- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A few comments in some other threads as well as what i’m reading in “The God Who Weeps” has set my mind upon the topic of sin. Rather than think about it all by myself (and risk brain pain) I thought I’d post some questions/thoughts and open it up for discussion. So
What is sin?Of course we’re taught that sin is acting contrary to God’s will, or put simply, the commandments. When you’re world view is black and white this works pretty well. If the scriptures and/or GA’s teach something is sin then it is. But introduce shades of grey (or color) and it becomes more complex. No longer can one confide wholly in the scriptures as these may have been translated (
Givens posed the question “Why do our actions, for good or ill, matter to God…Why would He choose to punish or reward accordingly?” He goes on to explain that “Sin itself is a condition we assume when we place ourselves in opposition to those moral laws that undergird the structure of reality…Sin is not an arbitrary category God imposes.” He explains that that sin is sin because it makes us or others unhappy.
I kind of like the idea of using defining sin as that which causes us or someone else to be unhappy. It’s a good test that encompasses many of the standards of the church. Not all however. Take chastity for example. The church teaches that “petting” is sin. Using the above standard, who does petting cause to be unhappy? Sure it can lead to pre-marital sex (Heck, being a guy I might change that “can lead to” to “most likely will”) and therefore it would be good counsel to avoid, but is it sin?
DBMormon posed the question if it’s always wrong to lie. Would it be wrong to lie to save a life? It would be a lie but I agree it wouldn’t be sin. In this case the lie is spoken to save a life. The lie causes no one to be unhappy, but rather, saves a life.
Take swearing as another example. We generally recognize that 4 letter words aren’t bad in and of themselves. It’s not considered a sin to say “hell” (especially in context) but if used as an explicative most Mormons believe it is. But does it cause unhappiness? However, tell someone to go to hell and now someones unhappy.
Anyways, I could keep pouring out brain sludge but I’ll let you guys chime in. What is sin?
Excellent topic, (although I’ve no time to do more than give it a cursory thought at the moment) I love the idea that sin is related to actions that make us unhappy. I’m not sure to what extent I fully accept that but its a very interesting start point.
I never swear but I never have a problem with people who do. I find swearing a question of context and appropriateness rather than sin.
Well, keeping in mind that I don’t believe God is keeping score… For me, “sin” falls into three categories: – against others – things that we do intentionally, consciously, that harm other people.
– against ourselves – things that we do that go against our own inner conscience. For example, it’s not a sin for anyone to have a beer, unless they have decided not to drink as a symbol of their devotion to God… in that case, I would say that it is… for them.
– motivation for compliance – the biggest category for sin is a set of requirements levied by religion… not just the LDS Church, this is true in all organized religion, going back to the dawn of time… But using our church as an example, it is a sin not to pay a full tithe… it is a sin to complain about church leaders… it is a sin not to do your home teaching… it is a sin to skip church to go shopping… it is a sin not to follow the prophet’s counsel. The basic idea is that any religion must have compliance of its adherents in order to be successful. Since compliance is not a strong-suit for us mortals, religions have made compliance mandatory in the eyes of God… and, in Christianity, if you don’t comply, you will go to Hell, which is the worst possible fate you can imagine. It’s interesting to me, that in the LDS Church, there is a much different concept than the black & white-ness of Heaven and Hell. Rather, with one exception, all sin results in lessening glory, but even the Telestial Kingdom is glorious. In our church, however, Outer Darkness is reserved for the faithful who turn against the church… er… God. It’s not really hard to imagine how such a doctrine came about.
I like the definition of sin as actions that lead to unhappiness. Another “sin” that comes to mind is the act of setting up false expectations or standards that end up disappointing people when they realize as mere mortals they cannot perfectly live up to the ideal. On Own Now wrote:– against others – things that we do intentionally, consciously, that harm other people.
This aligns nicely with my definition of sin being that which makes others unhappy. But what if my action is not intentional but it still harms or makes someone unhappy?
Quote:– against ourselves – things that we do that go against our own inner conscience. For example, it’s not a sin for anyone to have a beer, unless they have decided not to drink as a symbol of their devotion to God… in that case, I would say that it is… for them.
I want to poke at this idea a bit. So using this logic, lets say someone decides that they are going to lose 20 lbs by going to the gym 3 times a week. They’ve made a commitment to themselves to do this faithfully until the 20lbs are gone. Come monday they are too tired and sleep in. Did they just sin? Take the same idea and say that the person made this same commitment to God, but again sleeps in. Now did they sin?
