Let me simply say that I NEVER said Jesus had to “repent” of anything. That was Nick’s comment, and that’s where he and I disagree. I don’t believe there is any need to repent of innocent mistakes, or the entire foundation of young children and the mentally disabled and those who knew not the law being saved despite their mistakes of ignorance would be null and void. We teach that the Atonement covers those mistakes, and I know of nothing in our scriptures that says Jesus, as a child, adolescent or adult, never made any mistakes. I just know that he was called sinless – and, upon completion of his mission, perfect. I just don’t think the two (innocently mistaken actions and sinless) are incompatible, since my 6-year-old daughter has made lots and lots of mistakes (even some fairly serious ones for that age) and still, I believe, remains sinless.

I do appreciate the input. It’s something I will consider, but, interestingly, I don’t think it affects my view of the central points of what I originally wrote. Perhaps I would have to change the wording a bit to make it read like you would write it. Perhaps you really do think that, even as a very young child, Jesus simply never made any mistakes – in the sense of did things he shuold not have done and would be considered “wrong”. If so, we simply disagree about that particular point. That’s fine, since I don’t think the actual records we have prove either view. This is one area where I simply echo Nephi and say, “I do not know the meaning of all things.”

I’ll give this one go only.

Transgressions are the ‘deliberate breaking’ of a law or commandment, but not a sin. Sins are inherently wrong since they break God’s natural law, or the universal laws, or the laws of the God of truth and light. Fornication and homosexual acts are sins because they are inherently wrong, even if there is no civil law against them today. Speeding is a transgression since we deliberately and knowingly break a law but not an inherently wrong act, since ‘speeding’ is necessary in, eg, F1 racing. They certainly aren’t ‘mistakes made in ignorance. You go to the temple, so you must remember that video with Eve asking ‘is there no other way?’ and then deciding to eat the fruit, and then going to Adam and saying ‘you will be a lone man in the Garden of Eden’ and then Adam saying ‘Eve, I see that this must be’ and then taking that fruit. From all of that they certainly did know what they were doing during Adam’s transgression (and thankfully so because we are here now). So it can’t possibly be something done in ignorance [for mormons] or an innocent ‘mistake’ as you claimed here.

As Elder Oaks (law professor, judge and Apostle) explained it in general conference, Adam and Eve’s actions that produced “the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited”. (Under this view I can never see any victim as having committed nor involved in any transgression.)

With regards to Jesus, his Atonement overcame the consequences of the transgression of Adam (which is mortal death) and so ‘immortality’ is freely granted to all. If we read that Article 2 it says: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. Honestly I can’t see how you can go from that, which says that we WILL be punished for what we do and not what Adam did, to “I’m just saying that we are not held accountable for our transgressions; as the 2nd Article of Faith says, the Atonement paid for them.” I know you have very liberal views but that’s really a huge leap.

(take it or leave)

About your scriptures, I compare what RoAnn wrote here ““Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2:22″ and “. . . but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15; to your Eph 4:12-13 “12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” OR Matt 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” And I just can’t see you’re point of view nor do I bother reading more. Plus add to it what happened when John the Baptist first saw Jesus and then, no, your off track by saying that he somehow overcame and repented of his transgressions. You simply misread those scriptures.

(And Moses killing of that guard would not be a sin or transgression or crime even today since he saved another’s life. Cops do this sometimes too and they don’t commit murder when they kill someone, or a transgression. )

There was just something different about Jesus. I think that it was that he was the son of the God of life, therefore he had life within him which only sin could take away, yet he didn’t lose anything during his time here.

You claim that maybe Jesus committed transgressions and then needed the atonement for his own salvation too, but there is nothing in the scriptures which leads one to think that way, unless you take ‘transgressions’ to mean something else like maybe an ‘innocent mistake’ -but they aren’t so in that is the error of this point of view.

(Again take it or leave it, I’m too tired to go on about this)

Ok Ray. Let’s leave it there.

I know that the English version of “Away in a Manger” bothers some people. But I have always thought that “no crying he makes” just aptly describes a typical newborn sleeping peacefully–which is what newborns do most of the time. The Spanish version uses the phrase “never cried,” which is a lot harder for me to accept!
Regarding “never got vexed,” I think that most children (as well as most adults) are quite happy to think that the being we worship as our Savior (and a member of the Godhead) was an obedient child who was different from other children, and that He set an example of righteousness from the time he was very young.

