The Atonement: Sin, Transgression and Accountability

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.

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 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.

I 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 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 and shouldn't incur the same penalty when something about the circumstances surrounding the actions is different.

"Many Questions Must Await a Future Answer": The Case of Homosexuality

I don't believe that all people who end up in homosexual relationships are hard-wired biologically for that. I understand enough about the research on human sexuality and know too many homosexuals who had traumatic experiences that influenced greatly their choices and/or actions to believe sexual orientation is predestined at birth for all. Boys who are sexually abused in their childhood by a male are more likely to be abusers of other boys when they are adults; women who are abused by men are more likely to turn to other women for comfort, support and sexual fulfillment; etc. I understand those "environmental" forces and their effects on sexuality.

However, I also know WAY too many homosexual people who lived completely normal lives without any trauma, "indoctrination" (which I really don't like using regarding a topic like this, since it's a standard charge that means, in practical terms, "teaching something to children that I don't believe") or other environmental influences. I've known too many people who have known only sexual attraction to those of the same sex from the days of their earliest awareness of sexual attraction - and many who have tried to change that aspect of themselves without any success whatsoever. For them, like for me, trying to change their sexual attraction from one sex to another is useless; it simply can't be done.

Thus, I believe the following statements in the Church's latest pamphlet about same-sex attraction ("God Loveth His Children":

Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.

However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life

.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings.

It also is interesting that the pamphlet does not use the word "repent" or "sin" once when dealing with homosexual attraction. Rather, it talks about such attraction often lasting throughout one's entire life and speaks of "self-mastery" - not "change". That is a critical word choice.  It is obvious that the Church no longer views homosexual attraction itself as sin, which translates into the belief that homosexual attraction is not a conscious choice in many cases.

All other issues aside, I believe that foundational understanding is key. Yes, there are environmental forces at work in many cases, but there are genetic forces at work in many others. I have come to this understanding partly through the research, but a more important part of my understanding was gained by talking openly and deeply with those about whom this post is addressed - and the ultimate realization came from multiple people who asked me, point-blank, if I could change my own sexual orientation if I tried hard enough - if I "only had more faith". I couldn't, and the very assertion that I should evokes a powerful oppositional reaction within me. In that sense, I "get it" - and I understand why many people hear someone say that they weren't "born that way" and feel like such statements are a direct attack on them and their honesty and sincerity. It is very much like saying, "That's not true. You are lying - or deceived." They aren't lying, and they aren't deceived. They simply are being honest about what they feel and, in many cases, always have felt.

So, for me, the "solution" to this type of discussion is to recognize the truth of the Church's first statement I excerpted and posted above:

Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.

I'm fine with doing my best to understand what I can in this life while admitting openly that many questions must await future answers. 

Having said all of that, I also need to make it clear that there are parts of the pamphlet I have excerpted and parts of the general view of homosexuality within the LDS Church with which I do not agree.  I also need to make it clear that we do NOT need to await further light and knowledge regarding this topic only "in the next life" - that we are learning much in this life and must be open to continuing that learning, both religiously AND scientifically. 

Transgression and Sin Are Very Different Things - and Victims Commit Neither

"transgress" -- "err, trespass, contravene, disobey."

We use the word too much in the Church to mean "disobey" as an active verb, but there are plenty of cases where there is no disobedience involved - and changing the definition choice to "contravene" and the verb from active to passive changes the meaning dramatically for victims.

"be transgressed" -- "put into error; contravened; not be obeyed"

This usage focuses solely on the law itself and says nothing more than that a standard has not been followed.

"transgression" -- a breach of a law, etc; sin or crime

We use the word too often to mean "sin" or "crime", but the way we use both "sin" and "transgression" in the 2nd Article of Faith doesn't allow them to be conflated. Thus, the only workable meaning for "transgression" left is "a breach of law" - which, in legal terms, doesn't equal "a crime" in many situations.

When I talk about transgression and transgress, I am talking about instances where a law has been breached but no crime (or sin) has been committed by the victim. There is a perpetrator of a crime (a sinner), and there is the person upon whom the crime or sin is committed.  In such a case, it is impossible for the person who is present but not the perpetrator of the breach (particularly the victim) to "commit a transgression". The only people who can commit transgressions are those who are the primary perpetrators of the breach but also are not capable of understanding that their actions are illegal / immoral.

