Mormonism takes a remarkably relaxed and lenient view of sin.
Go ahead and laugh if you must, but it would be foolish of you to lightly brush off the opinion of a man who is an expert, with many years of experience in the field. My understanding of our religion holds that sin occurs when we make an informed choice to reject God. Just as it is impossible for us to be saved in ignorance, it is also impossible for us to sin in ignorance. Since accountability is the result of knowledge, we may look with approbation upon a man drinking vodka straight from a bottle, but we believe that God will hold him accountable only to the extent he is acting against the light he has previously received. Our doctrine of sin is also closely tied to covenant making. An action which may not be bad in itself becomes bad when we see it as breaking a promise. This explains why the church usually imposes stricter discipline upon people who have been to the temple, and also why a Mormon who wants to take a walk on the wild side can do so by drinking a cup of tea.
Over the years, I’ve engaged in hundreds of discussions in Sunday classes where doctrinal hairs were split as we tried to make a distinction between sin and transgression, and hundreds more where the commission/omission fallacy was fully explored. But something I have never heard discussed is this statement by Spencer W. Kimball:
“Jesus saw sin as wrong but also was able to see sin as springing from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner.”
Ensign, August 1979, p.5
What do we make of that? I invite your enlightening responses.
October 18, 2007 at 6:19 am
I’ll start by saying that I’m pretty sure President Kimball wasn’t making excuses or allowing for rationalization.
October 18, 2007 at 7:32 am
I’m not sure I’d call it a lenient attitude, but Mormonism is rare within Christianity in that it posits that sin is a necessary component of the plan of salvation.
October 18, 2007 at 9:24 am
Yeah, that impression would evaporate pretty fast after reading The Miracle of Forgiveness.
I reckon he’s suggesting that the wise shepherd would do well to avoid fixating on the sin thereby forgetting the sinner.
October 18, 2007 at 9:33 am
It is interesting when you turn the tables a little bit and show how sin is a deadly game. I did this in class once where I gave everyone a ticket. On the ticket was a place to put your name and after that it said- “Admit one into Satans service of everlasting misery”. To my astonishment everyone was taken back by it. I explained that without the atonement everyone of us has this one way ticket to hell because we all sin. It just seems though that some people classify little sins such as lying or bad thoughts in the “natural man” category that are not necessarily the type of sin that causes spiritual death and forces one to be banished eternally from Gods presence.
The truth of it is that it is natural for man to screw up- it is part of the learning cycle. Because such, even those without gospel law must still repent when they learn about the gospel and want converted. Ever heard of allowing someone without the law to join the church without baptism? Me neither!
October 18, 2007 at 9:43 am
Yeah, that impression would evaporate pretty fast after reading The Miracle of Forgiveness.
Everyone cherry picks from the first half of that book.
Have any of you even read the second half?
October 18, 2007 at 9:47 am
As a recommend-holding member who still feels the gravitational pull of the “wild side,” I don’t agree with the impression that the Church– or Pres. Kimball– takes sin lightly. Peter hit the nail on the head with The Miracle of Forgiveness. Opposed to the “all-good-people-go-to-heaven-all-bad-people-go-to-hell” simplicity of other faiths, I feel the pressure of avoiding sin now like I never did before I joined. With every conscious infraction I sense the points shaved, like an Olympic gymnast, and am compelled to counter it with “good works.” When someone tells me “I’ve accepted Jesus in my heart so I’m saved,” I think, “Dude… if only it were that easy.” Yes, I’ve read the second half of Miracle. Makes the effort sweeter, but doesn’t really let up on the promise of consequences.
October 18, 2007 at 10:08 am
Seth,
I’ve always viewed the first half of Miracle of Forgiveness in the same way many view 2nd Nephi. But you are right, there is much hope and a different viewpoint when you get there. From what I have observed both through personal experience, and the vicarious experience of others, this is not a bad analogy for repentance and the atonement. You’ve got a long slog through dealing with the sin before you get to the forgiveness part, and the rebuilding of your spiritual self.