Saying that Christ was “sinless” because he repented of all his sins strikes me as removing his unique capability to satisfy the demands of justice and perform an infinite atonement. To me, saying that He “learned obedience” merely means that he learned the commandments as he grew up, and kept them as soon as he was capable of understanding them–not that he sinned and then learned to repent and not sin again.

There are many scriptures that describe Jesus Christ as being the only one capable of performing the Atonement, but here are a couple that seem to me to say that Christ did not ever sin:
“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2:22
“. . . but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15

I agree with Hawkgrrrl that Jesus “was always having run ins with authority figures that landed him in all kinds of trouble,” but I don’t think he got into trouble because he “sinned.”

***I’ve already answered that and said I agree completely that the victim has not “committed” anything.*** I already said that the Lord sees the victim as if nothing had happened – that there is NO taint or stain or punishment or judgment or anything else negative that should attend being raped.

I think you are constructing a straw man that is not mine, especially since I agree with everything you and Jacob and Nick have said about this specific issue – and since I tried to be very careful in the words of my actual post (right down to using quotation marks to try to distinguish something that is strictly biological from what is moral).

I said rape is primarily a crime of violence. It is, however, a sexual act – or it wouldn’t be rape. I’ve already said I was addressing a WRONG societal perspective, which is why I said “technical violation” (using quotation marks).

I can’t defend what I didn’t say. So, let me ask for direct quotes:

How is “what (I) say damaging to the rape victim at best.” Give me exact quotes from what I said that damages rape victims, keeping in mind everything I have said.

If your statement on rape wasn’t serious, I’d simply ignore it. But I don’t because what you say is damaging to the rape victim at best.

From Rape: ‘Psychology,Prevention and Impact’, yale.edu

“The raping of women is a crime on the increase in the United States. It is a crime that is often misunderstood and surrounded by myths. It is our goal to dissect some aspects of this insidious act and share some of the more recently discovered facts.

One commonly believed myth is that rape is primarily a sexual act. Persons with this belief often unintentionally place the victim on trial. Her motives, her dress and her actions become suspect not only to law enforcement officials but also to her family and friends. The woman’s credibility may be questioned and her sexual activity and private life may be made public. Perhaps because of the guilt, embarrassment and humiliation, rape has been a highly underreported crime. However, throughout the past 20 years a variety of psychologists and sociologists have begun to study the psychology of rape and rapists.

**Their findings have shown that rape is a crime of violence, often regarded by the woman as a life-threatening act in which fear and humiliation are her dominant emotions. Sexual desire is less a motivation for the man than violent aggression***

Rape as a crime of violence is perhaps best understood by examining studies of the rapist, who he is and why he does it. However, it is somewhat disconcerting. Research by Amir in the 60’s and 70’s indicates that rapists are not the psychopathic, antisocial men one would think them to be.2 There are of course the extreme individuals, but most rapists blend well into their own communities”….etc and they give an extensive reference list. The question is how can a woman or man engage in sex when ‘fear and humiliation’ are their dominant emotions.

Now I know what you’re thinking here. Its that you didn’t say that rape is “primarily a sexual act” but that “AND there is a transgression (the one who is raped)” And that is the myth because there simply is not a transgression by you when someone else beats you over the head with an iron & you don’t have ‘a transgression of the mind’ when someone shots a bullet through it. Nor do you have a sexual ‘transgression’ when someone enters a virgina/anus with any object -all these are about violence and subjugation, not sex! Nor is it a sexual act or ‘transgression’ when a doctor does a pap smear. Just think for a minute how gay would you become if you were anully raped? None! because that rape is also not a sex act but a crime of violence. Nor will the woman raped be looking to the rapist as a sexual partner. During the rape the emotions are all of fear or survival.

Now I’m not condemning you here or judging you in this (rape beliefs), I know most people think like you do or worst they think that if a women wears a miniskirt alone at night, well then she ‘contributes’ to the crime. And many in law enforcement think that way. They allow ‘prevention’ to overwhelm any unbiased analysis. But I’m writing this in the hope that you can rethink your views on it and change then to more closely resemble what both psychologist and the Lord says on this matter: the raped person has not committed a sin nor transgression but was a victim of an act of violence.

Maybe though its the definition of transgression that you ought to revisit. I don’t think you are correct in that either, but I’ve written way too much here so far.

