Transgression vs. Sin


Recommended Posts

This is something in my research I have just come across, and wanted more detail on.

What is the LDS definition of 'sin'? In what ways are sins different than transgressions?

On a similar note: do they LDS hold to a belief in there being different types or levels of sin? And how does a person in the LDS church go about in repentance and forgiveness of sins? (I've heard that some sins must be confessed to a bishop. Is this true?)

Okay, also, something that is... kind of related, but maybe not... I have frequently seen Mormons praying with their arms crossed over their chests. Are Mormons taught in church to pray in this manner? Is there a specific reason for it? I've frequently seen this and just never asked; but it's one way I think is easy to pick a Mormon out of a crowd or picture: they frequently pray with heads bowed and arms across the chest. I'm just curious about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sin" is willful violation of God's commandments. Technically speaking, "transgression" is any violation of God's commandments. Thus we have John's formula: Sin is transgression of the law. Where there is no law, there is no sin.

I suspect you are referring specifically to the transgression of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, as recorded in Genesis. Many LDS leaders and members have tried to make the argument that Adam and Eve's transgression somehow was not sin, because they were not capable of willful disobedience. In my opinion, the scriptures teach quite clearly that this is not the case, and that the act was a sin in any regular sense of the word. In any event, the consequences that befell Adam and Eve (physical and spiritual death) certainly are those associated with sin. But on this matter, we have only the highly stylized portrait given in Genesis. These symbols are not clear or specific enough to allow us to determine our first parents' level of culpability. Suffice it to say that Adam and Eve fell, as they must have done, and that they are revered by Latter-day Saints as among the greatest of all who have walked on this sphere.

I understand that Catholicism divides sins into "venial" and "mortal". LDS doctrine is perhaps similar in some respects; we believe that all sins are forgivable through sincere repentance (and thus "venial" in Catholic terminology) except for denial of the Holy Ghost, through which one consciously, willfully, and permanently separates himself from God. That no repentance from such an act can be obtained should be obvious from the nature of what is being done.

As for folding one's arms across one's chest: We are taught to be reverent when we pray and to assume a "reverent posture", including bowed heads, closed eyes, and folded hands or arms. We often encourage our children to "fold their arms", as it seems to prevent distractions from moving around. But there is nothing particularly significant in the act of folding one's arms, at least not that I'm aware of.

EDIT: As for confession, you confess your sins to God and to those you have offended. That is all. The exception is when you have sinned with actions of such gravity that your very membership in the kingdom of God (aka the Church) or ability to participate worthily therein is jeopardized. In such a case, you need to talk with your bishop and/or stake president to rectify your standing in the Church. In concept, it is somewhat different from the spiritual cleansing of repentance, but in practice the two are closely related and tightly bound. Such grave transgressions include sex outside of marriage; murder; abuse of another, especially spouse or child; apostasy; criminal activity; and probably some other things I'm not remembering at the moment. It's not a long list, but it does include things that, sadly, are all too common among people today, even the Saints.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have frequently seen Mormons praying with their arms crossed over their chests. Are Mormons taught in church to pray in this manner?

I'm not sure when it started but often primary children are taught to fold their arms to help them be reverent, it keeps their hands and arms from finding something interesting to mess with. I think from this it kind of just carries over into prayer. It's a cultural peculiarity that has even made it into the primary manuals: Primary 1: I Am a Child of God Lesson 4: I Can Pray to Heavenly Father

Is there a specific reason for it?

There is no doctrinal reason no, for non-doctrinal reasons see above. Personally I tend to clasp my hands together not fold my arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is kinda funny... I've always prayed with my hand over my chest palms together, sometimes with my fingers straight, sometimes with my fingers folded depending on the gravity of what I'm asking God for, LOL. Most of my Catholic family prays like this. I don't know if this is a Catholic thing (I don't see Catholics in America doing this too much) or just a Filipino thing.

