Leaderboard

Well, there are millions of good Mormons out there. What a better world it might be if each brought one foster child into their home and introduced them into the gospel. It's not at all easy, but it is worth it. :)

I was recently in your exact position. I was inactive for years, I got several tattoos, I drank alcohol every night, and, without going into great detail, I too had issues with the law of chastity. When the longing to return to Church came upon me, the first thing I did was make an appointment with my Bishop to talk things over, and discuss what I could do to get myself back on track. There was no punishment or disciplinary action involved at all. My Bishop radiated love and concern, and joy that I wanted to come back. I encourage you not to be afraid or dread talking with your leader(s) about your concerns. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I would confess if I were you, just for your own peace of mind. After doing so, you can be confident in your worthiness to partake of ALL the blessings that Heavenly Father has in store for you. I wondered if I were worthy to take the Sacrament, for example. My Bishop was able to assure me that I was, so I didn't have to be uncomfortable wondering if I ought to take it or not. It gave me great peace within to speak with my leader. I encourage you to go ahead and talk with your leader. I believe you'll have a great burden lifted from your heart as our Father in Heaven welcomes you with open arms and a joyful countenance.

I reached 3,000 posts and this is the part where everyone says how amazing it has been to debate with me and how grateful you are for non-traditional/non-conservative Mormons on this site. Let me read...

I need to place an order with Dravin or Beefche.

On my mission this became such an issue that my Mission President felt like he needed to come out and correct the missionaries because they were going so far in their downplaying and backpedaling that they wandering into what he felt was false teachings. I remember engaging with more than one fellow missionary over the subject because I felt they were getting as close as possible to the line of saying, "Polygamy was wrong." without actually crossing the line.

Unfortunately, the data that I have read suggests that homosexuals couples have higher rates of instability than normal relationships. I actually think it is a very grave and serious danger. Thankfully, the quantity of children involved in these situations is quite low. Parents are vital in the formation of the way a child thinks, acts, behaves as they grow older. In a parenting book I read a quote that sometimes parents say "well I just want them to think for themselves" and the comment in the book about it was that it is a load of hogwash. Parenting is raising the next generation, it is about taking what we have learned and transmitting it to the next generation and guiding them through the pitfalls of life. Children raised in those environments will have drastically different ideas about what the world means and how to interact with it than those raised in traditional environments; they will become voting members of society and one day raise families of their own. It is a long slow slide into decay.

I meant it was relative to context (situation). I tried to clarify in my last post.I forgot there was a whole line of thinking (relativism) that takes this all to a bad extreme.