(Nick, I’ll address that issue tomorrow, now I don’t have time)

Of course, on the conclusion you want to agree on about rape victims not being guilty, or tainted, or culpable in any way, we are in agreement. I understand your point about society in some places being dumb and punishing the victim. But, you make this statement in the post which is what I was most interested in objecting to:

The Atonement covers that “technical violation”, since it was not done intentionally or willfully.

I don’t think the atonement does anything to cover this “technical violation” because I don’t think such a violation exists except in the minds of stupid people. As far as God is concerned, I think there is absolutely nothing for the atonement to cover in the case of the rape victim and I view that is an important point. Cheers.

(and, Nick, “unwitting” and “involuntary” might as well be the exact same thing for the purposes of this discussion, even given their different definitions. In each case, the point is that there is no “fault” or “guilt” or blame” assigned, because it wasn’t an action undertaken in defiance of understanding.)

Carlos, I simply will echo Nick and ask for scriptural backing for your statement that “perfect” means “never made a mistake”. Jesus apparently didn’t use it that way (see footnote A, Matthew 5:48); Paul didn’t use it that way (Ephesians 4:12-13), Moses was described as perfect (Genesis 6:9) [and we know he was not mitake free] and Jesus himself said explicitly that he would not be “perfected” until the third day (after his resurrection) in Luke 13:32. Read that last verse particularly (and Hebrews 5:8 that Marjorie pointed out), and tell me how what I wrote is incompatible with our scriptures.

On your analysis of rape and transgression, I am in 100% agreement with Nick’s analysis.

This seems a lot like getting upset about a song that incorrectly describes Santa Clause. Truly–’the fruits of the Great Apostacy’ are flourishing.

I’m open to being shown it’s wrong, CarlosJC. Clearly, it’s traditional to interpret Jesus’ “without sin” status as “never having committed any sin in his entire existence.” LDS scriptures, however, make no such interpretation. So far as I can see, it’s strictly an assumption, rather than a “revealed truth.” I’m truly not wedded to my thoughts on this, but I’d like to see more than “that’s what I’ve always heard” as evidence of the “Jesus never did anything which violated deity’s commandments in any way” theory. As you explain the evidence for this theory, I hope you’ll also address the scriptural statement that Jesus learned obedience by the things he suffered–as opposed to the unscriptural theory that Jesus was born with perfect obedience.

Yes, very! It denies part of his divinity and the grace/love/sacrifice of the atonement since it implies that he ‘did it for his own salvation’.

Like it or not, CarlosJC, Jesus’ atonement was in part for his own salvation. Had he refused to endure that suffering, he would have disobeyed deity, thereby sinning. This is an unavoidable fact, CarlosJC. I think your “all or nothing” analysis of motivation here is problematic, at best.

Ray, Rape has nothing to do with sex -it is a crime/sin of violence.

Part of what is written here is so twisted, even if Jesus cried as a baby at some point in time. Nicks’ Jesus as sinless because he fully repented? sure, that’s revolutionary -and wrong. And that article 2 would be the same if you take out Adam and replace him with my uncle -we still are accountable for our acts and sins not other peoples acts, sins or transgressions.

And: “Am I off my rocker when discussing Jesus’ Atonement applying to himself, as well?”

Yes, very! It denies part of his divinity and the grace/love/sacrifice of the atonement since it implies that he ‘did it for his own salvation’. Its like the hero who saves his butt first and also helps you through. No, our beliefs are completely different in Mormondom.

I like the idea of the Lord growing from grace to grace, step by step, maybe with way less mis steps than most of us, but not born perfect!

I do agree, however, that stories like that (even if legitimate examples of exceptions) can function as guilt-inducing and unrealistic expectations for most – since our nature is to think that we should be able to model the exceptions. I think in our pursuit of perfection we often forget to accept our imperfections as just fine for now.

In my mind, Ray, where no transgression is “imputed,” there hasn’t been a transgression.

Therefore, since involuntary transgressions are covered universally by the Atonement, no victim of rape should be seen by others as “tainted” or “impure” or any other pejorative perspective.

Again, I don’t think it’s possible to engage in an “involuntary transgression.” Certainly there are “unwitting transgressions,” and “unintentional transgressions,” but “involuntary transgression” is a contradiction in terms. Keep in mind that from your explanation here, a woman who was raped would be “tainted or impure” as a result of that act, if Jesus had not carried out his atonement. Surely that’s not how you really see it.