Transgression Vs Sin

[armedtotheteeth]

Are they one and the same? If so what are the scriptures to support this?
Are they different? If so what are the scriptures to support this?
Is transgressing the law the same are open rebellion against God; doctrinally?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Not the same. Transgressing the law is something we do all the time. You transgress the law of gravity in order to jump or fly. Not a sin necessarily. If however we transgress an express command, then only is it open rebellion. Transgressing laws like those concerning morality is of course sin. But to transgress these laws is not to openly rebel. We know that Adam partaking of the fruit was not a sin but was a transgression (he crossed over the law=my definition), it was not done in rebellion at all (because the choice & right was given him). He did it to fulfill the higher law. In fact I believe that miracles require transgression (though not by you or I neccesarily) because a miracle is simply a higher law overcoming a lower law, like the miracle of flight or of restored health, or water coming from a stone etc... In fact there is no "magic" only laws being put into better practice.

[Darren]

Sin is a Germanic word that literally means to See Not, to no longer see with your mind's eye.
In Spanish Sin means Without, without what, mental sight.

Evil is from the Germanic word Übel which means to step over the line, step off the path.
Transgression is from the Latin word Trānsgredī which means to step across.

So look at these words in this example of Nephi's Dream where there is the path leading to the tree.

If you are on the path and you get distracted and look away from the tree that is Sin.
But if you are on the path and you step off the path, to leave it, that is Evil or Transgression.

Sin is not the same thing as Transgression, different acts, sin is looking away while transgression is leaving the way.

Studying the dictionaries of many languages helps to find these things out.

God Bless,
Darren

[Original_Intent]

Not the same. Transgressing the law is something we do all the time. You transgress the law of gravity in order to jump or fly. Not a sin necessarily. If however we transgress an express command, then only is it open rebellion. Transgressing laws like those concerning morality is of course sin. But to transgress these laws is not to openly rebel. We know that Adam partaking of the fruit was not a sin but was a transgression (he crossed over the law=my definition), it was not done in rebellion at all (because the choice & right was given him). He did it to fulfill the higher law. In fact I believe that miracles require transgression (though not by you or I neccesarily) because a miracle is simply a higher law overcoming a lower law, like the miracle of flight or of restored health, or water coming from a stone etc... In fact there is no "magic" only laws being put into better practice.

Jumping or flying are not examples transgressing the law of gravity.

Adam and Even transgressed but did not sin because they did not have a knowledge of good and evil. They had been given a commandment, but could not sin because they were in a state of innocence, just like little kids can transgress the law without sin.

To choose evil over good knowingly is sin. To do so unknowingly is transgression. Obviously I disagree with your definitions, by your definition the atonement was a transgression as it was a higher law overcoming a lower law. You of course are free to define words however you want in your own mind but I don't think the proper definition of those words jive with your personal interpretation.

[clarkkent14]

Interesting Darren... also interesting to think of that in regards to Peter

22 ¶ And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to apray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And ain the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good acheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was aafraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little afaith, wherefore didst thou bdoubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

He looked away from Christ

[Darren]

Interesting Darren... also interesting to think of that in regards to Peter

22 ¶ And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to apray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And ain the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good acheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was aafraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little afaith, wherefore didst thou bdoubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

He looked away from Christ

Good example.

Looking away from Christ is sin. Joseph told Oliver, D&C 6: 36 "Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not." and that is why Oliver could not translate, he trusted in the arm of flesh understanding he had, he doubted.

It is our mind's eye and what it is, or is not, looking for that creates doubt, fear and sin.

We search for Christ by the light of the Holy Ghost. We "Always remember Him" with our mind's eye, in everything we do. That is pure faith.

Choosing to leave the path is Evil. Transgression is also leaving the path, but transgression is not necessarily looking away.

God Bless,
Darren

[ereves]

They say transgression = disobeying God's law without knowing it or without having a full understanding of it and that sin = disobeying God's law knowingly or willfully rebeling against God's law. So people transgress all the time but we won't be held accountable for those things, we will only be held accountable for our sins.