Quote:– motivation for compliance – the biggest category for sin is a set of requirements levied by religion… not just the LDS Church, this is true in all organized religion, going back to the dawn of time… But using our church as an example, it is a sin not to pay a full tithe… it is a sin to complain about church leaders… it is a sin not to do your home teaching… it is a sin to skip church to go shopping… it is a sin not to follow the prophet’s counsel. The basic idea is that any religion must have compliance of its adherents in order to be successful. Since compliance is not a strong-suit for us mortals, religions have made compliance mandatory in the eyes of God… and, in Christianity, if you don’t comply, you will go to Hell, which is the worst possible fate you can imagine. It’s interesting to me, that in the LDS Church, there is a much different concept than the black & white-ness of Heaven and Hell. Rather, with one exception, all sin results in lessening glory, but even the Telestial Kingdom is glorious. In our church, however, Outer Darkness is reserved for the faithful who turn against the church… er… God. It’s not really hard to imagine how such a doctrine came about.
I’m not sure if you mean this category would objectively be sin or or if you’re just saying that the church considers these things sin. Is it sin to break the rules (or expectations) of an organization?What about sins of omission…any thoughts?
eman, I think ‘sin’ is entirely in the personal domain… what is sin to you might not be sin to me… what is a sin in the eyes of the church might not be a sin to you. Also, the term ‘sin’ is loaded with all kinds of implied meaning. If we generalize a bit, I’d say a sin is just an action that is in conflict with an ideal that you hold for something or someone.
If you make a commitment to your mother to come by and help her move her piano, and then you just blow it off to go bowling, that is a wrong action, and your mother, sore and cranky, might stretch the bounds of the “only a mother can love” concept. You could say it is a ‘sin’ against your mother. It will likely have ramifications, and at the very least will probably make you and your mother unhappy.
Similarly, if you make a commitment to God and you don’t uphold it, then that could be considered a ‘sin’ against God, in your mind, even if God doesn’t care.
If you make a commitment to yourself (lose weight) and you don’t follow through with it, you could say that when you eat that extra helping of cake and ice cream, that you ‘sin’ against your own desires.
As for the sins against the church, it’s up to you to decide if you are sinning against your own commitment to God, or sinning against your brother/sister, if you don’t do your home/visiting teaching. If you are, then who cares if you are also sinning against the church, and if you aren’t, again, who cares?
As I said before, I don’t believe God keeps score, so for me, it is all personal. I have to live with myself. Personal conduct shouldn’t be to satisfy somebody else’s checkbox.
I tend to define sin as conscious choices that pull me away from God in some way and for which I am responsible – and I tend to categorize those things as acting against my own conscience. I tend to define transgression as unkowing acting in a way that would pull me away from God in some way and for which I am not accountable – and I tend to categorize those things as the gap between my conscience and God’s will. I really love the distinction between sin and transgression in Mormon theology, and I tend to place more things in the realm of transgression and fewer things in the realm of sin than most members.
On Own Now wrote:
I think ‘sin’ is entirely in the personal domain… what is sin to you might not be sin to me… what is a sin in the eyes of the church might not be a sin to you. Also, the term ‘sin’ is loaded with all kinds of implied meaning. If we generalize a bit, I’d say a sin is just an action that is in conflict with an ideal that you hold for something or someone.…
As I said before, I don’t believe God keeps score, so for me, it is all personal. I have to live with myself. Personal conduct shouldn’t be to satisfy somebody else’s checkbox.
I appreciate you comments and point of view On Own Now. That being said I’d kind of like this thread to be built around the premise that there IS some objective way to define sin and that sin IS something that God wants us to avoid as it keeps us from reaching our greatest potential (To be like Him if you will). In other words, I don’t want to go down the path that sin is completely relative and personal and thus can’t be defined (though that could be an interesting topic for another thread
However, I agree that what is sin to you might not be sin to me. You may be able down a pint of beer (head nod to you Cwald) and not have it affect you’re happiness in the slightest, or that of anyone else. If I were to do it, however, I risk the chance of becoming an alcoholic (runs in the family) as well as creating much conflict in my marriage. So I’d say it could be sin for me. But to say sin is “just an action that is in conflict with an ideal that you hold for something or someone” seems to take objectivity out of the equation. Then if I find myself entrenched in sin, rather than change my actions I could change my ideal. I think we should be able to identify the underlying principle behind what makes sin, sin so that we can identify it in an objective manner. It doesn’t have to be happiness as I proposed in my OP. And indeed, it seems like that alone doesn’t satisfy. So what else is there?