I'll give an opinion on this one and you all can consider it or dismiss it, but it's just some notions I've come to over many years. There is a fundamental difference between "fair" and "equal." Anyone who has kids knows this. If a parent hands out bowls of ice cream to a large family of children, the "fair" portion for a 2 year-old and a 16 year-old are not "equal." Likewise, our Heavenly Father judges what is fair, not us. Thus some apparent inequalities will exist. These inequities take into consideration our premortal faithfulness. For example, my patriarchal blessing says that, because of my premortal faithfulness (of which I have no recollection, of course) I was blessed to be born in the land of America. Whatever I did in the premortal life is related to that blessing somehow. Each of us has different missions to perform. It may be the case that some of the most righteous, noble spirits were born in countries where they have much fewer opportunities, because the Lord knew they'd hear his voice in the gospel message, convert, and save hundreds of people around them as well as many of their ancestors. Likewise a person might be born with a disability because she needs the testing and trials to progress. It may be that it's her family that needs the testing, through compassionately caring for her. We just can't say. We can't say that God is only fair if he gives "equal" chances to hear the gospel. An inspired dream that LDS pioneer Mosiah Hancock had mentions that some premortal spirits were more concerned about facing lives of physical hardship and asked the Lord to make them wealthy or in high social positions like politicians, judges, etc. so they would have an easier life. Meanwhile, he saw that many pioneers were willing to sacrifice all worldly comforts when their premortal missions were given to them, all because their devotion to the truth was worth everything to them. In the spirit world, it is as it is here on earth. People see what they can see with their spiritual eyes. People who walk in the light on earth experience life much differently than do the wicked. When the righteous get to the spirit world, they see the same things they saw here. They witness miracles. They are guided by the Holy Ghost. They resisted evil in life because it was their faith that led them to do so. The wicked also continue to see the same things when they cross the veil in to the spirit world. They experience reality based on their perceptions--a world in which there is lack and scarcity, where want and covetousness, lust and envy, and most especially fear dominated their experience. The big difference between the spirit world and this world is having a body. We are taught that it is harder to repent without a body. I think that is so because the spirits have incredible freedom to travel and see things. The Brigham Young Presidents of the Church manual has a great lesson in it about the spirit world. Brother Brigham said that spirits can move like lightning and see anything they wish to see. The key in that notion is their desires. The righteous will desire to see righteousness. The wicked will use this ability to try to satisfy wicked desires. Imagine this--a wicked man dies who is addicted to alcohol or drugs. He indulged in fleshly lusts in his life, pornography, etc. In a spiritual state where he can travel and see almost anything, it is reasonable to assume that he might try to satisfy those lusts somehow. He might travel to places of illicit adult entertainment or bars, nightclubs, etc. He might even try to possess the body of another mortal to have just a few more moments of mortal pleasure. That evil spirit would become further entrenched in his evil desires, without the means to satisfy them. He becomes increasingly warped and wicked in the process. Unless he repents, he cannot be rescued. In that spiritual state, it is actually less likely for him to find deliverance. The wicked in the spirit world are not yet delivered from Satan's power and his minions. Similarly, sectarian believers who end up in the spirit world may well think that they are "saved" because they aren't dead. The doctrines of their religions didn't teach a literal resurrection. There will be false teacher there, just as there are here, who will say that they should resist the messages brought by those Mormon elders who might lead them to destruction. Only the righteous, who overcame Satan in mortality through their faith and obedience, will be immune to the Deceiver's power. In the end, the unbelieving souls who die do not get any unfair advantage in the spirit world over the living. God has made it every bit as challenging for them there as it is here. When they believe, repent, and accept baptism, they do exactly what the penitent do in mortality--they gather with the saints and join together to edify and protect one another. The wicked do exactly what they do here--they gather with like spirits and seek the wickedness that they were attracted to in mortality. This is why baptism for the dead is SO important. It enables a penitent spirit to enter the Church on the other side of the veil and enjoy the same blessings and protection we receive as members. They get the gift of the Holy Ghost and enjoy the peace of a remission of sins. Anyways, those are a few thoughts on the topic at hand. God is fair, but fair isn't always "equal." We get the chances we desire. Our desires are the key factor in what becomes of us in eternity. That's why agency is always the ultimate factor because our desires connect with agency to determine the outcomes. We always--always--get what we want because our desires turn into actions and actions into consequences. It's no different on this side of the veil than on the other in that regard.

That sounds like a decidedly dangerous challenge. I hope no one takes you up on it.

From a debate point of view, it almost seems like if I had then I'd be able to back up some of my ideas from personal experience better. But no. I'm about as hetero as they come. My adamant goal, (and you should be well aware of this based on our past history) is to defend the church, the gospel, etc. And, as you also may have noticed, my emphatic stand points stretch to all topics. I am simply emphatic about things.

I've seen a lot of these threads where a guy says his wife isn't interested in sex, but he has done steps 1-10 on his checklist of what good husbands do and it didn't work. It's not that simple . We don't know your wife and why she feels the way she does. If there is a pornography issue, a lot of guys don't even know they are exhibiting certain behaviors that are putting their wives off due to their addiction. So if you take care of the kids, clean the house, etc., that doesn't change how you might be behaving in your intimate life. I'm not saying you are, but we don't know either of you. When a friend of mine was quite ill and pregnant, her husband was hostile towards her if they went more than two days without it. I don't think he recognized how he was treating her, which just made her feel more resentful about the issue. And there are some women who just discover they don't really like sex. They should make an effort to do something about that because it's important to their husband.

