• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

LDS Free Agency

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Phoebe Ann, Feb 16, 2011.

  1. skylark1

    skylark1 In awesome wonder

    +230
    Christian
    If I remember correctly, the reason why I though that LDS believed that Adam and Eve were not accountable was because of what at least one LDS poster has stated here. Unfortunately those comments cannot be viewed as they were in the old LDS forum, and my request for that forum to be viewable has been met with silence. IIRC, it was also stated that the reason why LDS consider Adam and Eve eating the fruit to be a transgression rather than a sin, was because they did not know good and evil. I had not heard befor that it was due to the act itself not being inherently wrong.


    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure if your last comment is logical.


    When I brought up those who chose to rebel with Satan (according to LDS theology), I wasn't really concerned with the present but with the time that they chose to do so, the war in heaven, their expulsion and condemnation.
     
  2. TasteForTruth

    TasteForTruth Half-truths are lies wearing makeup

    +25
    Mormon
    Married
    Well they didn't have a comprehension of evil. That is true. And they had no comprehension of "good" either. But they did have a comprehension of choice and obedience and consequence. And therein lies their accountability.

    I think Elder Oaks talked about the distinction between sin and transgression in GC a while back. No time to look for it now, but it's there.

    (I have heard other members say that they didn't believe Adam and Eve were accountable. It is probably a common belief. Erroneous, to be sure, but likely common. Not sure where they get that from, though. Maybe they take the "little children" comparison too far)

    Sorry. I was just trying to point out that even when one's accountability is suspended or the choices one is presently making have no moral bearing, those two conditions in and of themselves do not necessarily mean one does not have moral agency. (It was asked if accountability were an indicator (as in absolute) of moral agency. Yes, but not always. That's what that was trying to convey.)

    I understand. That comment was intended to add comprehension to the idea i'd previously expressed—about moral agency and accountability. Don't worry about it at this point, especially if you cannot find a logical connection.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  3. skylark1

    skylark1 In awesome wonder

    +230
    Christian
    Is this that you what you were thinking of?
    This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

    Dallin H. Oaks, "“The Great Plan of Happiness”", Ensign, Nov. 1993, 72 ​
     
  4. TasteForTruth

    TasteForTruth Half-truths are lies wearing makeup

    +25
    Mormon
    Married
    Yeah, that was the talk I was thinking of. I think it's worth pointing out that the distiction he draws between sin and transgression applies most specifically to the fall, and that it will not usually be applicable in other places where the word "transgression" is used. In fact, if memory serves, Elder Oaks also spoke about sin and transgression in GC at some other time, giving the nuances between the two (to whatever extent there are any) a little more coverage. I could be wrong, but I think it was Oaks.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  5. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Guest

    +0
    So, it appears to me that Mormonism now draws an ultra-fine distinction between sin and transgression only with the Fall, and not in other cases, Is this correct?
     
  6. alfonsobonetti

    alfonsobonetti Newbie

    334
    +3
    Mormon
    Single
    Not sure what gave you that idea, but no that is not correct.
    Life itself is full of sin and transgression.
     
  7. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Guest

    +0
    Is sin one definite thing in contradistinction to transgression or are they synonymous with each other?
     
  8. alfonsobonetti

    alfonsobonetti Newbie

    334
    +3
    Mormon
    Single
    Sin is transgression but not all transgressions are sin.
     
  9. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Guest

    +0
    Could you give me an example from the Bible in which there is a particular transgression that is clearly stated not to be a sin?