So, now my kids grow up in Primary, they see me praying like this and they comment - "Mom is saying a Catholic prayer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: As for confession, you confess your sins to God and to those you have offended. That is all. The exception is when you have sinned with actions of such gravity that your very membership in the kingdom of God (aka the Church) or ability to participate worthily therein is jeopardized. In such a case, you need to talk with your bishop and/or stake president to rectify your standing in the Church. In concept, it is somewhat different from the spiritual cleansing of repentance, but in practice the two are closely related and tightly bound. Such grave transgressions include sex outside of marriage; murder; abuse of another, especially spouse or child; apostasy; criminal activity; and probably some other things I'm not remembering at the moment. It's not a long list, but it does include things that, sadly, are all too common among people today, even the Saints.

Additionally some things get confessed that do not necessarily need to be confessed when people seek counsel from their Bishop. If one is seeking his spiritual guidance in overcoming sin through the atonement often times some amount of confession is going to take place so the advice can be targeted. I imagine mainstream Christian ministers are also party to this type of confession as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses!

About prayer: personally, when I pray at home/in the car/alone I don't do anything with my hands... I just bow my head and close my eyes and pray (or just pray in my head if I'm doing something I can't close my eyes for). But in Mass I pray the entire Mass with my hands together, fingers down and intertwined, right below my chest. I've seen some (very devout?) Catholics say Mass like this too, with their hands folded at their chests or right below. The only people I've ever seen have the stance in Vort's picture are the priests/deacons/altar servers.

There's actually been some "controversy" going around the Catholic spere about how to pray the Our Father during Mass. A lot of people either hold hands with their neighbors, or hold their hands up at their sides. Apparently this isn't really what the Church wants us to do... which is sad, because I liked holding my hands out, but now I refrain. Oh well.

On to sins: I actually wasn't thinking of the Fall at all, but it is interesting that you bring it up, Vort. I had just heard that LDS view sins and transgressions differently, and wanted some explanation.

When someone needs to speak with a bishop about their sins... what does the conversation entail? Does the bishop forgive the sins of the sinner? Or do they simply try to work out why the person is sinning and how they can overcome? Is there any type of penance that is given out for certain sins that a person would need to do in order to be made worthy again to perform church duties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only God can forgive sin. The bishop is not authorized to extend forgiveness. However, the bishop is the "common judge in Israel" and has the authority to determine that person's status in the Church. He also has the authority and duty to receive revelation regarding what that person must do in order to repent of his sin(s) and restore his status in the Church.

This may sound similar to Catholic penance, but my impression is that there is a different underlying attitude. Self-mortification plays no part at all in the LDS theology of repentance. We must do our best to make up for the injuries we have caused others through sinning. Past that, we must turn our hearts to God and turn away from our sins. The Dantesque Purgatory of suffering as a method of showing God how sorry you are for your sins, or of somehow paying some divine price of humiliation and pain to make up for your sins, is almost entirely absent from the Latter-day Saint mindset.

What does the conversation entail? I have never been a bishop, so I have never been privy to any such conversation. But I imagine it's very straightforward, if tender and difficult: The person sits with the bishop and tells him (the bishop) about what they've done, what sins they feel they've commited, and so forth. It's a conversation with the bishop, and can extend for week, months, or in some cases even years.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone needs to speak with a bishop about their sins... what does the conversation entail? Does the bishop forgive the sins of the sinner?

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

Is there any type of penance that is given out for certain sins that a person would need to do in order to be made worthy again to perform church duties?

Things like scriptural, inspiring books, or church articles could be given as reading assignments, or being held accountable for behavior (for instance if one has a pornography problem the Bishop may require you abstain from pornography for X amount of time) might be the closest thing to penance in the form of assignments (and obviously in the pornography example it's not like you're free to return to it after that time). Ultimately the penance required for forgiveness (from the Lord and subsequent judgement by the Bishop as being worthy) is a broken heart and a contrite spirit, any assignment or penance has that as it's goal.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in Mass I pray the entire Mass with my hands together, fingers down and intertwined, right below my chest.

Actually, when I "fold my hands", I typically do more of a thumbs-out Gable grip. Sometimes I intertwine my fingers. Most often in Church, I hold my wife's hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also has the authority and duty to receive revelation regarding what that person must do in order to repent of his sin(s) and restore his status in the Church.