The way I see it though, defining these terms this way is just a helpful way to understand accountability, but the scriptures throw transgression and sin around interchangeably all the time. John basically nullifies the above distinction between sin and transgression.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

It reminds me of the definition of the Soul in the LDS church. We get so excited when we read D&C 88:15 that says, "the spirit and the body are the soul of man," that we forget that there are a lot of scriptures that refer to only the spirit as the soul. I would imagine that if we look at all the scriptures about sin and transgression we would see varying definitions by different prophets/apostles.

[ereves]

To continue with etymology...

The Hebrew word pesha was translated in the old testament as "transgression" 84 times, "trespass" 5, "sin" 3, and "rebellion" once. It comes from the root word pasha which means to rebel, transgress or revolt and is identical with the root word pasa which means to step, march, or step forward (consistent with the Germanic).

The Hebrew word for sin chatta'ah comes from the root chata' meaning to miss the mark, to miss the goal or path of right or duty. This brings even more insight into Lehi's dream and Nephi's interpretation because they spoke hebrew. When we sin, we miss the mark or the path and when we transgress we rebel and step off the path. I don't know if you can separate the two. It's also interesting that Jacob said, referring to the Jews, "Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall." He then talks about them stumbling. So the very meaning of the words deals with stepping forward and missing the path, when we do so we will undoubtedly stumble and fall. Very interesting.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

To choose evil over good knowingly is sin. To do so unknowingly is transgression.

Adam and Eve did know the law. My kids do know the law. They are incapable of reason sufficient to achieve wisdom and hence are not held accountable, but my kids knowingly choose evil over good frequently.
So what would you call Nephi cutting off Laban's head? Clearly he did so knowingly, but it wasn't sin. He did cross over the law (transgress it).

I'm willing to surrender my definition, but not for another flawed one.

[clarkkent14]

So what would you call Nephi cutting off Laban's head? Clearly he did so knowingly, but it wasn't sin. He did cross over the law (transgress it).

This is a tough one to touch upon.

If you read the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," then there is a problem.
Most translations read "Thou shalt not murder," http://bible.cc/exodus/20-13.htm

Big difference if you swap kill for murder. Did Nephi murder Laban? I think we would all agree the answer is no. It's about where your heart is...

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
Conversely Lamen and Lemuel, 1 Nephi 17:44 Wherefore, the Lord commanded my father that he should depart into the wilderness; and the Jews also sought to take away his life; yea, and bye also have sought to take away his life; wherefore, ye are murderers in your hearts and ye are like unto them.

Matt 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

There seems to be a connection with Murder, Secrecy (Secret Combinations), and the Heart.

5 But as many as there were who did not enter into a covenant, and who did still continue to have those secret murders in their hearts, yea, as many as were found breathing out threatenings against their brethren were condemned and punished according to the law.

It was Satans plan from the beginning, plotting with Cain, to murder in secret and get gain.... I'm sure most of you understand this, but I'm just thinking out loud.

He seeks our hearts!

25 Now behold, it is these secret oaths and covenants which Alma commanded his son should not go forth unto the world, lest they should be a means of bringing down the people unto destruction.
26 Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the brecords which were delivered unto Helaman; but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that dsame being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit—
27 Yea, that same being who did plot with Cain, that if he would murder his brother Abel it should not be known unto the world. And he did plot with Cain and his followers from that time forth.
28 And also it is that same being who put it into the hearts of the people to build a tower sufficiently high that they might get to heaven. And it was that same being who led on the people who came from that tower into this land; who spread the works of darkness and abominations over all the face of the land, until he dragged the people down to an entire destruction, and to an everlasting hell.
29 Yea, it is that same being who put it into the heart of Gadianton to still carry on the work of darkness, and of secret murder; and he has brought it forth from the beginning of man even down to this time.
30 And behold, it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold, he doth carry on his works of darkness and secret murder, and doth hand down their plots, and their oaths, and their covenants, and their plans of awful wickedness, from generation to generation according as he can get hold upon the hearts of the children of men.

as does the Savior

35 Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I think he was justified in self defense, (he was constantly seeking their lives).

