Seminarysnoozer

SS is right in this case though. Children cannot sin. Pointing out that children lie is not valid. It's like pointing out that babies poop in their diapers. Children do "wrong" things all the time. That is not debatable. Everyone knows that. The point is that when children do wrong things it is NOT sin. For sin to be sin, accountability is required. No accountability -- no sin.

My first example concerns Satan’s efforts to corrupt a person who has an unusual commitment to one particular doctrine or commandment of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This could be an unusual talent for family history work, an extraordinary commitment to constitutional government, a special talent in the acquisition of knowledge, or any other special talent or commitment. - DALLIN H. OAKS
 
Edit: This was in response to this: 
 
Edit more: Actually the whole talk is fantastic. Here.

Oh my goodness gracious me. I believe the world has ended.

This, I think, is a great question. 
 
I think we may not really know the answer to that until judgement day.  We certainly don't have the ability to judge any one person about those issues without knowing the intent of the heart. 
 
There are many ways to sin, there are so many that King Benjamin coudn't even number them; Mosiah 4 " 29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.
 30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."
 
I think God will judge the act based in the effort given, as King Benjamin explains in verse 30.  As one of my young women said in Sunday school many years ago when we read this scripture;  "maybe this is where Ice Cube got the phrase 'check yo self'"

The Folk Prophet appears to be a "Syth", for they only deal in absolutes! 
 
The question, Master or patawan? hmmmm, either way, we need to cut you down.

Clearly we can be temple worthy and still sin, or none of us would be temple worthy, for none of us is without sin. The idea that temple worthiness is the criteria whereby we judge sin is silly and has long been perpetuated as a means of false justification for behaviors that we well know better than.
 
We know better!
 
Anything that is less than perfect is a sin (see my first post).
 
Anything that is less than what Christ would have us be is sin. What would Christ have us be? Like Him. Perfect. Would Christ have tatoos and multiple piercings? Clearly the answer to that can't be "proven". But it seems fairly obvious, especially considering that His prophet ("whether by my voice of the voice of my servants it is the same") said not to.
 
Prove me wrong.  

One talent that members are given is the gift of the Holy Ghost.  It is given from God, and that makes it a talent.  I think the verse referenced is talking about being given stewardship and being given talents, one of which is the Holy Ghost.
 
If we are given inspiration and/or answers via the Holy Ghost and we choose not to act on the prompting, the "talent" will be taken away and given to someone else, just as in the parable of the talents.  That is one way that people can get lost in the mists of darkness.

It gives a whole new meaning to "Starlight Lounge"
  
Hey.... I seem to recall mention of Armies of Heaven!
Q

I find it interesting the avenues you explorer.  I also like the idea that you throw out ideas and concepts to be discussed openly.  I think you are looking at ownership verses stewardship in conjunction with our pre-earth existence and our mortal experience.   Perhaps it is from my training but I tend to take a premise and try to apply it to actual test cases.
 
My view is somewhat slanted by my experience so I will begin with something I experienced with my father - who is the best type and shadow to our heavenly Father I have encountered personally in my own mortal existence.   My father owned several large apartment complexes when I was in college.  One summer he decided to have some of them painted so I hatched a plan to earn summer money painting for my father.  He liked my plan and I was given the go a head to put together a team to accomplish the task - he would pay me and my team.  Trusting my father to be just I never got a commitment on what we would be paid - just that we would receive profession pay - not by the hour but by the job.
 
It all sounded good and I gathered a team - we worked very hard and completed the first of two complexes and my father paid everyone for our first job.  However, much to my surprise I was paid much less than everyone else.  This shocked me because I was over everybody else on the job.  In addition I was always the first to start, last to finish and the hardest working in between - and my father knew it.  Disappointed I approached my father and asked him why I had been short changed and paid less than everybody else.   I remember well setting in my father's office almost in tears thinking I had disappointed him.  Never had my father openly complemented me and this was no exception.  First he reviewed with me the job and every little thing I could have done better.  He then pointed out that I was his son and because of that much more was expected of me than was expected of anyone else.  Everyone else on the team had exceeded his expectations so he had given them a bonus.  He said I had only done what he had expected me to do and since I had not exceeded his expectations I would not receive a bonus - in fact he said that he had expected better of me.   In addition he explained that everybody knew I was his son and he wanted to make sure that everybody understood that I did not get any special or unfair treatment from him just because I was his son.  Finely he said that because I was his son I would receive from him training, opportunity and many other non-tangible benefits just being his son worth much more than the money.  Plus he said that when he died I would inherit with my siblings - all he had.  At the time I was not impressed - it would take many years before I would appreciate his great gifts to me.
 
Being my father's son and learning from him and his example was and is worth far more that his estate.
 
I see strong parallels to the life and mission of Jesus - except that his father on occasions said he was well pleased.  Jesus does more than any of us from the very beginning all the way to the end and completion.  Yet he will not get any more of the Father's estate than any of the rest of us that have covenanted to complete the job.  Jesus has more talent than any of us and much more was expected of him - but he is given in the end no extra.  Is his stewardship greater? Yes!  Has he earned more? Yes!  Was he given more?  Yes!  But because he was the Son he did not get any special treatment and in essence we get paid more?  But being the Son he experienced more in the experience than we possibly can - and unlike me - it appears he appreciates already his opportunity to be in charge of the Father's team.

My understanding and quotes I have provided have all been from LDS sources, not my own understanding.
 