I have heard this before, but am confused as to what exactly it means: what does it mean to receive revelation as the LDS understand it? Is this something like praying and receiving an answer?

This may sound similar to Catholic penance, but my impression is that there is a different underlying attitude. Self-mortification plays no part at all in the LDS theology of repentance. We must do our best to make up for the injuries we have caused others through sinning. Past that, we must turn our hearts to God and turn away from our sins. The Dantesque Purgatory of suffering as a method of showing God how sorry you are for your sins, or of somehow paying some divine price of humiliation and pain to make up for your sins, is almost entirely absent from the Latter-day Saint mindset.

Yes, it seems to me that there's a significant difference in the LDS/Catholic view of confession. For Catholicism, it is a Sacrament. Grace is bestowed upon us through it, and we are turned away from sin and toward God.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "self-mortification," if you are meaning it in a more drastic way, or if you simply mean doing penance. Penance is usually pretty easy to do, actually... well, it is for me, so I must not be committing very horrible sins. I do not view either penance or Purgatory as suffering to show God how sorry we are for our sins... that isn't penance, that's contrition. Which we must also have in order to be absolved of our sins, but is different than penance. Penance is simply a reconciliation for our sins; we misbehaved and must be punished, as any loving father would punish his children for disobedience. Penance is how we reconcile our bad choices.

It seems that the LDS mindset is more toward the Protestant mindset: be sorry, ask God for forgiveness, be forgiven, try not to do the sin again. Would that be a correct assessment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think I might have misrepresented myself. Sorry. I'm coming from a Catholic background, so when I say that the bishop/priest forgives sins, I don't really mean that *he* forgives sins, but that God does *through* him. It's easier to say that the pries/bishop forgives sins, but is probably too confusing/misleading, so I'll refrain from saying that again.

So I guess that answers my question anyway, though: the LDS bishop is not given authority by the church, or God, to forgive sins in its, or His, name.

Ultimately the penance required for forgiveness (from the Lord and subsequent judgement by the Bishop as being worthy) is a broken heart and a contrite spirit, any assignment or penance has that as it's goal.

True. God delights in our contrition, because it leads us back to Him. That is the goal of Catholic Reconciliation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Hidden
Hidden

The Dantesque Purgatory of suffering as a method of showing God how sorry you are for your sins, or of somehow paying some divine price of humiliation and pain to make up for your sins, is almost entirely absent from the Latter-day Saint mindset.

Feeling sorrow for sins is one of the repentance priciples though.

The LDS Gospel Principles Chapter 19: Repentance

states the principles of repentance are: We must recognize our sins, we must feel sorrow for our sins, we must forsake our sins, we must confess our sins, we must make restitution, we must forgive others and we must keep the commandments of God.

I think God will take into consideration how sorry we feel for our sins.

Edited by Pegasus_
Link to comment

...

Okay, also, something that is... kind of related, but maybe not... I have frequently seen Mormons praying with their arms crossed over their chests. Are Mormons taught in church to pray in this manner? Is there a specific reason for it? I've frequently seen this and just never asked; but it's one way I think is easy to pick a Mormon out of a crowd or picture: they frequently pray with heads bowed and arms across the chest. I'm just curious about it.

Its traditional reverance. theres nothing says that we must pray in that manner specifically, the only real requirement for posture is being repectful and reverent. (If you read in the bible and book of mormon there were times you prayed laying down flat on the ground, which i can only say i've seen once used in my life, and thankfully no ashes were used at that instance).

However when doing priesthood ordinances such as baptism, there are definitely proscribed methods in how an individual does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is that Transgression is the major grouping of actions people do contrary to God's law, regardless of the reasonings.

Sin is a subset, where the person is knowledgeable of the law and choose to sin anyway.

Adam and Eve would be viewed as having transgressed the law, but not necessarily sinned, as they were innocent in the Garden and like little children would not have fully understood right from wrong. Small children, mentally retarded, and others would also be capable of transgression, but not necessarily sin.