Deep and unmet needs is an interesting thought. I don’t think that Pres. Kimball meant in any way to excuse sin, but to point out that few of us sin because we are inherently evil. We’re pretty good at rationalizing, and seeking for different outlets to satisfy needs, but most people are good at keeping the train on the tracks, as it were.
The problem comes when someone begins to rationalize that “I’m owed this because I feel (__________)”. Fill in the blank with whatever ails you.
Speaking on deep background here, church discipline often uncovers not only the unmet needs, but exposes the sham framework of self-deception that accompanies the sin. The repentance process begins with helping the sinner to see themselves clearly, and then to make corrections in their lives to fix the problems. Generally, I have seen that people use substitutes (Satan’s counterfeits seems to be a popular GC term for this) for what the real needs are. A lack of intimacy in a marriage, and not just of a sexual nature, often is substituted with adulterous relationships that are frequently anything but fulfilling of that need for true intimacy. The solution for financial needs is not theft, but perhaps new job skills, better financial management skills, or control of spending. Instead, someone cheats on their taxes or embezzles funds, which is at best a temporary fix, as it doesn’t address the long term.
I think this is what Pres. Kimball was getting at.
October 18, 2007 at 10:18 am
Yes.
I realize there is more to the book than heckfire and dangnation for sinners, but my point was that “I’m pretty sure President Kimball wasn’t making excuses or allowing for rationalization,” which is an impression that can be gained, at the very latest, when reading said book.
October 18, 2007 at 10:20 am
One of the interpretations of Pres. Kimball’s statement is that Christ understands deep personality differences and may take those into account. It seems to me we lose and fail to attract proportionately more artists and scientists, people whose souls have even more questions and even less comfort with answers than do those of the bulk of us. It’s comforting to know Christ and not your typical member will judge them.
October 18, 2007 at 10:34 am
I do agree that Mormonism takes a lenient view of sin compared with a fire and brimstone approach. But how can it not when we all sin, probably everyday. Yes, God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin. But how does that work when everyone sins. I think the more important issue is what is required to qualify for grace, a.k.a., the cleansing and enabling power of the atonement, in order to be constantly forgiven. I think that can tie into the idea of covenants that Mark made.
Our covenants include, among other things, promises of forgiveness. God knows we will sin in this life, even after entering into sacred covenants. So why create a church that is overly harsh on something that is impossible to avoid? Rather the focus is on entering into covenants and keeping them.
So what is the connection between sin and breaking covenants? I think it is a great insight to recognize that the severity of sin is closely tied to our covenant making. It is probably possible to find examples on all levels of covenants where something may not be bad by itself but it becomes so after a promise has been made. Without getting into the details of the Word of Wisdom, does drinking coffee prevent a non-baptized person from receiving manifestations of the Holy Ghost? Will that same action have a different effect on a baptized person?
Should the focus be on avoiding sin or making and keeping covenants? Is there even a difference between the two?
I apologize for making such a long post as a new poster. This thought does intrigue me though.
October 18, 2007 at 10:37 am
I’ve always read Miracle of Forgiveness to be saying that if you are working on repentance constantly (being aware of the areas where you need to improve and trying to improve) then you can ditch the guilt and be free to try without getting depressed or beating yourself up all the time as you continue to struggle / endure to the end.
I also realize that there are two basic personality types at play in accepting that construct: those who tend to beat themselves up and can’t let to and those who don’t feel pain for their problems and don’t work enough to correct them. The challenge is the same, even if he application is different – understand your natural tendencies and work to correct them, relying on the Atonement to make up the difference. Personally, I’d rather de-emphasize “sin” for most members and focus instead on natural tendencies that constitute transgressions. Imo, members need to feel the weight of guilt when the truly sin, but the common mis-characterization of natural transgression as “sin” is debilitating and destructive and often leads to “crucifying Him anew” by not recognizing what has been paid already.