This is my first time trying to upload a picture, I hope I did it right. 😆 To interject humor and to show how I envisioned sin and misses and the commandments, I posted this.
I in turn plan to teach my kids the “house rules” not as a milllion commandments but as this and why and how they effect people and themselves.
Forgotten_charity… Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… love it.
@Forgotten_Charity 😆 Funny and yet true. It embodies the principle that Christ taught when teaching the 2 great commandments from which all others stem. Even though meant to be funny, it begs the question of what is bad? I in no way think we need to list out all the various ways in which one can sin. However if we are to avoid that which is bad, we must know the underlying principle that defines something as bad. Sure, we can follow Christ’s admonition to Love God and our fellow man. We can apply Moroni’s method of judging something as good as to whether or not something entices to do good and come unto Christ. But neither do much to explain the nature of sin.
eman wrote:…So
What is sin?Of course
we’re taught that sin is acting contrary to God’s will, or put simply, the commandments. When you’re world view is black and white this works pretty well. If the scriptures and/or GA’s teach something is sin then it is.But introduce shades of grey (or color) and it becomes more complex…So how then do we define sin?…Givens posed the question “Why do our actions, for good or ill, matter to God…Why would He choose to punish or reward accordingly?” He goes on to explain that “Sin itself is a condition we assume when we place ourselves in opposition to those moral laws that undergird the structure of reality…Sin is not an arbitrary category God imposes.” He explains that that sin is sin because it makes us or others unhappy…The church teaches that “petting” is sin. Using the above standard, who does petting cause to be unhappy?Sure it can lead to pre-marital sex…and therefore it would be good counsel to avoid, but is it sin?…Would it be wrong to lie to save a life? Personally I would define sin as doing unnecessary harm either intentionally or through some gross negligence. If no significant harm is done by some specific thought or action then I don’t see why anyone including God should care that much about it. For example, consider “white lies.” If you want to memorize some long list of rules to live by then telling lies is supposedly always wrong no matter what. However, suppose my wife asks if I like her new hairstyle and I really don’t; what is actually going to do more harm to everyone involved, telling the truth or not?
On the other hand if you intentionally tell lies to defraud people out of their money then you’re not just dealing with fun and games because in that case you have obvious victims and a legitimate reason why the lies really make a negative difference. So my point is that not all so-called “sins” you can give the same basic label are equally bad if you try to honestly weigh the actual results and intent, in fact in some cases they probably shouldn’t even be considered sins at all. Of couse in some cases harm is going to happen one way or another so all you can do is make a judgment call about what is more important.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:So my point is that not all so-called “sins” you can give the same basic label are equally bad if you try to honestly weigh the actual results and intent, in fact in some cases they probably shouldn’t even be considered sins at all.
I agree with this. A lie isn’t always a lie. Depends on the intent. So then would you label failure to pay tithing as not a sin, since it hurts no one if you don’t pay it?For the sake of argument, let me put on the hat of a believer in the power of atonement, and take it from that approach… If we look at the atonement as the way that we absolve sin, then yes, it would be helpful to enumerate exactly what constitutes sin, and how much repentance we need for each type of sin. But if you look at the atonement (paraphrasing Paul) as the way that we push aside the natural man, who is crucified with Christ, and buried with him, and that as Christ was risen from the dead, so we are raised; not as we were before, but to walk in a new life… then, it is so much more than the absolution of sins. The “natural man”, “sinners” or the “ungodly” to use Paul’s terms, are not in degrees. These are simply washed away in a new life. So, the power of the atonement, as described by Paul is to RAISE, not to ERASE… it is about us, not about our sins.
In that context, sin is simply that which keeps us from the power of the atonement. Anything that pulls us away from God is sin.
Quote:“Sin itself is a condition we assume when we place ourselves in opposition to those moral laws that undergird the structure of reality…Sin is not an arbitrary category God imposes.”
This is how I understand the definition of sin. It seems consistent with LDS atonement theology.
Ray–I’ve always thought of the distinction between sin and transgression in terms of
malum in se(things that are bad because they are inherently wrong=sin) and malum prohibitum(things bad because they are prohibited=transgression). Following that line of logic, a person can sin unknowingly by actions that are malum in se. Having a beer=transgression. Having several beers and killing someone with your car=sin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.