore than I can prove to you that is true. Even people that have photographic memories cannot remember being in the womb or their birth, that is boloney! If they say they can, that is a made up memory and I don't believe it. The human brain makes up memories all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the examples you gave were of people who have had experiences. There is no proof of a baby "hearing the mother's heart beat" other than maybe the auditory evoked potentials of the neurons firing when sound is made. But, you cannot prove to me that it was experienced. When someone is in a coma, they are completely out, I can still tap on their reflexes and make their limb move. Was that experienced? Why not, the nerve was stimulated and it moved? Yes, neurons are active in the womb and start wiring even as early as the 6th to 8th week in the womb but that is not a description of experience.

When I was in school we took frog eyes and stimulated the nerves and measured potentials in the brain related to the optic nerve inputs. Did the frog experience the optic nerve stimulation? No. It's spirit was not connected to the organic tissue we were studying.

Honestly, you do not know what you are talking about. Go spend half a day on a neonatal intensive care unit, look at the flat line brain waves of a neonate that is on life support. Look at the MRI of a baby who has massive cerebral hemorrhage or herniation or even anencephaly.

If you say, well the spirit had an experience; maybe. But the experience was purely a spiritual one, it did not "experience" death in the sense of having a mortal experience. If there is no body (brain) to talk to then the spirit can't experience anything through the brain.

If someone is "brain dead" but kept alive on life support but their brain is not picking up on any sensory information then what "mortal" experience are they experiencing at that moment?

What I believe is that there are spirits born in this world that will not remember one mortal experience (i.e. - information interpreted through the brain) while here. You can't prove me wrong anymore than I can prove to you that is true. Even people that have photographic memories cannot remember being in the womb or their birth, that is boloney! If they say they can, that is a made up memory and I don't believe it. The human brain makes up memories all the time.

Can you remember every experience you have had with sin?

Do you believe you will have a "bright" memory of all your sins?

Do you understand that all sins begin as thoughts? According to scripture (Jesus Christ) - thoughts that originate in one's "heart" and not in one's brain? Can you explain that from what you have learned in nursing school?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you remember every experience you have had with sin?

Do you believe you will have a "bright" memory of all your sins?

Do you understand that all sins begin as thoughts? According to scripture (Jesus Christ) - thoughts that originate in one's "heart" and not in one's brain? Can you explain that from what you have learned in nursing school?

The Traveler

No my brain cannot remember all those things.

Yes.

Yes. Please give me the exact quote from Jesus that uses the word "originate".

So what thought in the "heart" did the innocent spirit, never to experience sin baby have that died at 5 minutes old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No my brain cannot remember all those things.

These questions were to demonstrate that everyone's memory will be bright concerning all their experiences.

Yes. Please give me the exact quote from Jesus that uses the word "originate".

Okay you tell me where these "thoughts" in the following scriptures originate - in their brain? If so why do the scriptures mislead us and not say so?

D&C 2:2

Proverbs 23:7

2Nephi 20:7

Isaiah 10:7

Luke 9:47

Acts 8:22

Matt 9:4

D&C 10:16

Ester 6?6

Alma 21:6

So what thought in the "heart" did the innocent spirit, never to experience sin baby have that died at 5 minutes old?

You misrepresent what I have said all along. What I have said is that "The experience of sin (evil) is death." Second you say the baby - spirit was innocent - but did not that spirit of that child choose to come to earth to die? How then is that spirit innocent concerning death? The choice to experience death (sin) was made during the child's first estate - therefore the child is not innocent in their choice to come to mortality and experience death which is the wages of sin - not the wage of innocence. Where do you get the notion that death is the inevitable result of innocence? Do you have a scripture? or did you just make it up (in your heart)? :D

And further more I do not believe that a 5 minute old child is in essence brain dead and incapable of thought (see D&C 93:31)

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. God's 'work and glory" is our exaltation. His laws are based off infinite eternal principles and laws. when we violate those, we violate the very laws that we must understand to gain all that the father has. His will isn't actually that hard to understand when it comes to this...

My point is that man in mortality can experience sin and evil and not have the vaguest notion what the will of G-d is. I am not saying that sin is not contrary to the will of G-d. What I am saying is that man does not know G-d's will and therefore if that is the only definition of sin we have to go by - man cannot know sin from not sin nor good from evil.

What man knows the will of G-d? but does not every man know good from evil?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These questions were to demonstrate that everyone's memory will be bright concerning all their experiences.

Okay you tell me where these "thoughts" in the following scriptures originate - in their brain? If so why do the scriptures mislead us and not say so?

D&C 2:2

Proverbs 23:7

2Nephi 20:7

Isaiah 10:7

Luke 9:47

Acts 8:22

Matt 9:4

D&C 10:16

Ester 6?6

Alma 21:6

You misrepresent what I have said all along. What I have said is that "The experience of sin (evil) is death." Second you say the baby - spirit was innocent - but did not that spirit of that child choose to come to earth to die? How then is that spirit innocent concerning death? The choice to experience death (sin) was made during the child's first estate - therefore the child is not innocent in their choice to come to mortality and experience death which is the wages of sin - not the wage of innocence. Where do you get the notion that death is the inevitable result of innocence? Do you have a scripture? or did you just make it up (in your heart)? :D

And further more I do not believe that a 5 minute old child is in essence brain dead and incapable of thought (see D&C 93:31)

The Traveler

Things which are spiritual are spiritual, things which are carnal are carnal. None of those scriptures said that carnal things "originate" from the spirit. While people are here past the age of accountability, in their dual being status, the word "heart" refers to their desires. The desire is a mixture of both aspects of their dual being. God will judge, in the end, what is the true desire of one's heart after being exposed to the corruption and agency to choose between the two is given. People become carnal after being exposed to these temptations, after the choice is made and then yes, they have carnal thoughts "originate" from their spirit's desire but only after it was introduced by the body and this world and then they chose it. The baby that does not get input from a dead brain (I am not talking about the average 5 min old, the ones that do not have brain function) never was exposed to carnal natures. They remain innocent. Never to experience sin.

