The word "sin" is defined as: 'a transgression of divine law'

Not surprisingly, though, definitions of what actually constitutes a sin vary between religions.

Let's assume--as is logical--that with only one true God, there is only one true 'divine law', and thus one true definition as to what is a 'sin' and what isn't.  This leads to a question of what happens in God's eyes when conflicting definitions of 'sin' arise.

For example, Jews (and some Christian denominations) hold the Sabbath to be Saturday.  Most other Christians, including Latter-Day Saints, hold it to be Sunday.  Suppose we have "Mike" who's Jewish, and "Max" who's LDS.  Both of them do some 'Sabbath-breaking" activity (according to their religion's definition, whatever it may be): Mike on Saturday, Max on Sunday.

Taking the view of one God and one definition of divine law suggests that, fundamentally, one of the two of them is 'off the hook'.  God either considers the Sabbath to be Saturday, or Sunday and thus (at least) one of them is not actually a 'Sabbath-breaker'.  (You can use a similar thought experiment with, say, a Catholic who uses birth control, and a Mormon who drinks alcohol, for example...)

Further analysis seems to suggest it's not that black and white.  So, okay, Mike (or Max) didn't actually break the Sabbath according to God's true divine law...but he tried.  Doesn't that count for something?

Years back, I heard a stand-up routine discussing 'attempted murder'.  "Murder is bad and is punished severely," it went, "but 'attempted' murder gets a much smaller punishment.  Why is that?  You still tried to kill someone...you just missed!"

Likewise, wouldn't you suppose that God would recognize that trying to deliberately transgress divine law...but missing, due to differing opinions on what the divine law is, wouldn't let someone entirely 'off the hook'?  Essentially, we're talking about 'attempted murder'--you didn't actually end up committing a sin, but you tried...and perhaps paradoxically ending up committing a sin anyway.

This suggests the reasonable conclusion that God judges us not only by His own divine law, but also by whatever view of the divine law we ourselves hold.    Even a "Mormon" God might still ask Mike in the end, "Were you a good Jew?", and judge him accordingly.

Now, there are two extremes which this thought can be taken to:

(1)  Using this logic, would a Catholic who converts and becomes LDS would then still be judged by Catholic standards, rather than LDS standards?

Depends on the situation:  a Catholic priest who takes a vow not to marry, but then meets missionaries and becomes LDS, and later marries an LDS sister (this happened in my mission) wouldn't count--assuming God is "Mormon"--because one is superseding older covenants with God with newer ones.  (A priest who broke his vows and married without replacing them with new ones could still fall under the 'attempted murder' corollary as above, even with marriage in fact being honorable for all.  The point here would be making a covenant and then breaking it, not *just* getting married...)

(2) If one can be judged for committed something that they thought was a sin, even though in the end it wasn't, to what extent can you be judged for doing something that *you* didn't think was a sin, but actually is, in God's eyes?

Here we find some gray area, as just believing that's it's okay to murder 'infidels', for example, probably doesn't automatically make it okay in God's eyes...but are all judgments for all people exactly the same, or will God temper (or heighten) judgment based on the light each person has received?  ("To whom much is given, much is required...")

Discussion questions:

• How much does 'intent' factor into 'culpability' in God's eyes?
• How does absolute law versus personal (relative) law play a part in determining guilt?  Is there perhaps an absolute baseline for judgment, which can be added (or subtracted) another relative measure depending on the person?
  
• Is it 'just' if God, for example, when faced with two people who committed the same sin, gives a lighter punishment to one and a harsher punishment to another because He feels the latter had a more pure knowledge that what he was doing was wrong, according to his own religious beliefs?