- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Greek word for ‘sin’ means ‘to miss the mark’, which I think equates to ‘you’re missing the point of this aspect of your life’. To me this provides a useful perspective whenever I hear the word ‘sin’ used. Frankly, I’m not sure what it means, precisely, in an LDS context. My own definition of sin is, basically, the definition in James 4:17. Quote:Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Iow, it’s not doing something I feel I should do. (Just to be clear, ALL things can be phrased this way. Murdering someone is not doing something I feel I should do – the “something” being abstaining from murder – or, from a more “enlightened” perspective, not loving someone enough to avoid murdering them.)
I believe this mostly because I accept the idea of being judged by how I live according to my conscience – which is the “pure Mormonism” definition of how we are judged, imo.
Iow, we really aren’t judged against a universal standard that is objective and easily defined. If I go out and blow up a building, killing people in the process, it absolutely is sin to me – and I believe I will be judged accordingly. However, I can’t be certain every person who was involved in the attacks on 9/11/2001 will be judged as I would be if I had done that – since I can’t say they acted contrary to their consciences and the indoctrination they received in their formative years.
I understand the potential problems with such a definition, but I also believe the distinction between “transgression” (the broad category of things that are contrary to the will of God – or “all things that are wrong”) and “sin” (the sub-set of transgressions that we choose consciously to do – meaning we have to see them as wrong) is central to the concept of an Atonement – since we are told we will be punished ONLY for our unforsaken sins and not for Adam’s transgressions (which I interpret to mean the mistakes we make in ignorance as a result of what we inherit through being born into mortality).
Hence, again:
Quote:Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
cwald wrote:Oh course, many of us here believe that tithing and WofW and such are nothing more than man-made commandments that the church uses to control members behavior, and use as a gauge to see who will be obedient to authority. Are we wrong or do the leaders really believe we are offending god and our fellow man when we drink a cup of coffee or tea. And if the church leaders SERIOUSLY don’t believe they are sins in God’s eye, yet continue to impose and enforce them on the membership in regards to TR/salvation, than
theyare committing ONE HELL OF SIN. See Doug’s signature line. I guess I do believe church leaders believe we’re offending god when we drink a cup of coffee or tea. Whether our fellow man is offended is anyone’s guess. That’s more of an individual thing. The thing they probably find offensive is why we do it. Is it because we like coffee or is it our own gentle way of giving the brethren the international sign of ill will. I have an acquaintance who considers it a convenient sin to keep him off the radar. It makes him just enough of a reprobate that people don’t bother him. I’ve seen no evidence that leadership doesn’t believe them to be sins so I don’t think they’re committing ONE HELL OF A SIN.
Ultimately God and Jesus,if they exist, will be our final arbiters and what we decide isn’t a sin, which seems to be where some of this discussion is heading, won’t matter all that much.
I doubt seriously that the top leadership believes we are offending God is we drink a cup of coffee or tea. I think, rather, that they see the WofW as a blessing AND a test of faithfulness – a willingness to sacrifice. Local leaders, otoh . . . they believe all kinds of things all across the spectrum, so I’m sure there are those who believe God is offended. I get the second orientation and can respect it (and even accept the general idea), regardless of agreement or disagreement with how the WofW is enforced; I understand but don’t accept the first perspective.
Old-Timer wrote:I doubt seriously that the top leadership believes we are offending God is we drink a cup of coffee or tea.
So for the sake of argument if you believe that Jesus revealed to JS the word of wisdom and if you believe that Heber J Grant as his prophet decided to make it a condition of obtaining a temple recommend, how is it that you wouldn’t believe Jesus wouldn’t be offended or at least saddened by our thumbing our nose at him by finding reasons to disobey it? And how is it that you wouldn’t believe the leadership wouldn’t be offended or at least saddened that we as supposed members decided to pick and chose what we would or wouldn’t obey. Sorry to go all TBM on you but I don’t think you can have things both ways, being ok at the last because we’re really at the heart good people when in the meantime we do what ever we want. These seem to bring out the Calvinist in me.