Some sins do require confession to a Church leader (usually a bishop). While only Christ can forgive sins, the person may need to confess to the bishop for two reasons: First, so the bishop can help them in their repentance process and determine if the person is worthy to partake of the Sacrament/communion and other rites/covenants of the Church, and 2. to ensure that the good name of the Church is protected. Where a person has held high standing in the Church and then turns from his covenants (and perhaps the Church), it is necessary to have disciplinary councils to help the person repent and/or protect the person by removing the rebellious and unrepentant from the rolls of the Church.

Such sins that need to go to a bishop normally include sexual sin, wife/child abuse, sins that involve crime, and any addictive behaviors that go against Church commandments (drug use, etc). Minor sins usually do not need to be discussed with the Lord, unless the person feels he needs guidance and help to overcome a weakness.

Personally, I normally clasp my hands together when I pray. Much more comfortable for me, and I feel it helps me focus on the prayer more.

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shelly,

When Vort mentions self-mortification, I think he is considering some of the early Catholic monasteries, where self-flagellation and other forms of self-denial were used as a form of penance. You can see a modern extreme version of it in the movie/book Da Vinci Code, (which I agree is unnecessarily harsh on the Catholic Church. Bad theology, great movie thriller).

I believe the reason the Catholic Church has asked its parishioners to refrain from praying with arms outstretched is that it is distracting to the service. Yes, it is common in many evangelical religions, but the Catholic Church's mass is designed towards a quiet respect and symbolic form, and not the loud praising of evangelicals. Personally, I prefer the quiet and respectful Catholic form for its reverence and beauty.

Revelation normally comes via the Holy Spirit. It touches us in a variety of ways, emotionally and mentally. It places thoughts and feelings into us that guide us towards correct concepts, etc. I am a member of a stake high council. This is the leading council that works underneath a stake presidency (a stake is like a diocese). When we gather for a disciplinary council, it becomes an issue of love. We seek the Spirit to help us determine the sincerity of the individual, how much the person has sought forgiveness of the Lord and whether the Lord has fully forgiven him or not. We also try to determine whether the person's actions have caused injury to the Church or others, so as restitution can be worked. And we try to determine the things that can help the person to repent and avoid the sin in the future.

Depending on the complexity of the issue, I've sat in on councils that have lasted 5 hours in prayer, council and deliberation. We take the individual's needs for the atonement and forgiveness from the Lord seriously and want to ensure that our decision is in line with the Lord's desire. Only after the Lord has touched each of the 15 high priests involved (3 in the stake presidency and 12 in the high council) do we make the determination. It must be 100% agreed upon by all, and it always ends up that way, as we seek to have a common revelation together regarding the individual.

Some of our councils include restoring a person's membership and rights. I was in such a meeting Sunday morning for two hours. The individual had made serious sins in the past, but in his repentance had shown great progress. We all felt the Lord had forgiven him, and he is now a member in full fellowship: able to partake of the Sacrament, and prepare to be married to his wife in the temple later this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam and Eve would be viewed as having transgressed the law, but not necessarily sinned, as they were innocent in the Garden and like little children would not have fully understood right from wrong. Small children, mentally retarded, and others would also be capable of transgression, but not necessarily sin.

While I understand where this is coming from, I don't believe Adam and Eve were unaware of right and wrong. I believe they were innocent of the consequences of sin, but were aware of God's command, and that disobeying Him would be contrary to His law.

In a broader sense: to me, it should be enough to know that God has commanded to do, or not to do, something. We don't have to know the consequences of what will happen to us if we sin; all we need to know is what God wants, and then to do it.

I'm thinking of people who make a choice, and then when the consequences roll around say "If I had known I'd be punished like this I never would've disobeyed!" To me, this is a cop out. We should obey, because it's God. End of story. God commands, we obey. He doesn't have to reveal to us what He will do if we disobey Him; we should obey Him anyway.