October 18, 2007 at 10:49 am
#8 – “heckfire” and “dangnation” – this brought back memories of high school days. My LDS buddies only said “heck” in religious conversations with me when I would keep saying “hell”. It always puzzled me.
Mark B., for the first time in my religious experience, I read the JST for Genesis 1-3. I can see how the JST would justify your words.
October 18, 2007 at 10:51 am
Mark:
I think you are defininf sin one way (you can’t sin in ignorance, you can’t sin outside of covenant, etc.) And SWK is clearly defining it another way. In his statement sin = “doing bad things”, I beleive. It seems pretty apparant to me that we can all do bad things in ignoranve, outside of covenant, etc. etc. One deep and unmet need on the part of many who “do bad things” is the need to know and understand that there are negative consequences for their actions.
October 18, 2007 at 11:09 am
We needn’t all follow in the footsteps of that other Kimball.
October 18, 2007 at 11:15 am
I’ve always wondered why we shy away from using words like Hell in their proper context. Somehow we have equated this with sin or transgression – ironic, given the premise of this thread.
October 18, 2007 at 11:19 am
Ray,
Perhaps it is a more or less subconscious act of “hedging about the law,” a tendency which may be strongest among those who take sin seriously.
October 18, 2007 at 11:29 am
Peter, I hope I am reading the condescension that appears to form the foundation of that comment incorrectly. I hope you are not saying that my willingness to use “Hell” when discussing Hell or “hellfire” when discussing hellfire or “damn” when discussing damnation means that I am not taking sin as seriously as someone who refuses to do so.
Sin is sin; transgression is transgression. We don’t need to make sins or transgressions or “bad things” out of things that are not sins or transgressions or bad things. We have enough of those things to take seriously; we don’t need more.
October 18, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“heckfire and dangnation”
LOL!! What is inexcusably silly to me (ok, actually it is excusable in that it provides humor to me, and humor is good) is when people will edit the scriptures while reading aloud in church. This from the same people who go on about how the worst sin is to think so much of yourself that you can “counsel God.” But they can edit Him? Hilarious!
October 18, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Back to the original thread….I think President Kimball was suggesting that we should try to understand the motivation for one’s sin so that we don’t end up condemning the sinner, just the sin.
I believe that too often we, as Mormons, focus too much on the sinning and not enough on the forgiving aspect of Christ’s atonement. If we fail to take advantage of His great gift then His time on earth was wasted. President Kimball was simply suggesting that we look at sin as a problem to be overcome and as sinners as lost souls to lend a helping hand.
October 18, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Yes, back to the original quote and question:
I read a fascinating book on Feminist Theology for a Divinity School class years ago. The main thesis simply was that the entire escalation of modern goddess theology is rooted in the absence of a feminine connection to the divine – that the Judeo-Christian emphasis on men as representing God and women as having no visible connection to God other than through men created an emotional vacuum for women that needed to be filled – even if only in the creation of a way for women to see God(desses) in themselves and an ability to describe themselves in divine terms.
Mormonism has addressed this concern by teaching that all of us are spirit children of God, but it is most evident in our uncomfortable discussions of Heavenly Mother. Truly positing the divine within each and every person (male and female) is a powerful way to address “deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner.” I never shy away from that discussion, since it is the other half of the Heavenly Father concept that inspires me so powerfully.
October 18, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I’m not sure if LDS doctrine “takes sin lightly” — there are plenty of passages in both the Book of Mormon (not just 2nd Nephi) and the D&C to the contrary. I do think that we as practicing Mormons sometimes take sin a bit lightly, but I think that’s because your typical temple-recommend-holding Mormon usually isn’t out committing serious sins; our sins tend to be those of omission (which, of course, are precisely the ones the Savior cites in Matthew 25). We have weekly opportunities to partake of the sacrament, cleansing ourselves to the extent that we have genuinely repented. Beyond that, we don’t have the quite the same concept of an eternal hell as most of our fellow Christians and so don’t feel quite the same all-or-nothing fear.