For example, in the case of rape, that would be someone who is mentally disabled following the directions of someone else or following nothing more than biological urges. They would be "transgressors", but their victims still would not be.

I use rape to explain this principle, because rape might be the best example of how we too often misunderstand this principle.  Rape victims have not sinned, nor have they been transgressors.  Others have sinned or transgressed.  The victims remain clean and pure (unspotted and unstained) - and that is crucial to emphasize.

Why It's Important to Rank Sins - and the Danger of Doing So: More on Alma 39:5

[Two years ago, I wrote a post entitled, "Sexual Sins Are NOT Next to Murder".  As a follow-up to that post, I want to add some more detail about why I do believe in ranking sins - as well as the danger of doing so.] 

I think it is important to “rank” sins – at least broadly, especially as an attempt to avoid the type of misreading I believe occurs in the common interpretation of Alma 39:5. I don’t like it when it becomes Pharisaical and ends up being an excuse to commit less serious sins or elaborate innumerable sins, but I think it actually is extremely important to be able to see distinctions in degrees of sin.

To use crime as an example, if someone points a gun at me, I want to be able to say, “Take everything I have, but if you pull that trigger you are committing a MUCH worse crime that doesn’t need to be committed to get what you want.” More fundamentally, some sins really are more serious than others – and I can’t fathom a reasonable argument against that statement.

The most important reason to rank sins, for me, is to be able to discuss what truly is sin and what might not be sin – to avoid an unthinking condemnation of some things that don’t deserve condemnation. Please don’t read any specific thing into that statement. I don’t mean it to be about any particular issue; I just mean to point out that lots of things that are cultural end up being classified as sinful by those who simply don’t understand and are appalled on an instinctive, gut level.

I think we classify way too much currently in our culture as sinful that isn’t, and having an initial conversation around seriousness of sin is a good starting point for that broader conversation. 

Further, it is important to understand that there is a difference between likening all things to ourselves and interpreting what the passage actually said and to whom it actually was addressed. Alma 39 was addressed to one person. It wasn’t speaking to men or women or any other group of people. That’s obvious, but it’s important – since likening it to ourselves, in this instance, changes radically the meaning.

Finally, I think it’s important to remember that Alma did NOT write / engrave these words into a book of scripture, onto metal plates. Alma 35 was written by Mormon, and verse 16 says:

“Therefore [because he was grieved for the iniquity of his people - vs. 15], he [Alma] caused that his sons should be gathered together, that he might give unto them every one his charge, separately, concerning the things pertaining unto righteousness. And we have an account of his commandments, which he gave unto them according to his own record.”

In other words, Mormon had access to Alma’s record of what he told his sons. Alma didn’t write what he told his sons as part of his scriptural record. It was included as scripture by Mormon in his abridgement of all of the records to which he had access. Alma apparently recorded what would become Alma 36-42 in his own diary – or priestly record – or letters to his sons recording what he had told them verbally – or something else like that.

Interestingly, the chapter heading to 39 starts with, “Sexual sin is an abomination” – NOT, “Sexual sin is next to murder in seriousness.” All that means is that such an interpretation is merely that – an interpretation, not “scriptural” in and of itself. 

To summarize, I believe in the need to understand varying levels of sin - to "rank" sin, in a real way.  I just believe we walk multiple dangerous paths in the process, so we should be very, very cautious about the conclusions we reach in doing do.

What Is Sin?: The Case of the 9/11/2001 World Trade Center Bombers

My own definition of sin is, basically, the definition in James 4:17.

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

In other words, it's not doing something I "know" 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 or controlling my temper 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 I believe is the "pure Mormonism" definition of how we are judged.

We really aren't judged against a universal standard that is easily defined and exactly the same in all particulars. 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 World Trade Center 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.  In other words, I can't say for certain that they "knew to do good" in that regard and acted against such knowledge. 
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:

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Different People Need Different Messages Delivered in Different Ways

If there is one part of our Mormon "culture" I would smash to pieces in a heartbeat if I could, it is the idea that we have to be "perfect" (meaning mistake free) or constantly focused on our mistakes.  I believe in repentance deeply, but, as I've said elsewhere, there are two aspects of repentance: the redeeming one that covers our sins and the enabling one that covers our weaknesses and unconscious transgressions and so much that causes so many such grief. 