The answers to this question are interesting. I'm a convert to the Church. I was a dedicated seeker of truth all through my high school years and into early adulthood. I read everything I could get my hands on about religion--all religion. I was all about finding what I called "Truth with a capital 'T'" and I wouldn't settle for anything less. I first felt stirrings of faith when I was a young boy, about age 10. I responded to an altar call after hearing a powerful Baptist preacher warn that, if you didn't believe in Jesus, you'd burn in hell forever. As a 10-year old, that was too scary to consider. An altar call is when the penitent who want to be saved go up to the front of the church and the preacher or deacons pray the "Sinner's Prayer" with you. After a while, I came to understand that my actions were motivated out of fear, not faith in Christ. Hellfire is an effective way to scare people into being "saved." Of course, nothing else was to be expected after that and I eventually drifted away. In my high school years, I attended Methodist services with some friends because they had a big, active youth group. It was there that I had my first experiences with what I now recognize as the Holy Spirit. On one occasion, I felt that sense of warmth and tenderness while taking the communion (sacrament). Another time, the minister had us re-enact the washing of feet that Jesus did for his apostles. Actually, we didn't wash feet, but we washed one another's hands. It was a very spiritual thing. I regard those moments today as steps that were guided by the light of Christ to lead me to a greater light. I drifted away from Christianity for a time and explored Hinduism and Buddhism and I found great comfort and truth in those religions as well. Nevertheless, my desire for truth led me to discontinue those explorations and press onward. It was not until I encountered the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I found that "Truth with a capital 'T" in my life. It was the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me and the continuing blessings of personal revelation that has kept me active in the Church for the past 35 years, through good times and hard times. If there was no true Church on the earth, I would still be a seeker, unaffiliated with any sect or denomination. I would shudder to think that I would ever settle for the doctrines of men mingled with scripture for any length of time, much less commit myself to them.

((Continued from previous post)) On a personal level, this may make us frustrated. However, at a policy level, it's completely inconsequential. APA and ACA codes of ethics already deem it unethical for behavioral health professionals to try to change sexual orientation either way. The consequences of being caught doing so range from sanctions up the ying-yang, to loss of license to practice, to malpractice lawsuits. I'm with you that there are most definitely those who have a choice. As you alluded to with your friend above. However, where I get off the boat is when you allude to how rare it is for people to not have a choice. I don't get off the boat because I disagree, I get off the boat because the literature coming out of psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology admit to inconclusive results. In other words, no one knows to what degree it is a choice, and to what degree humans are born with the hardwiring to be that way. The only consensus is that some may be choosing to be gay while others may be hardwired that way. But what percentage either way is indeterminable at this time. So, it's illogical to make a claim one way or another. Well, are we talking about sex drive, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation? Sex drive, yes. Sexual orientation, that's not always controllable. If someone disagrees, then I pose the challenge to them to try to get an erection to an attractive man in a movie or at work. I completely agree with you to a large extent. We should not be teaching that we can't control our sexual feelings. We should also not be teaching that sexual arousal doesn't evolve over time. However, sexual orientation is indeed very much innate and typically does not change. I agree with you that we should not blanket statement all of humanity with the notion that orientation doesn't change. But, there is consensus in the medical literature that orientation, for the most part, does not change.Again, we must differentiate between sexual desire/feelings/behaviors/attractions/orientations. While they are all inter-related, they are not intrinsically the same within human nature. The affective neurosciences are demonstrating through deep brain scan imaging that emotions are our first responses to the environment. They are proto-responses (proto- meaning first, primitive, raw) that serve a specific purpose: to inform us. These emotions from the limbic system are what psychology refers to as primary emotions because they come first in response to that environment. They are 100% uncontrollable. Anyone who argues this is beyond uneducated on the matter and/or has allowed wishful thinking and confirmation bias to cloud their understanding.Now, someone may say, "I used to get mad at my child talking back at me, but now I don't. So that means I am controlling my anger." This is actually fundamental attribution error. Developing a habit to respond a certain way in the exact same situation means neural pathways (habits) have been created for that particular situation. That alone does not mean that you have learned to control your anger by and large. A person would need to demonstrate this through numerous expected/unexpected situations to prove that they are controlling their anger--which no research study to date has successfully demonstrated to be possible. This is why a father has learned not to get angry at his child but still erupts into anger when his subordinate at work becomes argumentative and insubordinate. A person may certainly develop appropriate responses to their primary emotions, and even manage the salience with which they experience them. However, they cannot control them. Secondary and tertiary emotions are within our capacity to manage, and even control; primary emotions, however, are not.