However, in the case of Adam and Eve, it is clear that God told them if they ate of the forbidden tree, then they'd die. They knew there would be a consequence to their disobedience. So they weren't exactly completely innocent of right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Vort mentions self-mortification, I think he is considering some of the early Catholic monasteries, where self-flagellation and other forms of self-denial were used as a form of penance. You can see a modern extreme version of it in the movie/book Da Vinci Code, (which I agree is unnecessarily harsh on the Catholic Church. Bad theology, great movie thriller).

Ah yes, the DaVinci Code. I actually like that movie, and the sequel. Because I understand that is Fiction. However, I believe there are still people who perform self-mortification, just not to that extent. Usually, though, it is not as penance for sins. Instead it is used to remind the person of Christ and His Passion and suffering for us. We all do little things to bring some kind of "suffering" on ourselves in remembrance: fasting, extra prayer, giving things up for Lent, etc. Some people just go a step further and cause more physical pain to their bodies to remind them of Christ's suffering. To me, there is nothing wrong with this as long as it doesn't go too far; I believe some people still use the wires wrapped around their thighs to cause discomfort, but the wires are blunt and do not cut into the skin. I don't do this, but if it brings someone closer to Christ, I'm all for however an individual does his own private devotions.

However, this is the exception, not the norm. Most Catholics stick to Lenten fasts.

I believe the reason the Catholic Church has asked its parishioners to refrain from praying with arms outstretched is that it is distracting to the service. Yes, it is common in many evangelical religions, but the Catholic Church's mass is designed towards a quiet respect and symbolic form, and not the loud praising of evangelicals. Personally, I prefer the quiet and respectful Catholic form for its reverence and beauty.

That could very well be part of the reason, however most Catholic churches who have parishoners that raise their hands during the Our Father do not do so in an irreverant way. It is simple and quiet, and not bumbling or anything; they simply raise their hands at their sides as if lifting up their prayer to God. The main reason I have heard is that the GIRM does not recommend it for conformity reasons. All the parishoners should be doing the same actions during this time, so having some who raise hands and some who don't doesn't go well with the concept of Mass being unitive.

There are many conformity problems we're having in the Church right now though. Especially in the reception of the Holy Eucharist. Too many Americans are taking the exceptions being allowed in this country and making them the norm. I'm very new to the Church, but already think a revival of good catechesis is needed to inform members of what they *should* be doing over what they are sometimes *allowed* to do.

But that's a different topic altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I enjoyed Shelly's and Vorts comments about Adam & Eve. Adam & Eve knew they were commanded not to eat the fruit. If Adam was first tempted by Lucifer and rejected it saying "Father commanded me not to and I will not partake" that would be a good indicator that he, and Eve alike, knew they were disobeying a commandment but did it anyway. no one crammed the fruit down their throats so it was definitely willful. On another note, going along with a point Vort made, if transgression isn't sin then why were they cast out of the garden and separated from God? Does that mean the mentally retarded will be cast out of God's presence also? How is that just?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Adam and Eve transgressed the law of the Garden. To be within the Garden required a being to be immortal, which in Adam and Eve's instance would mean no children.

Adam saw the importance to obey God's law to not partake. However, Eve seems to have been thinking about having children and fulfilling the higher law. Understanding that there was "no other way" to achieve this, she partook of the fruit. Adam then also partook, understanding that the first law had been transgressed, and without Eve he could not fulfill the second law of multiplying.

In the Book of Moses, we see this difference of thinking in Adam and Eve. Once the angel explained to them that the sacrifice was done in similitude of Christ, Adam rejoiced saying that because of his transgression, he would resurrect again. However, Eve rejoiced because of their (our) transgression they would have eternal seed.

Why were they cast out of Eden for a transgression? Because Eden was not set up for mortals, and they would need to be mortals to bear children, etc. They were not cast out because they did something wicked. They were cast out simply because they no longer were compatible with that environment. Like tadpoles turning into frogs, their gills turned into lungs, and so they needed to adapt to a new environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Examples:

1 Corinthians 15:50

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

Galatians 1:16

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

Genesis 2:23

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

Luke 24:39

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

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

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

Edited by bytebear
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