The idea that we really are good enough but simply need to try to do a little better as we go through life was one of Pres. Hinckley's central messages. Unfortunately, for those who naturally have a perfection complex (which is a fairly good-sized percent of all groups) - and for those who had a distorted version of perfection pounded into them (which includes many members of the Church) . . . it can be hard to believe the magnitude of what Christ has done for us already.

It really is a balance, however - and it's really easy for many people to overlook that. People collectively tend to gravitate to the extremes ("The Church is a soulless cult" vs. "All is well in Zion" - or "I am fine just the way I am, thank you, so quit telling me I need to try to be better" vs. "I'm a horrible person and never will be good enough" - etc.) - so teaching a message that works to motivate people at both extremes and everywhere in between them is really hard.

Frankly, I think that's one reason why different apostles and Prophets have different personalities and perspectives - so everyone can hear someone "speak to them personally". For example, in General Conference this weekend, there were multiple talks about obedience and keeping the commandments - but each person addressed that principle in different ways.  I really loved one of them, was somewhat ambivalent about another one and just didn't "feel" a third one much at all.  I know that bothers some people, but I appreciate it - even when I hear something that just doesn't move me in any real way or even grates to some degree.  There also were multiple statements in General Conference that stressed the importance of accepting others who are different than we are, and it was applied to people both inside and outside the LDS Church.  What moves us through "the spoken word" is part of that. 

It makes it hard for people to listen to someone preaching to "the others" - but, at least, the others do get to hear their message, as well. It's when someone is in the group that hears "the other message" more often than "my message" that it gets most difficult.

Recognizing that both messages are being taught, conflicting though they might be, helps.

For All Have Sinned and Come Short of the Glory of God

 Someone once told me the following:

When we view others as sinners, we subconsciously avoid them.

I know the following is saying the same things ultimately, but I would change the above quote to say:

We avoid others when we stop seeing ourselves as sinners.

Sexual Sins Are NOT Next to Murder

I think the whole "sexual sins are next to murder" idea is a flawed interpretation of the passage in Alma from which the idea is taken.  I believe sexual sins are serious - and many of them are extremely serious, but, as a general, all-encompassing category or in every particular instance, I believe they are not next to murder as the third most serious sins possible to commit.  (The first is denying the Holy Ghost.) 


This is what Alma 39: 2-5,13 actually says, with my own bolding for emphasis:

2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.
4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
13 . . . that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly . . .

So, Corinaton did all of the following:

A) Boasted in his own strength, thus denying God and God's place in his ministry (seriously not good - of the highest order, almost);

B) Forsook his ministry (seriously not good - right up there in seriousness);

C) Consorted with a harlot - while serving as a missionary (seriously not good - pretty high up on the list of sexual sins, given his calling at the time);

D) Led others away from the Church of his father and caused them to sin and "do wickedly" (seriously not good).

Alma 
Alma said, "THESE things are an abomination" - not "THIS thing".    

[It is important to note that, as far as we know, the "worst" sexual sin Corianton probably committed was "fornication" - since we have no indication that he was married at the time of the mission in question.  He might have been, but that is not specified anywhere in the account.  Further, since all we actually have in the record is that he went after a harlot, we don't even know for sure that he committed fornication.  Also, Jesus is quoted as having taught that the abuse of children is so serious that it would be better for an abuser to have never been born than to commit such a sin.  Finally, in our own day, there is a clear distinction made between the "seriousness" of fornication and of adultery - so it's not even fair to say that Corianton was guilty of the "worst" sexual sin in the account recorded in Alma 39.]  

Remember, this is Alma the Younger - someone who would know exactly how abominable it is to actively lead others away from God.   He was racked with the pains of Hell for three days over very similar actions - at least in his own eyes, I'm sure. 

In fact, as Andy pointed out in one of the comments on this thread, Alma 36:14 explains how Alma felt about his own actions:

Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

I don't believe it was sexual sin that Alma labeled as next to murder; I think it was the entire enormity of the multiple things Corianton had done - that was close to spiritual murder, in a very real way, in his father's eyes.  I believe Alma carried a degree of guilt over his youthful actions to his grave, based on other passages in his writings, and I think it tore him up inside to see one of his sons straying onto the same path he had walked in his youth.  