Doctrinally, this is correct with certain contexts: spiritual vs. carnal. However, human nature is rather more complex. Mikhail Bakhtin, and Charles Taylor remind us that we are actually polyphonic beings. Meaning, we are multi-voiced beings inescapably engaged in series of ongoing conversations with ourselves, others, the world, and a "super-addressee" (Bakhtin's term for God). We are not governed by an overarching ego, but rather by multiple voices from ourselves and others. No. I have no disagreement here. I am actually with you on this one, TFP. But, where I get off the boat is the question, "To what extent?" Psychologically speaking, we are always subject to possibility and constraint. Meaning, how possible it is for us to change will always be constrained by both internal and external factors. Ex: it is certainly possible for a person with a chemical imbalance to change, but that possibility will always be constrained by the chemical imbalance itself, (what we call in therapy) supportive factors, effectiveness of medication, effectiveness of priesthood blessings, the individual's faith, and quite frankly, God's willingness (cf. Paul's thorn in his side).In other words, I am meeting you way beyond half way here because I agree with you for a very long way down the river. But, I do get off the boat before you because the questions becomes one of possibility vs. constraint: how much change can realistically occur? A good book on this is The Psychology of Human Possibility and Constraint by Jack Martin and Jeff Sugarman. With all due respect, I have wondered, compassionately, if you've struggled with same-sex attraction given your emphatic stand points (nothing wrong with that at all) and need to respond. Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where a person with an inappropriate, unhealthy, and/or socially unacceptable desire takes on the direct opposite attitude, sometimes to a neurotic level, in effort to defend against the initial desire.But, that is in no way evidence that that is what you are doing. And, this isn't intended to be an attack. I could way off base here. I completely recognize that I don't know either way. The clinical literature from the APA and ACA has not determined this conclusively. The truth is, no one on this planet knows if this statement is accurate or not. Many psychologist don't even consider IED a disorder. That's why it is categorized in the DSM in a separate category. And that category is called by many practicing therapists the "throw away category" because they don't really know what to make of it, it's so-called symptoms, and how it manifests. We actually know very little about both. Again, I am not saying your statement is wrong, I am saying that the most up-to-date clinical literature hasn't been able to determine the accuracy of sich a statement. That's why the LGBTQ community, according to the HRC training I attended back in July, put on by the LGBTQ community, distinguish between behaviors and identity. Engaging in same-sex behaviors is very different than same-sex orientation being a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of a person's self-concept. We must distinguish in these dialogues between those choosing to be gay, and those who are gay. Granted their behaviors make up their orientation and identity. You'll get no argument from me there. The difference I am pointing out is an issue of self-concept.I am not really taking a position with this statement, merely pointing out some psych-education. 100% agreed.

Yeah. Me too....... but only a short flight because I would feel awkward using the bathroom. Congrats!

Congratulations, Suzie!

I'm new, but I aspire to one day reach the heights you have. You are a gentleman and a scholar... well, a lady and a scholar... Congrats. :)

I am joking.....congrats !! :)

Whoopty doo !!!

Am I in favor of gay adoptions? No. I believe it to be unnatural and like Carli said, unfair to children. Yet the presence of gay adoptions is only a symptom of the destruction of families. We do have broken homes, broken marriages, etc. These families are already in the midst of destruction. Giving stable homes fills a pressing need. If these children are loved and cared for, perhaps that makes a greater good than the evil of the gay families. Perhaps this adoption is the lesser evil in a world of war against the family. Is it perfect? Hardly. But I'd rather get to the root of the problem than picking at the symptoms. Children ought to be raised to the gospel, in its entirety or otherwise. Once that's in a good place (time frame probably millennium) I think other ills will fade away.

Congrats!

I will only congratulate you if you take me for a ride in your invisible jetplane! Congratulations on your contribution milestone!