I don't really think that my definition is great, but it has a component that I really like and can't abandon until a new definition comes along that includes that component. Obviously words and phrases are used in error all the time in scripture. That's just the fallibility of man.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution were inspired from on high to do that work. But was that which was given to them perfect, not admitting of any addition whatever? No; for if men know anything, they must know that the Almighty has never yet found a man in mortality that was capable, at the first intimation, at the first impulse, to receive anything in a state of entire perfection.

Brigham Young JD 7, given July 4, 1854

I hate how many times the scriptures talk about how mean and rotten God is constantly getting angry and destroying folks. It has made a great many atheists, whereas the concept of a loving caring father who loves us even when we do wickedly has saved a great many men!

And certainly as posted above that is the case with these words. Perhaps we need to split them up into more words to convey the different principles involved. I suppose that's what the Adamic language does.

There is an element of crossing a line as well as an element (not always present) of negative effects that go with the line being crossed over. With sin there is also the element of bad intentions as well as other elements that I am surely overlooking.

Does sin require transgression but not transgression sin? I'm not sure I care at this point. They are just the imperfect labels we use to communicate the concepts. The Holy Ghost is not bound by so crude a mechanism and it is to Him we should turn in deciding on correct conduct and not to the fallible labels.

[Rose Garden]

Sin is a sub-category of transgression. A transgression is the breaking of a moral law, whether voluntarily or unwittingly. Sin is voluntarily breaking a moral law. A sin is a transgression, but a transgression isn't always a sin. So, transgression = fruit where sin = apple sort of.

Thank you, Noah Webster.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,sin
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,transgression

[Rose Garden]

So what would you call Nephi cutting off Laban's head? Clearly he did so knowingly, but it wasn't sin. He did cross over the law (transgress it).

If transgression and sin are both the violation of law then you would have to ask if Nephi was violating law. God is the source of law, so following his command is following the law. In the case of Nephi, I would think that he would have been sinning or transgressing if he DIDN'T kill Laban because the Lord commanded him to do so. (I used this same argument on my mom when I was justifying my choice of marriage. I'm not sure she's convinced even now.)

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

God cannot violate His own law, nor encourage others to either. His law is no respecter of persons. Therefore God didn't just alter the law for Nephi and make it alright. It wasn't alright because God says it was without the law, but because He said it was within the law. The question is to understand that law.

[Rose Garden]

God cannot violate His own law, nor encourage others to either. His law is no respecter of persons. Therefore God didn't just alter the law for Nephi and make it alright. It wasn't alright because God says it was without the law, but because He said it was within the law. The question is to understand that law.

Good point, Swiss.

So any ideas of how the laws were working in this case?

[zionlist.com]

A sin is anything in violation of God's revealed commandments to the potential sinner. If Nephi had refused to slay Laban, he would have sinned in so doing, because he would have disobeyed the commandment of the Lord. Same goes for Abraham and Hagar, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and his polygamy, David and his polygamy, Joseph Smith/Brigham Young and their polygamy, and so on.

See D&C 132.

[zionlist.com]

I think the difference between "sin" and "transgression" is something of a false dichotomy, depending on context. This is something that comes up often in church because of the language of the 2nd Article of Faith and general confusion that Adam is excused because the aforementioned document claims "trangression" instead of "sin" referring to the Fall.

I think that they mean the same thing in that context. Adam transgressed the law God had given him, and sinned by doing so. This doesn't mean the sin was unexpected, or that Adam was not ultimately forgiven for it, but he _did_ sin by taking the forbidden fruit and was punished for that sin.

From a technical perspective, a "transgression" may also be a sin but is not necessarily so. For instance, to transgress the law of the land is not always a sin, but to transgress the law of God always is; in fact, strictly speaking, sin is anything that contradicts the commandment of God to the proposed sinner.

[Darren]

As you and I are aware, it is possible at any time to have a run in with a police officer and be arrested for any of a whole slew of laws on the books.

