"SIN" is a byproduct of disbelief not a cause...

[_schreech]

discuss...

[_schreech]

discuss...

Every ex/disbelieving - Mormon I know didn't explore "sinful" activities before coming to the conclusion that the LDS church is not "true" in any sense of the word. I have never met someone who wanted to leave the LDS church to "sin" - it has always been the other way around. Ex/disbelieving Mormons decide the LDS church is un-"true" and proceed to engage in normal, human/societal behaviors.

[_zeezrom]

Sins I stopped since becoming an apostate:

1. Lying to the bishop (I even met with the bishop last month and gave him my full honesty)

2. Prying into other people's business

3. Judging nevermos

Sins I started since becoming an apostate:

1. I tried champaigne on NY eve,

2. Coffee most mornings at the office and tea at night (instead of a bowl of cereal)

3. Hanes

4. Draw nudes

5. Look at miniskirts

6. Attended a Lady Gaga concert

7. Look forward to the next sin, whatever that might be

[_MCB]

According to my standard of ethics, Zeez, leaving Mormonism definitely reduced the amount of sin in your life.

[_just me]

Disbelief *is* a sin. The act of disbelieving already makes you a sinner, so there ya go.

Plus, under the expectations of mormondom everyone falls short. So, in effect, everyone can be said to have had sin lead to their disbelief...since they weren't perfect.

But, yeah, the reality is that many of the people I know did not start living differently until they stopped believing.

I do know some members who still profess belief and break the WoW and LoC, though. So, I don't know how that fits in to this discussion.

[_Tarski]

It can go either way.

Sin can losen someone up to notice things that they didn't notice before. True things!
Breaking the rules of any cult might be a step to getting into a mind set of allowing oneself to question. If nothing else, one notices that the sin often does not lead to the consequences warned of.

On the other hand, seeing the truth because of being confronted with purely intellectually challenging things (theological, scientific, historical etc.) could, of course, lead one to decide to break rules.

Let us face it, in most cases, both things are happening at once.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sin is a non sequitur in my opinion. It's absurd. You might as well tell a lioness that she's committing a sin when she kills a hyena, or copulates with a male when she feels the urge.

We're all children of nature, and our natural inclinations. Whether or not altruism can be attributed to a god is besides the point... We do what we do, even if we find ourselves in a construct.

There's a reason why Hester Prynne did what she did, and others did what they did. It's in our nature to obsess, control, and then act out. Whether or not there's an authoritarian system in place or a libertarian system in place people will find a way to act in accordance with their nature.

Sin is an unnatural construct created by Man to explain something He doesn't understand. Or maybe He does...

- VRDRC

[_MCB]

I regard agnosticism as a natural part of reacting against sick religion. Only a stage of development. I believe God understands.

[_bcspace]

Sin is whats alluring enough to cause people to find excuses not to believe.

[_Dantana]

To me the whole thing is illogical. To have a system of reward and punishment, sin and salvation, and include free will, behaviour must be quantified and rated to an infinite decimal point. Sins of omission must get a score.
So if on a particular day I have a level six testimony, to ever fall below that, even infinitesimally, would by definition be a sin. To play this all the way out, one could never have an opinion on anything. And that includes god in the perfect realm where he abides.
God must love all things identically, at the same time, always. He can have no personality. To say he has a personality would mean that he has personal preferences. But how can a perfect being have preferences? What could they be based on....nature, nurture, imperfect information?