I assume that at the center of this question is the assumption that our sense of "ideal" is that every child should be raised by both a mother and a father in a stable, loving marriage. As JAG indicated, our society is full of "families" that do not fit this ideal. From widows/widowers whose life circumstances force them to be single parents to those who have children outside of marriage and choose not to marry to, now, homosexual couples who raise their own or adopt children. IMO, it seems to me that we face these individuals/couples/families the same way we would face all the other "families" that do not live up to our version of "ideal". We do our best to help them with their struggles and rejoice with them in their triumphs. We continue to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in love and give them opportunities to accept or reject that Gospel. We need to continue to do what we can to make sure our own marriages stay intact and our own children feel loved and are taught the Gospel. I guess we also need to decide how we should try to promote our "ideal" in political and legal arenas. I'm not exactly sure what that needs to look like. Sure we'd all like to see our ideal promoted, but real life seems to be messy. This really hit home to me in reading some of those "my exwife/girlfriend illegally put our baby up for adoption without my knowledge or consent and, even though she doesn't want to raise the baby, I (the father) do want to raise the child" scenarios. As I see these cases work themselves out for better or for worse, it seems to me that our legal and cultural systems are considering more than just the ratio of mothers to fathers to children. Until Christ Himself reigns on this earth, I expect there will be plenty of these "less than ideal" family situations that we need to accept and work with as best we can.

I have been and am both a foster and an adoptive parent. There are countless children in dire need of loving, patient, longsuffering parents. Yes, we live in a messed up world but one is either part of the problem or part of the solution.

I would venture a guess that kids are going to do better under a loving gay couples home than under no home at all or even a broken one. I don't believe it's the ideal circumstance, but at the end of the day I'd be glad these kids found a home. I'm not sure how such a minority can make a statistical difference in adoption rates though.

Carlimac, if it's really bugging you that much, I'd suggest you go find a gay couple with kids, befriend them, learn about their lives, and learn to love their kids. Somewhere during that process, I'm betting you'll figure out how to pull off the whole "stay non-contentious and Christlike with a straight face" thing. You'll probably not need to abandon any of your beliefs about the importance of the traditional family unit, either. At least, that's how it's working for me. Years ago I knew a family in our ward. I was exec secretary, he was ward clerk. We agreed and argued a lot on a lot of topics. Wife and I did some social things together. We admired how they were raising their kids, them in general. Fast forward a few years, and now they're in a different state, divorced, he came out of the closet earlier this year, and is in a relationship with a guy named John. The deal is, I didn't hit fast forward - I watched it all go by over the years. I've interacted with them and watched their daughters grow. The guy talks about decades of feeling wrong, hating himself, trying to force himself to change. I've been witness to their pain and fears and tears. I see how the adults have put much effort and working together into minimizing the impact on their daughters. Here's the deal - there's a lot there for me to not judge. There's a lot there that I don't know, and much that I do isn't any of my business. Dood was raised in the church like me. He's making his choices and facing his consequences. I don't need to agree with his choices to love him. I don't need to be contentious to remain true to my beliefs and testimony. (Actually, we still like arguing. I should say I can contend with love, and not give anything up.) Right now, people fall into two categories for this guy. Those who ostracize and renounce him and those who accept and show love to him. I'm finding it possible to love him without budging a single dang inch on my beliefs about God's plan or the importance of marriage and the traditional family unit. Anyway, maybe you should try something similar.

As cliche as it might be, I am reminded of the serenity prayer: [G]rant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I saw in none of these that the fundamental desires, such as sexual attraction, of our bodies could be removed. They were all about changing our actions and thoughts. Sorry.

What I find fascinating about these sort of discussions is that perhaps most of us never had to endure same sex-attraction but heck we have a lot to say about how people who do struggle with it, can change if they really want to.

I am debating the point that you are saying we should try to overcome the natural man in the same breath (so-to-speak) that we should try to change the natural man. My point is that sometimes we can overcome the natural man without changing the natural man, it is still there, underneath but by enduring it till the end. In the end we overcome it through death. Some aspects of the natural man can change, such as the previous alcoholic developing a dislike for the taste of alcohol but there are many things that are simply the "thorn in the flesh" that we cannot change about our physical, carnal body, fallen self during this life. To lump them together as if all tendencies should be overcome in this life is wrong. I think it is wrong to tell someone that if they have a desire for alcohol even though they are controling it and not giving into it that they are somehow evil for having that craving. In my opinion, a person who has a craving for alcohol, that may be there their whole life and doesn't give into it despite being tempted over and over is doing excellent in this test! In this life, yes, we are supposed to endure through our imperfections. When we die, we finally give up this corruption and it turns to dust where it came from. Then we get a perfect body which allows us to receive a fullness of our perfection. The test of endurance is not to see how much we can overcome but how we can perfect our ability to depend on the Lord. Why did Job get stricken with so many things towards the end of his faithful life? Were the number of things he was striken with a reflection of how successful he was in being faithful? And by the way, your earlier comment about hunger when fasting not being evil is not correct, that is one of the things Christ was tempted with after His 40 day fast. He was hungry and Satan used that as a temptation. The hunger was coming from Christ' own body, from himself and yet Christ was not evil. The judgement of righteous or evil desires is not in what is presented but what is chosen after it is presented.

