Transgression vs. Sin

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Shelly200

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.

[Shelly200]

Originally Posted by Vort

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?

Originally Posted by Vort

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?

[Shelly200]

Originally Posted by Dravin

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.

Originally Posted by Dravin

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.

[Blackmarch]

Originally Posted by Shelly200

...
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.

[rameumptom]

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.

[rameumptom]

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.

[Shelly200]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

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.

[Shelly200]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

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.


[QUOTE=rameumptom;646504]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.[QUOTE]

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.