The Nature of Sin

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the nod eman.

I don’t have anything of value to add to the conversation that hasn’t already been said.

I’m going to go drink a beer and not feel guilty about. In fact, I might drink several…and I still wont feel guilty about it. Sin? Please. Give me a break. I’ve seen “sin.” I know it when i see it…and drinking beer isn’t it.

Okay. Maybe I did have something to add to the conversation after all.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I’m going to go drink a beer and not feel guilty about. In fact, I might drink several…and I still wont feel guilty about it. Sin? Please. Give me a break. I’ve seen “sin.” I know it when i see it…and drinking beer isn’t it.

Boy, I totally agree. I don’t think you should feel guilty at all. It’s interesting what we learn to be “sin”. I was taught people who drink and smoke are evil for doing so. It took 35 years, but I learned it wasn’t true.

[Anonymous]

I think Sin is when we do something we feel is wrong….not what someone else thinks is wrong…

Sin is acting against our better nature. I think we all kid ourselves…but as long as we are trying we will learn and grow. We will suffer consequences at times for our sins, and learn. Sometimes we will get away with it and sin again…until we learn.

I believe Sin is part of our personal journey. I think CWald can have his beer and as long as CWald is ok, and Jwald is ok…probably not even close to a sin….as long as he feels he is keeping his life in balance. If he spends his kids food moneyon beer, or loses control o fhis ability to moderate his behavioir…he will feel it…and he will have sinned….and there will be consequences…and learning.

To me this makes the journey personal…bishops, other members..are all there to talk to as we try to shape our thoughts so we can continue to progress…not as judges in israel…just brothers and sisters who love us….without the need to assess guilt or give shame.

i also think inspiration has no dependency on our having a lack of Sin…in fact I think Sin brings about the need for inspiration.

[Anonymous]

Sin is harm.

[Anonymous]

eman wrote:

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?

I guess in theory failure to pay tithing could be harmful to God as well as you and your family if you want to assume that God really cares about this kind of thing and is basically keeping score to test who will be obedient to his “commandments” for no other apparent reason than because he said so and then he will supposedly withhold blessings and count this against you on judgment day. Personally I prefer to think of God as being on a higher plane than humans so it’s hard for me to believe that he would actually be so petty and harsh about seemingly insignificant details like this the way many people certainly are. That’s one reason why I view tithing as nothing more than a man-made tradition that generally does more harm than good for both individual members and the Church as whole at this point. Basically it looks to me like Church leaders continue to collect more money than they know what to do with mostly because they have bought into this notion that it is for Church members’ own good because God is supposedly going to bless them for it in this life and the next. What if God doesn’t work that way?

[Anonymous]

I think the Church believes in tithing for the same reason most politicians believe in taxes – to ensure the perpetuation of the organization and the services it provides (and I don’t mean that negatively in any way, whatsoever). We have a fairly recent history of being in dire straits financially, and the codification of tithing is the only thing that changed that situation.

I have some issues with the way tithing is taught (including tying temple attendance to the full-payment of tithing), but I understand why it is taught and have no problem with it being taught.

So, to the topic of this post, I don’t see the payment or non-payment of tithing as sin, in and of itself. I see “sin” with regard to tithing as dependent on the indivudal’s understanding of it – whether each person’s actions are in line with each person’s conscience.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think I could add more to this post, I’ve literally spent my whole life from preteen till now contemplating this very issue every week if not every day. Although I have been taught many things by different people, I think the picture of emphasizing not harming(emotional, physically). I want to say not harming spiritually too, but there in that case lies a very subjective dilemma. Man will make all kinds of arguments against each other on what they can not observe. Many claims will be made. I love god and Christ with all my heart as Witt my fellow man. But for the life of me I can never picture an god concerned with arbitrary commands or rules. A “jealous” god, or any god that resembles traits of Greek gods(I.e. human behaviors). I have to personally be able to look at myself and ask myself what I feel “love” is. It’s with love that anything gains any meaning and without it I personally lose all significance or meaning to it. I see sin as being tied to a communion of eternal arbitrary laws or really any particular laws. But rather tied to the lack of love. Doing things in a careless or angry or hateful manor etc. Sin to me is a world without love for their fellow man both past, present and future.

So that is the “Nature” of sun to me. A world or heaven without love for each other. Not of preordained rules or arbitrary guidelines of “test”. Which is why I am not found of titles or power. Non of us are “superior” or poses any real power of others then that which we choose to take or enforce. But everyone has a job to do. With love, to serve one another in different ways with each of our unique gifts.

Which is my only really problem with the church and many other systems. Administration, authority, and pidgin whiling an entire group of people into a system designed to the system survive before the individual. Or rather, a system that only helps people fitting within certain guidelines and certain gifts and talents. While hurting those that don’t posses those gifts and talents that are declared “needed”. I think all talents and gifts are needed and in our own time and own way of those we should uplift and help one another, not trying to adhere to a system of systematic guidelines bared on “results”. It completty misses the point.

Sin is the lack of love, the lack of help and goodwill towards oneself and other people, in dooming so I personally believe that as a side effect, loving god becomes for filled.

A god of opportunity love and growth. This life to me is about that and coming together. Not about test, a lot of people really do lousy on test, even if they really do great otherwise. Especially of they know they are being tested.