There have been a ton of great comments here. Thanks. I would like to explore several avenues, but my brain is still a little dehydrated from the holidays, so I can’t focus on to many things at once. I will just go with the last two comments, and I think GB has a great point when he says we can’t have it both ways. I don’t see how one in the church can have such a position on the WofW and the church. First – if the GA’s truly believe the church is the one and only true church on the face of the earth, and they don’t believe the WofW is important enough that it would offend god and be considered a sin, how can they base MEMBERSHIP in said church, and SALVATION on that “commandment.” (And before anyone argues with me about “salvation,” we all know that in the LDS church, SALVATION comes through the temple ordinances. Period. Salvation DOES NOT COME through faith in Jesus Christ. According to the LDS faith, no one gets into heaven without baptism and the temple. Lets please not debate that issue. Sure, probably none of us here actually BELIEVES that, but we are the freaks of the church which is why we are on this board even having this conversation, )
So anyway, I honestly see only two directions here. Either they do believe it is a commandment from god through JS and Heber Grant, and that it is a sin to not obey it. OR, they are seriously harming others (emotionally and spiritually) unnecessarily by allowing the LDS church membership to put so much emphasis on this commandment, and if there is a god, they are going to have to answer for it. It is no trifle matter to sport with the souls of men. Believe it or not, I would feel a lot better about the church leaders if the first choice was correct.
I really don’t want this to be a WofW topic. I think we could use many examples, it’s just that the WofW doctrine and policy is so obviously flawed, IMO, that it is easy to argue. I think we could argue tithing or masturbation or oral sex and many other issues besides the WofW. — all of these issues have been controversial TR questions.
Perhaps a better example would be garments. Is it a sin to NOT wear garments after one has gone through the temple? It certainly will keep a person out of the temple if they don’t – yet I find it VERY difficult that god gives a damn about such things.
So once again, I still don’t really have an answer to the question. Even the most traditional guys on the site are hinting that something like the WofW is not a sin, only a policy put in place to test obedience and the willingness to sacrifice for the church institution, and that really salvation and sin is a personal issue between the individual and god. Well hell, if that is true – it certainly is not going to help my outlook and perspective on the church leadership much.
I will admit once again, that perhaps this is all set up for the masses and I suppose it works, and may even be necessary – but it sure does not work for me and it makes so very little sense in the larger scheme of things. Square pegs in round holes.
Doug – I think your quote REALLY is summing up how I feel right now.
Heber – I agree with you on the church leadership statement. That was a bad example.
Heber13 wrote:cwald, I’d be interested to hear why you reject the church’s definition?
Did I sufficiently answer your request?
Heber13 wrote:I think that means we somewhat agree on the emphasis of our positions, but may vary in the details a little between you and I. Does that clarify or muddy my position for ya???
I would say it is about as clear as mud. But that’s okay.
🙂 As the resident parser, I need to point out that we are conflating terms that aren’t synonymous. I think the top leadership basically accepts the idea expressed by Elder Bednar that something is “offensive” only if someone takes it as such – that nobody can offend me if I refuse to take offense. In that sense, I believe they wouldn’t say God is “offended”.
“Saddened” is a completely different discussion – and I absolutely think they would say that God is saddened when someone chooses to not accept what they see as foundational commandments.
“Seeing as sin” is another totally different discussion – and I think the top leadership sees not following the WofW as a “sin” (rather than as a transgression) in cases where someone has been taught the WofW and THEN chooses to smoke or drink anyway. However, I think they don’t see it as nearly as “serious” as some other “sins” – as evidenced by the fact that nobody gets excommunicated or even disfellowshipped for WofW issues.