I think that is critical, and it gets overlooked when most people read the account without parsing the actual words carefully.

What Does It Mean to Be "Blameless" in How We Walk Before God?

In the previous two New Year's Resolution Posts this month, I wrote about walking (not running or sitting) before God and walking "before God".  In this post, I want to share some thoughts about walking "blamelessly" before God. 

In the context of the usage in Alma 5, "blame" is defined as:

responsibility for anything deserving of censure

"Censure" is defined as:

strong or vehement expression of disapproval

Thus, walking "blamelessly" before God means walking in such a way that God will not strongly or vehemently disapprove. 

Two things struck me as I initially defined the central words and reached the defintion above - one which I have understood for a long time and one that was completely new to me. 

The one I have understood for a long time deals with the nature of the Atonement and my understanding of the difference between "sin" and "transgression".  Essentially, God does not disapprove strongly or vehemently of our best efforts to act according to the dictates of our own consciences.  In fact, I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we will not be punished for the things we do as a direct result of the Fall - which, in this case, include transgressions of eternal law we commit out of ignorance or as a result of things we simply can't control.  If we do not choose consciously to do things that are contrary to our best understanding of what we believe God wants of us, those actions are paid for through the Atonement of Jesus, the Christ - and I believe the magnitude of those things for which we have been redeemed already is MUCH larger than most people realize. 

The second thing that struck me was not new in theory, as it is something I have believed for a long time, but it was new to me in the context of walking blamelessly before God.  It really is just a re-statement of the first one I just explained, but I think it is important to phrase it the way it came to my mind.  It is:

God does not expect us to walk "perfectly", nor does he expect us to walk without stumbling and falling and getting skinned up in the process.  He simply asks us to avoid those things of which he would disapprove "strongly" or "vehemently".

 

The best example I can give is how I view my own desires for my children.  I expect them to make mistakes in their lives.  In fact, I believe that is the only way they will learn many important lessons in life - by experiencing the opposition that must needs be and failing occasionally (or more than occasionally, if they are like me).  I am not about to react strongly or vehemently to the vast majority of mistakes they make.  However, there are some things they might do to which I would react strongly or vehemently.  Those things are so serious in my eyes that I would go outside my normal principle of teaching correct principles and watching them govern themselves to actively begging them to stop. 

The thing that struck me is that there really are relatively few things that fit that category that I believe are "universally accepted", but, even with my own children, the underlying principle would be things that violate their own consciences.  Thus, the things toward which I would react strongly or vehemently in relation to one child would differ somewhat from the things that would cause the same reaction in relation to another child - assuming I know my children well enough as differing individuals to understand what and how much they understand about the things they believe and the choices they make. 

I can't "blame" them for things they do out of ignorance, and I refuse to "blame" them for things they do with which I disagree simply because I disagree - as long as I believe they are acting in accordance with their own understanding and conscience.  Most importantly, the list of things they might do that would bring my strong and vehement disapproval and cause me to "blame" and "censure" them is much shorter than many people probably think. 

What I gained this week from my contemplation of this concept of walking "blamelessly" before God is that the assignment of blame rests with GOD, not with us - and that, in my opinion, that assignment will be based MUCH more on how well we walk in accordance to the dictates of our own consciences than on the exact steps we take in our walk before God.

Sin, Transgression, Repentance: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

As a follow-up to yesterday's post and Matthew's comment on it: 

In the purest scriptural sense, I view "transgression" as everything that keeps us from becoming like God. I believe many of those things are the natural result of "the Fall" - or, in other words, are the by-product of Adam's transgression. I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we have been redeemed / saved from many of those things already, since we didn't choose them willfully.

I view "sin", on the other hand, as those things we intentionally choose to do (or not do) that keep us from becoming like God - knowing or believing that we need to do (or not do) them to become like God. I view "repentance" as the process of trying to change our nature and become more Godlike - so, at the most basic level, I view sin as NOT trying to repent (change). To me, it's really not more complicated than that.