Here’s the dilemma I think we do face as Latter-day Saints: we don’t have a clear sense of where the cut-offs are, so to speak. Stop and think: for our evangelical brothers and sisters (from their point of view), they just need to accept Christ as their Savior, and they’re done. For our Catholic brothers and sisters, they just need to receive the sacraments and attend confessional (and do penance), and they’re done.
For us, things are bit fuzzier. Am I living a life that will qualify me for the celestial kingdom? For exaltation? Will I find myself playing softball with all the other Mormons in the telestial kingdom?[1] I think that it is precisely because of our belief (as per #10 and others) that our accountability increase with our knowledge and covenants that we as Mormons tend to carry a low-level (or not-so-low-level) angst much of the time.
I think the answer is “to rely wholly upon the merits of Him who is mighty to save.” The evangelicals chide us gently for being latecomers to the concept of grace — I’m not so sure we are latecomers are we are recognizing what has been there all along. My favorite passage in the New Testament is the Savior’s parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14). We are all sinners; we all fall short; and I think our daily prayers need to sound more like the publican’s and less like the Pharisee’s. ..bruce..
[1] telestial kingdom – 1. The only place in the hereafter where no one will be surprised to see anyone except himself. 2. The only place in the hereafter where you won’t have to make a bunch of new friends. 3. The only place in the hereafter where there will be enough Mormons to hold a really good softball tournament. — Orson Scott Card, Saintspeak: A Mormon Dictionary.
October 18, 2007 at 3:17 pm
You are indeed. I know the interweb stuff doesn’t make finding the tongues planted in cheeks any easier, but no condescension here. Clearly even the best parser has his limits in this medium.
Any road, I was responding, seriously, in #16. Or do you imagine it is only hypocrites who fill in H-E-Double Hockeystick for hell when perusing the Good Book?
October 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Thanks, Peter. I thought so.
I don’t see it as a case of hypocrisy – just ignorance. I guess I take it less seriously than some. *grin*
October 18, 2007 at 3:24 pm
BTW, Bruce, #21 is brilliant.
October 18, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I think we cheat ourselves and our fellow bretheren of other Christian religions by saying that some sin is allowed or even all is allowed just as long as we sin not against the holy ghost. This false and cheating doctrine allows us to perhaps negotiate a way into heaven in a lower kingdom as we per say think and settles our minds to some degree on not trying to overcome sin 100%. Thus, satan carefully and cunningly leads us into carnal security and into his everlasting chains.
In the end it is an all or nothing approach at heaven. Christ only has power to save those who believe and obey his command to repent and be baptized thus becoming sons and daughters to him. The state of spotlessness in the end is just that- 100% free from all types of sin. To think there are portions or glories in heaven where some sin, even in the slightest degree is allowable is a false doctrine prevailant in the LDS church.
October 18, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Little children and those who sin in ignorance are saved ‘through the atonement of Christ.’ So I would conclude that it is possible to sin in ignorance.
If we reject some level of accountability for what we’ve done in ignorance, we’re disowning a large part of our lives.
October 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Rob, I’ve been a member all my life, and what you just wrote doesn’t connect with anything I’ve ever been taught. I understand intellectually and agree with what you are saying, but I haven’t read it in any of these comments – and I haven’t heard it ever in church.
October 18, 2007 at 6:28 pm
The quote from Pres. Kimball seems pretty simple to me. Christ loves the sinner but not the sin. So he understands why a person might commit a particular sin. We often do not have this same insight. He does.
By extension I think we could work a little harder to be a little more christ-like in that regard.
I do think though that one of the things I love about our doctrine is that we don’t believe in some of the traditional aspects or simplifications of heaven and hell. In that sense we do look on sin more generously, because we reserve outer darkness for very few.
October 18, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I’m interested in knowing if any of you think this statement by Pres. Kimball gives us an insight into how to repent. It is usually pretty hard for us to do, but maybe that is because we are going about it all wrong.