Old-Timer wrote:As the resident parser, I…
“Seeing as sin” is another totally different discussion – and I think the top leadership sees not following the WofW as a “sin” in cases where someone has been taught the WofW and THEN chooses to smoke or drink anyway…
Okay, since Ray is the”resident parser, than lets just agree on this concept today. Heber,
this is why I reject the LDS church definition of “sin.”I don’t believe it, and I don’t think it is “true.” In my world, commandments like the WoW, tithing, wearing garments, two sets of earrings etc etc ARE NOT sins. They are “man made” outward appearance commandments that church leaders use to serve the “masses” of the church, and determine obedience and loyalty to the church institution. They have nothing to do with god or sin.
So we go back to the question. When I drink tea or a glass of beer, I feel just fine. But since it is not a sin to me, then I still can’t answer SD question because he may consider it a sin, so that would not be a fair comparison. When I don’t wear garments, I feel just fine, but since it is not a sin to me….
Sin is subjective in the LDS church really. I wonder if there are any REAL sins that all members could agree on besides murder, sexual abuse and assault, lieing and stealing? I doubt it. There are probably some who would argue that sex outside of marriage is not a sin, And I suppose I might agree in certain cases as well, yet the church has falsely compared it next to murder.
There’s also the issue of the “sin of omission”… Here’s the RC take on it –
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251b.htm Quote:“Omission” is here taken to be the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed.
In other words, the sin of omission is not something you do, it’s something you don’t do, but should. If you see someone in trouble and could help, but don’t, that’s a sin of omission.
However, this leads into very interesting territory. Slightly paranoiac territory, as one wonders about all the things you forgot to do, or didn’t realise about…
Sin for me, as well as the deliberate matter of harming others would include:
* Something which corrupts the sinner without obviously harming others, at least initially. This is difficult to pin down. I think gambling in its early stages would come into this category, that is before the gambler starts stealing/over-spending money.
Another example of this would be negative/judgemental thoughts/comments about others. The other party may never hear the comment, but it still corrupts the original person IMHO.
* Pride (of the negative kind) is another sin. Spiritual pride is particularly prevalent as a sin amongst church members although they may not even be aware of it themselves.
Early in this thread I posted that “sin is seeking our own will rather than the will of God” from the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer. To me that implies that we go after what we want rather than trying to find what God wants for us and all who we might affect by our actions. Deciding what God wants in order to use a yardstick for our behavior is the tricky part but an Episcopalian would say that it’s determined by scripture, tradition and reason and at the same time trying to hear what God is trying to tell us through the spirit. What we most likely do in situations where there is a moral dimension is to do a quick check off of “the rules”, figure out a way around the ones that we don’t care for and then do what we want. The problem is that whether you’re talking about minor vs major sins the effect on us is the same, an erosion of our willingness and ability to see, hear, and feel what God through the spirit wants of us. GBSmith wrote:Early in this thread I posted that
“sin is seeking our own will rather than the will of God”from the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer. To me that implies that we go after what we want rather than trying to find what God wants for us and all who we might affect by our actions. Deciding what God wants in order to use a yardstick for our behavior is the tricky part but an Episcopalian would say that it’s determined by scripture, tradition and reasonand at the same time trying to hear what God is trying to tell us through the spirit. What we most likely do in situations where there is a moral dimension is to do a quick check off of “the rules”, figure out a way around the ones that we don’t care for and then do what we want. The problem is that whether you’re talking about minor vs major sins the effect on us is the same, an erosion of our willingness and ability to see, hear, and feel what God through the spirit wants of us. This is an interesting thought. I think the problem I have is that the “yardstick” isn’t really panning out for me since I think the traditions and culutre are terribly goofy, and don’t match “reason and what the spirit is telling me.” I don’t really see why culture and tradition SHOULD determine “the will of God” and sin for me. What business is it of theirs? I don’t like the concept that Brain talks about where in our religion we have gone from,
Individual — God
priesthood/churchto a correlated effort that now goes, individual —- priesthood/church —- God.I call BS on this system. So I suppose that GB is right, and I’m sure that many LDS members would say that I am, “What we most likely do in situations where there is a moral dimension is to do a quick check off of “the rules”, figure out a way around the ones that we don’t care for and then do what we want.”
