Talk:D&C 132:58-66

Sin vs. transgression

I revised the wording of the sin and transgression question. I did this because I don't think the word transgression is used consistently throughout the scriptures. I don't have examples in front of me right now but can look for them if you are interested. --Matthew Faulconer 07:07, 6 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. My question implied a difference, which may not have been obvious to the reader, whereas the revised version elicits the recognition of a distinction from the reader, which makes it, I think, a better question. (And if the reader isn't catching it, the lexical note highlights the point.) --Seanmcox 19:08, 6 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Sean, welcome to the site. I think this is a very interesting question you've raised. A similar issue seems to arise in 1 Jn 5:18 which I think gives many Christians fits (esp. those who believe works don't matter at all). I can think of a couple ways to read this other than the reading you're suggesting (I take your reading to be that Joseph was guilty of transgressions but not of sins):

(1) When we are born of God or have the Priesthood, our sins are not counted as such. I think this reading could work for the 1 Jn 5:18 passage reasonably well, but less well here in the D&C.

(2) While we are born of God or have the power of the Priesthood, we do not choose to commit sin. When we choose sin, we are de facto children of the devil. On this reading being born of God is a fleeting thing, and a process we struggle with throughout our life (unless, perhaps, we have our calling and election made sure in which case it gets fuzzy in my mind).

I'm not all that comfortable with any of these readings, which is why I think you're question is a good one. I'll try to look at this section and 1 Jn 5 again more carefully sometime, but for now this is the best I've got.

Regarding sin vs. transgression in relation to the fall, I posted a bit about this a while ago at the following subpage: User:RobertC/Fall. Just a few notes and links, I never really came to a very satisfactory conclusion.... --RobertC 13:50, 6 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I think Sean's reading is unimpeachable here. I had never noticed it before, but these two verses (59 and 60 together) can only be read to suggest a distinction between the two (there is, by the way, a clear distinction between two different "categories" of sin in Hebrew). Besides which, I think the connection to the Fall story is rather interesting, and it should bear some fruit, especially because of the heavy temple themes at work in this revelation (by temple themes, I mean not only sealing stuff but the obvious connections between the patriarchal order and the return to the Adam story, etc.).

But another issue to be raised as pertaining to this question is the undeniable importance of verses 26-27 here. Joseph and Emma clearly had received the higher ordinances that sealed their sealing and so they were sealed up without question (except for the shedding of innocent blood, etc.). Is it this ordinance beyond ordinances that introduces the distinction between sin and transgression? Is it that that particular ordinance distracts the possibility of sin and renders the person innocent (in the sense in which Adam was innocent in the Garden?) and so only capable of transgression (unless there is that one sin, again)? In other words, might it be that any "sin" committed after the reception of that ordinance is ultimately only a transgression in the sense that the Fall was: a disobedience of sorts, but one that aims (because God's will and this person's will are united so profoundly--if not identified in some Orthodox Catholic sense) at fulfilling something far greater, that aims at a much higher completion? This is a profound opening here. Thanks, Sean. --Joe Spencer 14:22, 6 Oct 2006 (UTC)