I love this part of our BOM, thinketh not in evil. I agree, the more I thought about sun or saten or test or my lack of perfection or passing a test, the more I errored because I missed the mark.

It’s about love, not sin. At least for me.

[Anonymous]

I find it very intriguing to read the posts on this thread. Is there any wonder there’s no push to get members out of stage 3? The concept of sin used to be so simple! But we can go on and on throwing around all kinds of ideas on it. So clearly it’s not as simple as it once was. I’m also noticing a common inclination to define sin in a relative manner, which I’m fine with, as long as it’s based on a common principle. I just wanted to sum up what has been shared thus far as the principles which defines sin.

Sin is

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Intentional actions which cause one’s self or others to be unhappy

Intentional actions which harm others

Actions which cause harm due to gross negligence

Actions that conflict with our inner conscience or ideals

Actions which go against personal commitment (including those to a higher being)

Doing something we feel is wrong

A Conscious choice that pulls us away from God

This list could obviously be condensed. Causing harm also makes one unhappy be it intentional or due to negligence. Accepting that there are actions which would displease divinity, including our breaking of commitments to said divinity, would label going against commitment as causing unhappiness. Doing something we feel is wrong would cause us guilt/shame and make us unhappy. So it seems for the most part Givens’ summation may be correct, that “sin is sin because it makes us or others unhappy.”

There’s a couple in the list I’d disagree with in part. I believe defining something as sin just because it feels wrong is wrong. The same can be true of our inner conscience depending on what you mean by this. Our life experiences shape how we feel or the ethical code we live by. For example, some feel that sex or too much sex, even in marriage is sin. Not because it is, but because they were conditioned to believe so. Likewise some feel that it is sin to lie, even to save a life because they have a black and white view of morality.

I obviously don’t hold the view that there is no way to define sin. I believe that we sometimes want to believe it is subjective and relative and there is no absolute sin. It seems that this is especially true in the middle way as we shy away from absolutes. But can’t there be an absolute way to define sin as a principle that allows for individual application? The word of wisdom is a great example. Beer may or may not influence your happiness. So it’s not the drinking of beer that is sinful but whether doing so causes you or someone else to be unhappy causes harm. While the application of the principle can be applied differently making it appear as though sin is relative, in reality it is not. It just appears that way. I think it could be summed up as being the spirit of the law that never changes and is in fact, absolute, while the letter changes over time and per individual. Thus on each of our own journeys, we would have to learn “the spirit of the law” and how it applies to us.

[Anonymous]

eman, fwiw, I believe there is absolute good and absolute bad – but I like James’ defintion in his epistle: knowing to do good and not doing it.

The reason I distinguish so explicitly between sin and transgression is that I believe in the concept of “atonement” that doesn’t punish people for transgressions – those things that might be sin in an objective sense but are not understood to be sin by the people who do them. I link “sin” to “judgment” and “guilt” – so I define it as acting in opposition to one’s understanding and conscience.

[Anonymous]

Some of these don’t stand up to analysis.

Let’s go through them –

1 – Intentional actions which cause one’s self or others to be unhappy

Plenty of things cause us, or others to be unhappy, but that does not make them sins. If I stop someone drink driving that will make them unhappy, but that is not a sin.

2 – Intentional actions which harm others

Generally yes, but we have to define harm.

3 – Actions which cause harm due to gross negligence

AKA “Sins of Omission” (google.)

4 – Actions that conflict with our inner conscience or ideals

Like the first, this is a problem. Some people’s “ideals” are not “ideal”.

5 – Actions which go against personal commitment (including those to a higher being)

Unclear.

6 – Doing something we feel is wrong

Feeling something is wrong is not enough. That is why I listed “harm”. At different points in their life, the same person may feel homosexuality is wrong, and that homophobia is wrong. Just an example…

7 – A Conscious choice that pulls us away from God

Tend to agree, but difficult to define.

[Anonymous]

Sam, I see a big difference between “wrong” and “sin” – and the central difference is intent and/or understanding.

I think the best example in our theology (and law) is the case of diminished capacity, especially with clear cases of retardation or another mental disability. I think all of us are “disabled” in ways we don’t understand fully, so I think “sin” occurs less often than we tend to believe.

Don’t get me wrong: I support defining “sin” and “crime” communally and making general standards to ensure safety and stability. However, I believe in recognizing them as generalized communal standards and not eternal absolutes that apply equally to every person – and even the law recognizes that the same action isn’t the same thing when something about the circumstances surrounding the action is different.

[Anonymous]

“Wrong” doesn’t mean anything by itself, it’s subjective. Some feel taking children to church is wrong and abuse. Some feel the opposite.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

“Wrong” doesn’t mean anything by itself, it’s subjective. Some feel taking children to church is wrong and abuse. Some feel the opposite.

Ya that’s what I mean. I will encourage mine to go. But I can’t imagine forcing them. I guess I was often taught your rights ends where another’s begin. Quantifying that is not so simple. Which I try to use logic and love as first filters . Because force is not love, even it’s for “their own good”. A lot of horrible things have been dine in the name of “for their own good”.

At the same time it’s hard to picture a god sitting there saying. on account of your actions, Please refer to article 15 section 34d. On page 1,7000,000.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the best way to understand what the sin is for a grown man, is to imagine him explaining it to little kid and then just follow the given explanation himself.

[Author]

Posts