In counterpoint though, sex, but not just sex, physical intimacy IS an important part of marriage. I often do feel that when problems in a marriage arise from physical intimacy and a male partner feels unloved and has a hard time with it, he's given a resounding "chin up, man up, take it, do all of these romantic things, do everything around the house, date her, and when she still doesn't want you, and refuses to even touch you, that's just too bad." Then when it comes to advice for the wife on how to meet her husbands needs there's crickets. When you've pledged an eternity to someone, you do expect a degree of effort to meet needs in return. I mean talk about the burden being unequally yoked. My marriage right now is suffering from intimacy problems. We are working on it, I know she does love me, but you sure don't feel like it when she won't touch you despite all the effort you are putting into dating her and trying with everything you have to be a good husband. I simply can't understand what the issue is if two people love each other, why can't some physical magic happen? Knowing your wife loves you is different than feeling like you are loved if that makes any sense. (note I'm not asking for advice here, just relating that, well, I feel the op, I can understand why he may feel what he feels)

You may not, but apparently someone else did. Sex is, decidedly, NOT the only reason to be married other than children. Even children is not the reason. It is a reason. It is a good reason. But even those (like me) who have not been blessed with children are still meant to be married, because it is a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom. As for your question, my views on sex in marriage is that the corrupted world has done it's best to turn marriages into a self-centered stomping ground for wickedness, angst, antagonism, lust, and self-fulfillment. None of which are supposed to be, in any degree, part of marriage. And therefore, until one remove these things from marriage entirely, then it's fairly safe to say that failure is a possibility, and that failure that stems from wickedness will bring judgement upon us. Apply that thinking how you like to the question at hand.

Also, Elder Wood describes our inability to get rid of the "thorn in the flesh"; "Paul then quotes the Lord, who tells him, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). All men and women are bound by mortally imposed weaknesses and limitations in strength, knowledge, and power. Contrasting these limitations with the infinite wisdom and power of God brings humility. “Weaknesses are a constant reminder of our dependence upon the Lord. It is when we take those weaknesses to Him, in humility, that we can become effectively joined with Him in a great work. It is when we have done as much as we can do that His grace … can move us beyond our natural abilities” (Carolyn J. Rasmus, “Faith Strengthened in Weakness,” Church News, 26 Feb. 1994, 10). It is in this sense that God’s strength can then be made perfect in our lives. “The Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things” (Jacob 4:7)." 2 Corinthians 12; "7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." It is not intended that the "thorn in the flesh" be taken away - it will be there our whole lives no matter how good one is at ignoring it or working through it.

I think you should reread Elder Bednar's description; "The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh." There are the "inclinations" of the natural man which is separate from the idea of whether they are "responded" to or not. In other words, one can have an inclination but not respond to it. Is that evil in your mind? I would suggest that, as Elder Bednar described, the test of this life is to see which one we respond to. Therefore, the "inclinations" are not going to go away while we are still in the test. If the "inclinations" of the natural man were not there then there would be no test. So, just to have a natural man "inclination" is not evil. Is it evil that I am hungry during Fast Sunday? Was it evil that the apostles slept when they didn't want to in the garden? The spirit is willing but the body is weak.

Well if it is to celebrate Joseph Smith's birthday I would say no. I celebrate my own that day. :)

I agree with the rest of your post, but am a little uncomfortable with this. Porn use/masturbation by husband and withholding sex by wife is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Yeah, a man who isn't "getting it" from his wife will be sorely tempted to go elsewhere. On the other hand . . . knowing the way women perceive sex, what woman would want to have intercourse with a man who's been engaging in that kind of crap?