Laws like Loitering, suspicion of ..., disorderly conduct, failing to use your blinker when changing lanes. And thousands of others that I or you may at any time be unaware of.

The point is that we are transgressing laws all the time, in normal daily life. Every day we fall short. And in a world of justice, we are guilty.

A transgression just is, regardless of intent.

On the other hand Sin is an act, perhaps a very modest act, of looking away from Jesus, not following the Holy Ghost.

Sin includes intent, the act of looking elsewhere, with your mind's eye.

Evil is acting on the sin, by employing your being, to accomplish the thought first conceived by the sin of the mind's eye.

Before a jury a transgression is seen as, "without intent to do wrong." An act against the law that probably does not deserve a punishment, or a very light corrective punishment intended to help the person to better see his choices.

Before a jury a sin is seen as some act, "with the intent to do wrong." Perhaps caught in its infancy, before it completely corrupts. An act against the law deserving of punishment.

Before a jury evil is seen as a pattern of behavior, "with intent to do wrong." Commitment to a path that is against the law, deserving of the fullest measure of punishment.

God Bless,
Darren

[MasterOfNone]

The unconditional Atonement, which satisfies justice, could not be applied to Adam had it been a sin. My understanding is that he and Eve, because of their state of innocence, were not accountable and therefore it was a transgression and not a sin (much as with children).

[zionlist.com]

MasterOfNone, that makes no sense to me. The Atonement applied to all sin, including Adam's sin/transgression. In fact, one could say that without Adam's sin, there would be no necessity of an atonement in any case, and the Atonement addresses the Fall directly in several instances, most obviously the guaranteed resurrection of all men: "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive".

The Atonement certainly applied to Adam's partaking of forbidden fruit, just as it does to all other sin according to the will and heart of the Father.

[MasterOfNone]

I think you misunderstood (?)

Or maybe I did

The Atonement unconditionally:

* overcomes physical death that was brought into the world by the Fall (i.e. by resurrection)
* overcomes spiritual death that was brought into the world for all unaccountable mortals (note that we are ALL unaccountable at some point so this is universal) (i.e. by being brought back into the presence of God at the day of judgment)

Thus is brings us back "at one" with God.

But then we, as accountable individuals (except Christ) sin (a personal fall) and we need to repent in order to overcome that spiritual death we have brought upon ourselves (the spiritual death of the Fall being already overcome, which is why little children (and those adult of low mental age) who die before the age of accountability leave this world sinless and "at one" with God).

So justice requires an at-one-ment for the first two effects of the Fall because neither we nor Adam nor Eve are accountable for it; we because we were not even there and them because, being in a state of innocence, were not accountable. Thus the Atonement covers them too.

Hence:

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).

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. (“The Great Plan of Happiness”
Elder Dallin H. Oaks Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, October Conference 1993)

[zionlist.com]

Hmm, regarding the OP, apparently most prophets do not find it appropriate to label the Fall a sin, perhaps merely because of the negative connotation. The term seems to waffle occasionally.

Adam and Eve were accountable for their sin to the same degree we are all accountable of our sins, imo. The Atonement is wholly necessary because of the Fall, so to claim that the Atonement does not cover the original sin of consumption of the forbidden fruit is utterly illogical to me.

The Fall is something I've been trying to understand better lately. Surely the Lord knew Adam and Eve would give to Satan, and the Lord allowed temptation. It is interesting to consider why the Lord chose this avenue, and chose for man to enter the world in contradiction of His stated will. Perhaps it's so that man cannot say that the Lord returns evil for good. Perhaps it occurred so that Satan could be cursed and handled appropriately. Perhaps the main reason is something else.

[MasterOfNone]

Adam and Eve were accountable for their sin to the same degree we are all accountable of our sins, imo. The Atonement is wholly necessary because of the Fall, so to claim that the Atonement does not cover the original sin of consumption of the forbidden fruit is utterly illogical to me.

Although my understanding is that it was a transgression and not a sin (Elder Oaks explains it well above) I am confused by your second point; the Atonement does cover the effects of the Fall. Without the Fall there would be no need for anything to be brought back "at one" again.