If you believe what you told me about the choice to come here being a sin then you would have to say that Jesus sinned by coming here. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misrepresent what I have said all along. What I have said is that "The experience of sin (evil) is death." Second you say the baby - spirit was innocent - but did not that spirit of that child choose to come to earth to die? How then is that spirit innocent concerning death? The choice to experience death (sin) was made during the child's first estate - therefore the child is not innocent in their choice to come to mortality and experience death which is the wages of sin - not the wage of innocence. Where do you get the notion that death is the inevitable result of innocence? Do you have a scripture? or did you just make it up (in your heart)? :D

The Traveler

I did not make it up. It is LDS doctrine and truth. LDS.org under definition of Infant Baptism in the guide to the scriptures says; "Children are born innocent and without sin." I don't know why I am even arguing this point with you. This is established, well known doctrine of our religion. The choice to come to mortality and experience death is not a sin nor does it make those that die before the age of accountability beholden in sin to anyone. They do not have to repent of any sin, ever! Amen!

Ezra Taft Benson; "Children are born innocent, not evil." Great Things Required of Their Fathers, April 1981

New Testament Teachers Manual; "Children are born innocent and free from sin.", Matthew 16-18

Questions and answers, 2008 LDS.org; "Children are born innocent. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ give parents eight years to teach their children the gospel so their children can learn right from wrong before they become accountable for their sins."

(Interesting, they can learn right from wrong before they are accountable.)

LDS.org, definition of child, children; "Children are without sin until they reach the age of accountability."

Mossiah 15:25 "And little children also have eternal life."

D&C 137; " 10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven."

D&C 29:47 " 47 Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;"

By definition a child has not yet taken on the temptations of the body and this is how they are innocent; "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 think it is you that wants to make it up (in your heart) that children are tempted by Satan and "experience" those temptations just by being born. Everything above says that is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that Children can't sin, it's that the atonement automatically "covers" their sins, in a metaphorical sense. (read Moroni 8) In fact small children can act in ways that they should not. Have you never seen a small child steal? It's none less sinful in and of the act it's self; however, the children are not accountable for the action for they have "not the law given them."

But sin does begin at an early age:

And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts... Moses 6:55

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things which are spiritual are spiritual, things which are carnal are carnal. None of those scriptures said that carnal things "originate" from the spirit. While people are here past the age of accountability, in their dual being status, the word "heart" refers to their desires. The desire is a mixture of both aspects of their dual being. God will judge, in the end, what is the true desire of one's heart after being exposed to the corruption and agency to choose between the two is given. People become carnal after being exposed to these temptations, after the choice is made and then yes, they have carnal thoughts "originate" from their spirit's desire but only after it was introduced by the body and this world and then they chose it. The baby that does not get input from a dead brain (I am not talking about the average 5 min old, the ones that do not have brain function) never was exposed to carnal natures. They remain innocent. Never to experience sin.

If you believe what you told me about the choice to come here being a sin then you would have to say that Jesus sinned by coming here. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Again you misrepresent what I posted - where did I say that coming to mortality was a sin? I said we chose to come to mortality to experience death and according to scripture death is the wage of sin (see Romans 6:23). Do you believe scripture? Do you doubt that sin and death are inseparably connected? Did not all that are born to morality choose to experience death in their first estate - including Christ? Since death is a choice in coming to earth the experience of death is not the result of innocence. It is the result of choice.

I also do not think you understand the atonement and that the atonement was necessary the children are saved. If children are innocent they would not need Christ to be saved - true or false? Without Christ children would not be saved (see Moroni 8:12 and Moroni 8:22).

You say that a person's heart is the essence of their desire - or that heart and desire are the same thing. Hmmmmm - That is a rather interesting interpretation of scripture. Is the heart spiritual or carnal? Would you also explain a change of heart? (especially in relation to D&C 93:31)

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that Children can't sin, it's that the atonement automatically "covers" their sins, in a metaphorical sense.

I wonder then J-Dawg, your statement in reference to this scripture given by Seminary...

D&C 29:47 " 47 Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;"

You say it is not that Children can't sin....

Yet in scripture we read "they cannot sin." That seems pretty clear children do not and cannot sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder then J-Dawg, your statement in reference to this scripture given by Seminary...

You say it is not that Children can't sin....

Yet in scripture we read "they cannot sin." That seems pretty clear children do not and cannot sin.

Interesting thought - Jesus cast out an evil spirit from a child that was influenced by the spirit since infancy?

I think the understanding is that children are not accountable because there is no law. Having raised children - I know that they can lie long before the age of accountability.

Do we agree that to lie is a sin?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thought - Jesus cast out an evil spirit from a child that was influenced by the spirit since infancy?

I think the understanding is that children are not accountable because there is no law. Having raised children - I know that they can lie long before the age of accountability.

Do we agree that to lie is a sin?

The Traveler

I believe children "cannot sin" as the scripture suggests. I do believe children make wrong decisions -- as a result of their progression and understanding. They do not sin though.

No different than a three year old who looks at a candy bar on the shelf, grabs it, and thinks the Candy bar is his/hers.

Do I believe the child sinned in taking the Candy Bar - No. They cannot sin. Were they wrong in taking the Candy Bar -- yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share