I believe sin generally is defined communally by those who want to tell others what to do and not do for the overall good of the collective group (and I have no problem with that general concept, even as I believe much of what is considered to be collective sin is somewhat arbitrary and not "eternal law"), but I believe sin is defined by God on an individually sliding scale - since He is the only one who can look upon the neurology, heredity, environment, societal norms, intelligence, spiritual sensitivity, etc. of each child and know exactly what that child is capable of doing - and what actions are willful rebellion vs. ignorant transgression - proactive vs. reactive - simple correction vs. deeply ingrained inclination - honest mistake vs. intentional error - etc.

In other words, I believe that what is "sin" for me might not be "sin" for another individual (although it all is transgression) - and that there are VERY few things that are "sin" for every single individual in every single situation (rather than sin for one and transgression for another or sin in one situation vs. command in another).  Perhaps the best example of this in all of our recorded scriptures is Nephi and Laban. 

A modern example is also instructive:

Did each and every person who participated in the attacks on 9/11/01 commit sin in doing so - or were the actions of one or more accounted to them as transgression, given their upbringing and youthful indoctrination? I don't know - and I don't take time or spend effort trying to decide.

I believe that "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is MUCH more universal than many people think - and that our 2nd Article of Faith is MUCH more powerful than even most members realize.

The Difference Between Sin and Transgression is Critical

I always have understood "sin" to be different than "transgression". "Transgression" is the broad, umbrella category of "going beyond or overstepping some boundary or limit" - in religious terms, of breaking a commandment. "Sin", otoh, is a subset of transgression where one understands a commandment and consciously chooses to break it. Therefore, a young child can transgress without sinning; a Catholic can transgress the Word of Wisdom without sinning; my retarded cousin can transgress without sinning; etc.

At the most basic level, every person transgresses and every person who is capable of understanding the validity of a limit / law / commandment sins. We all do things we know we shouldn't do, and we all don't do things we know we should do. The trick, imo, is knowing what things we really are capable of doing - so we know what constitutes sin for ourselves as individuals.

The best example, again, is my retarded cousin - or someone with severe dementia. Some things that are sin for me are transgressions for him. However, most (if not all) of us are not fully aware of our own "hidden disabilities" - so we are not fully aware of what actually is within our control and what is not. Therefore, all we can do is our best to understand ourselves and strive to develop the characteristics of godliness that will eliminate our weaknesses that cause our sins and transgressions.

We have been told that we will not be punished for the natural transgressions we commit simply as a result of the Fall (our actions we don't consciously choose, like the words my friend utters in the throes of her bi-polar disorder or my mom's actions when her "sleeping pills" no longer worked), as a reward for the pre-existent choice we made to accept Jehovah as our Lord and Savior and Redeemer. (Iow, we won't end up worse off as a result of our birth than we would have if we had never been born.) We also are told that our sins (incorrect *choices*) can be forgiven *as long as we accept the Lord's redemption and strive to become like Him and our Father*. The promised forgiveness of our transgressions gave us access to a degree of glory; the offered forgiveness of our sins gives us hope for a fullness of glory. The first (forgiveness of transgression) places us above Lucifer and his followers; the second (forgiveness of sin) opens the possibility of being a joint-heir with Christ.

I believe the Restored Gospel we currently teach broadens the gray and shrinks the black and white dramatically - particularly compared to most Protestant denominations. The black and white still exist, but most of us live and learn and struggle in the gray - forever fighting to see and understand and live correctly whatever constitutes the "true" black and white. I believe our church more clearly defines the ultimate objective FAR better than any other of which I am aware and gives us access to more light and knowledge than any other of which I am aware, but I also believe we still "see through a [grayish] glass darkly" - much more than many "black-and-white-ists" believe.

My concern over the distinction comes from seeing so many people who feel "guilty" for their naturally inherited weakness - the things that lead them to transgress - as if they were sinning simply because they couldn't overcome totally that inherited weakness. They have been told so often that "any mistake is sin" that they beat themselves up continually over what amounts simply to being human. They can't recognize that Jesus already has paid that price for them - that "the truth will make you free" in that particular way - that they can "cast those burdens at His feet" and simply look for ways to change without debilitating guilt over how hard it is and how long it takes.