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 unintentionally 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.
I believe there is absolute good and absolute bad - but I like James' definition of sin in his epistle: knowing to do good and not doing it.
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 are wrong in an objective
sense but are not understood to be wrong 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.
I also see a big difference between "wrong" and "sin" - and, like transgression, the central difference is intent and/or understanding.
think the best example in our theology (and law) is the case of
diminished capacity, especially with clear cases of 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
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 and shouldn't incur the same penalty when something about the circumstances surrounding the actions
“It Would Be Safer and Cause Less Suspicion”
3 hours ago