If my sin is an illegitimate attempt to meet an unmet need, is it reasonable to think of repentance as the process of finding a legitimate ways to meet that need? I think kevinf somewhere upthread described something like this. Repentance might involve more intelligent self-knowledge and less gritted teeth. And that would explain why people so often fall back into their sins, because, even with all the willpower in the world, the need is still unmet.
October 18, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Mark, that’s exactly how I view repentance – essentially as self-examination and comprehension, followed by attempts to replace what we want to get rid of with what we want to have instead – knowing that the Atonement covers whatever we can’t do as long as we are trying. My parents taught me to view the process as a wonderful gift and a process of growth, so I’ve never seen it in a negative light.
October 18, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“…springing from deep and unmet needs…”
Jesus is filled with compassion for all, understanding each of us better than we understand ourselves.
Example; the abused become the abuser, who is guilty? Who owes?
Jesus will comfort both…if they will come to him.
October 19, 2007 at 8:21 am
# 29 is on the right track, I think. This statement is most powerful to me when applied to my own efforts to repent. In fact, it may just be the key to certain understanding and transformation that I’ve been looking for for a while. Thanks for posting it.
October 19, 2007 at 12:29 pm
President Kimball pointed out that sin comes “from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner.” I believe that orneriness and misanthropic behavior are not our innate ways of relating to others, rather they are the results of bad habits which originated in attempts to protect our fragile hearts from the injuries we have received in the past. Bad habits are formed by our attempts to meet our needs in a self-defeating way. However, what I need more than to protect my own heart is justification for my ongoing mistreatment of others (thank you Terry Warner); I need to feel that Justice is on my side.
I looked yesterday at LDS.org to see if there were any uses of the word sin and pay (payment, paid, etc.) in the scriptures; and there aren’t any that relate to the atonement. I think so often that we have thought about sin as a debt to Justice that we have misconstrued what the atonement is about. What sin does is destroy relationships; that is it! The atonement heals relationships, especially with those that have hurt me and eventually for those I have hurt; not to mention my relationship with God. There is no pain in the past, only my memory of having felt pain in the past or me presently feeling pain in the present. When Christ removes the pain from those I have injured, I will no longer have a sense of debt to those individuals for my mistreatment of them, since they will no longer feel the pain in their “then present” (which will likely be completed in a post mortal world).
My point in this is that I assert that there is no “stain of sin” in the traditional sense (a debt to some impersonal “Justice” leaving its mark of “unworthy” on our soul), rather only relationships that are at various levels of trust and love, for which I feel a sense of obligation. In this sense I agree with William James that there are no insignificant or private sins, in that my sins are what keep me from becoming fully engaged in the humanity/divinity of others. Habits to me represent the very deepest sense of how we see others and respond to their needs. The fruit of sin is not registered on some tally, but rather in my very habits, my entire way of being with others. I do not need to repent of my sins, rather I need to repent of sinning; I need a new set of habits which will lead me to a trustworthy character. This is why in D&C 82:7 it says, “unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return,” because it is not just being forgiven of individual sins, it is about choosing to forsake all sin and choose a way of being that views sin as abhorrent since it is self-defeating. Heaven is not just a place, but it is rather a society in which trust abounds; trust that my tender heart will be valued as highly as I value it. My character is defined by my trustworthiness with the needs and feelings of others.
The experience of sin is results in one’s knowledge/feeling of alienation from others due to betraying an internal sense of morality, which results in pain. This is why there is no sin where there is no personal sense of morality to sin against. The atonement not only removes the sin, but also mitigates the personal knowledge of wrong-doing by replacing that pain and knowledge of wrong-doing with a joy/knowledge that all will be made right for those we have hurt. The pain and the knowledge go together, but the pain seems to sap us of our energy as we are generally able to ignore the knowledge of the small wrong act s that led to the pain of dis-ease and insecurity.