Once again, I reject the notion that the LDS church has the right to define what “sin” is according to the dictates and whims of who is leading the church at the time. Sure, I guess they have the right to define it and enforce it within the organization — but that doesn’t make it any more TRUE or REAL to me, just because the “authority figure” says so. And I don’t think this is a bad thing either —- it sounds exactly like the kind of thinking that made JS question the “Episcopalian” type authority to begin with. Only now that LDS members emulate their original leader and idol’s approach to religion — it is supposedly not okay, and it is heretical at best, and apostate at worse.
If one wants to use that formula than fine, but there are many many cultures and traditions that define “sin”, that are not healthy and should not be accepted. David Koresh is a good example. Unfortuanately not enough people used reason and the spirit to reject the tradition and culture and words of the authority to escape it in time. I don’t think the LDS culture is the David Koresh culture – but I really don’t think the membership should allow the leaders so much power to determine what is right and what is wrong with all these personal issue even when it goes against the individuals sense of reason and logic, and spirital line of communication (regardless of what Oaks might say about it).
This response really sticks out to me… cwald wrote:Sure, I guess they have the right to define it and enforce it within the organization — but that doesn’t make it any more TRUE or REAL to me, just because the “authority figure” says so.
That is a great way to put it.That is how I feel, EXACTLY!! Well, said, cwald. However I balance my view of what is TRUE or REAL to me with what the authorized leaders say, as a check that my personal revelation makes sense with the leadership revelation. It is a good check for me to keep me humble and to learn from others I respect. But ultimately, if I can’t make it make sense to me, I have to go with my own feelings. I will not follow blindly, and not let them make me feel guilty about it. If it means I never hold important callings…so be it…that is of no consequence to me. I think my feeling, cwald, is that things are just not so cut and dry, even to the most devoted members of the church. You make it sound like a sin is a sip of coffee (which I agree with) and will damn my soul (which I disagree with). I think we
canhave things both ways because things are given to us in paradoxical form, and therefore have multiple things to consider. Life would be boring if it was cut and dry, list of do’s and don’ts, and that’s all that matters. If God’s purpose is the Salvation and Eternal Life of all His children (Moses 1:39), (which I think is church doctrine), and this thread is proposing that salvation is only about sin or no sin (lists of do’s and don’ts–which I don’t think is church doctrine), that is a very limited plan, IMO. I reject that. I think there is more to it than that. I think it includes sin and judgment and accountability, but God’s purposes go way beyond it being all about sin or not about sin. It truly is about what we become, not only what we did.
Please read this article from the Church website (link below). I think it shows how even the most devout leaders go through these same questions, and concede there is more to the subject than just obedience or sin. Therefore, I’m confident in saying I think one can sip coffee, and still be right with God…because ultimately, it comes down to a personal thing between God and the individual…the church just tries to help that process.
http://lds.org/ensign/1980/01/journey-toward-righteousness?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://lds.org/ensign/1980/01/journey-toward-righteousness?lang=eng Journey Toward RighteousnessFwiw, I see a huge difference between command and counsel relative to sin. WofW is one thing; tithing is another, imo; wearing garments is a very different thing; two sets of earrings doesn’t even come close to being sin, I believe – and I think even Pres. Hinckley would agree with that. This points to what I said initially for myself – that
sin for me is whatever I understand it to be. Mistakes I make because I don’t understand are labeled as transgressions, and transgressions from ignorance are “redeemed” through the Atonement. The “theology of Mormonism” is quite expansive and inclusivist in that regard, even if many of its members are not – cetainly more so than the theologies of other Christian denominations. I think cwald and DA and GB and I see this quite similarly – if not exactly the same. That is interesting. Not very many members would phrase it the way I do all by themselves, but I’m convinced many would if I had a chance to sit down with them one-on-one and explain in detail what I mean when I say that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.