Faith in Christ means faith in his ability to heal everyone. It is not necessary for him to have already healed the individual I have wronged for my pain to leave me, the fact that he will heal the individual sooner or later (or after death) is sufficient. I also am not asserting that we have to comprehend the atonement intellectually to be able to feel free of the pain of sin, the knowledge that things will be okay is a knowledge similar to one’s knowledge/feeling of the truthfulness of the gospel or the restoration. My belief is that Jesus can heal all, will heal all, and will save all as all will repent and receive the resurrection and enjoy a degree of glory.
When the veil is removed at the day of judgment and I see the relationships I have squandered and injured, my own sense of “right conduct” and justice will be my judge; BUT it is a subjective, personal sense of what I feel I should have done for others, not some impersonal “Justice.” In this sense, as Joseph Smith taught, men are their own judges. I don’t claim that final judgment is a subjective personal assessment. I claim that final judgment is a subjective experience. The nuance lies in the idea that the experience is not a mental exercise but the rather the idea that who we are and how we relate to others is part of our being. In other words, who we choose to have a relationship is self determined and also determined by those who choose to have a relationship with us. I don’t just “go” to heaven, heaven is part of who I am.
I have a friend who constantly reminds me of his grandfather’s greatest advice/warning: Your habits are your boss. I like Blake Ostler’s idea that the atonement provides the space we need to reevaluate our relationships and choose to repent. In a literal sense, the atonement provides us with the divine perspective to see outside ourselves that would not otherwise be possible considering the fact that our brains are “wired” in such a way as to keep us from seeing our self deceptions. Without the atonement, our habits would literally overpower us so that our brains could never heal from addiction.
This topic has led me to question why it is harder to repent in the next life, since why would I have a physical addiction after I die? I think that though the book “Return from Tomorrow” may say that you continue to seek your drug as a spirit, the issue is deeper than physical “need” since the addiction is a symptom of our inability to relate with others in a positive way. Without the immediacy of needing to feed and keep our bodies alive, without the pain of this life of giving and taking perceived scarce resources, would we have the desire or impetus to change in a world of abundance (Eden)? The external influences of this life provide us with people who have real needs and challenges that we can respond to, that we feel a desire to respond to, and thus we are able form a character. It is better in my opinion to focus on my ability to be trusted with what I have been given so that God will trust me with his work in the next life.
I see inheriting different kingdoms and responsibilities after resurrection being strictly determined by our abilities and our prior faithfulness with other tasks. If someone has an ability to accomplish something and God feels he can trust them, he will give them that responsibility. In this sense works play a huge role, not that we get “rewarded” and let into heaven as a result of our works; but the idea that prior faithfulness is a prerequisite to future tasks. I believe that there is no “reward” outside of purposeful work that is being described in D&C.
We were discussing this very thing yesterday over at NewCoolThang and the above is a summary of what I had to say (copied from that thread).
October 21, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“heck” and ‘dang’ hahahaha… come over to NZ then you can use hell and damn all you want. Stupid Americans ;-0
October 24, 2007 at 7:55 am
Having worshipped in both the evangelical community and the LDS church, I think I can safely say that one of the reasons why one might think that Mormonism takes a lighter view of sin is that Mormon culture places such a heavy emphasis on adherence to certain forms and functions (i.e., word of wisdom, tithing, church attendance, etc.) and on the consequences of violating such(viewed as sin). The evangelical community places its focus on the heart issues – those appetites, passions and dispositions that ultimately shape our character, leading us to either embrace sinful conduct or to flee it. The difference is huge. If one is preoccupied with the consequences of drinking a cup of coffee over errant thought patterns that may lead to destructive, sinful behavior, the former is merely a distraction from the far more weightier heart issues that lead one to truly offend God. I think that’s what President Kimball was pressing toward in the Miracle of Forgiveness, the need to examine our hearts more closely in order to “put off the natural man and become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord.” If we really get that idea, I don’t think we could be guilty of having a lighter view of sin.