His talk is about when the addiction becomes sin.  Let me paraphrase and summarize what Hartmon Rector is saying; Sin is when the spirit also becomes addicted.  Note his words; "it is not just the physical body that is addicted..."  Which is exactly what I have been saying.  The problem is when the spirit takes on the characteristics of the body.  The body's "addiction" is not an issue.  It is only when the spirit that can make choices also becomes "addicted", that is the thing that is taken with us to the next world.  If it is "just" in the body then it is not sin and it is not a problem.  The body will do what it does.  Our test is a spiritual one, whether the spirit will take on the passions of the body or not.  I think you need to learn through the spirit of discernment and weed out the garbage of the wisdom of the world.  The phrase that you selectively cut off from the quote you gave right before the start of your selection reads "Resurrection is a process whereby after death the spirit returns and reunites with the body and they become again a living, immortal soul, immortal meaning not subject to death or separation. I believe it is primarily the spirit that sees, hears, feels, knows passion and desire;... "  Therefore he is only refering to the things that are carried with us to the next life.  He is not refering to the things that turn to dust upon death.  The important thoughts, passions, sights, sounds, desires etc. are the ones that are internalized to the spirit as that is who we really are and will carry through to the next life. I totally agree with Hartmon Rector when he says the struggle that we deal with is the spirit, because that is what we will carry with us and that is what we will be judged by, not the addictions of the body.  Remember he said it is not "just" the body that is addicted (when there is sin).  Read further on in the talk, he is talking about sin only.   Sin is when the spirit makes a choice.  There are passions from the body, i.e. - sexual drives, hunger, striving for power and control, domination, anger etc.  The sin is when the spirit adopts those as her own.  I agree with Hartmon Rector in that discussion.
 
Go ahead and quote a talk from 1970 and I will give you one from April 2013, Elder Bednar so that you have further understanding of this discussion beyond the general discussion available in 1970; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).
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."
 
"We are here to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."  Elder Nelson 1985 (15 years after your quote); "If our faith be united in prayer that we may be edified together, I should like to speak about our quest for self-mastery. In so doing, I would converse as a loving father counseling one of my own children.
Before you can master yourself, my precious one, you need to know who you are. You consist of two parts—your physical body, and your spirit which lives within your body. You may have heard the expression “mind over matter.” That’s what I would like to talk about—but phrase it a little differently: “spirit over body.” That is self-mastery."
 
President Eyring 2008; "We all were taught by Elohim, the Father of our spirits. We loved Him and wanted to be like Him and to be with Him forever. He told us plainly what it would require for us to have that joy. We would have to receive a physical body, with all of the trials that would bring. We would be subject to illness and have within our bodies the processes which would finally lead to death. And our bodies would have in them powerful cravings for physical satisfaction."
 
Part of the discord I think comes from having different definitions of "addiction",  "Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (gambling) that can be pleasurable but the continued use of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work or relationships, or health. Users may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others.
The word addiction is used in several different ways. One definition describes physical addiction. This is a biological state in which the body adapts to the presence of a drug so that drug no longer has the same effect; this is known as tolerance. Because of tolerance, there is a biological reaction when the drug is withdrawn. Another form of physical addiction is the phenomenon of overreaction by the brain to drugs (or to cues associated with the drugs). An alcoholic walking into a bar, for instance, will feel an extra pull to have a drink because of these cues."
 
There is the "pull" from the body, then there is the choice made by the spirit.  At what point the line is crossed, the point at which the spirit takes on the characteristics of the body and it becomes a spiritual choice, God will judge that in any given person.  You and I cannot judge that, we cannot see the inner man like God can.   It is not 100% of the time a choice made by the spirit.  As even Hartmon Rector, Jr says "sometimes" it is. You and I cannot judge that in any given person.

First I want to welcome all that have entered into the discussion.  There are a couple of points I would like to make.  Snoozer makes some very interesting points.  In my discussion with her - I admit to pushing the limits somewhat.  This has been for two reasons.  One is to determine if Snoozer recognizes any complicity in our spirits when our spirits are tempted - especially when an individual turns physically away from temptation but then turns back to indulge.   The second reason is to explorer my own thinking to see if I can find logic to adjust some of my thinking. 
 
I have wondered how much a spirit affects the physical and how much the physical affects the spiritual.   It is my personal opinion that such relationship between the spiritual and physical is more dynamic than static.  But this is based in my own experience and I seem to be able to alter this condition through discipline of both what I think is my spiritual self and also my physical self.  Snoozer seems to have experience somewhat different than mine.  But I have been unable to drill down with Snoozer to understand her thinking beyond theological interpretation.  I am inclined to think that most of her responses to me have been mostly defensive to to her position.  However, I am not sure.  But because she has a very different opinion than that which I am accustomed I think there is something to be gleaned if I can just get past what I think is a defensive posture to questions that push the limits of the discussion.  I admit openly this is something I tend to create when I ask aggressive questions though it is not my intention - It is my curiosity that pushes the envelop of some posters tolerance.   But Snoozer has been amazingly kind and understanding of me.

It's pretty complicated when it comes to diseases of the mind. When it comes to diseases of the body, it's pretty straight forward. If you get a hand cut off, it doesn't have anything to do with your spirit. But as a man thinketh, so is he...so...how does that work if a "disease" of the mind causes that man to think badly. Clearly if it's entirely physical --- literally a physical disease and nothing more, then it is unrelated to the persons spirit and thus unrelated to the person's accountability. But it isn't that straight forward when it comes to brain and thinking issues. They are, clearly, sometimes at least partially (and perhaps sometimes fully) caused by choice, habit, etc.
 
OCD is is a prime example. Is it sometimes a physical mental disorder? Yes. Is is sometimes just bad choices leading to further bad choices that lead to habits and messed up thinking? Yes. The physical result may be the same. The OCD person in one case may physically be the same as the other. But the core cause, and the choices that led or did not lead a person to become one way or another may have stemmed from very different things - one being accountable, the other not. (Incidentally, this is also my view of homosexuality and the choice/no choice issue).
 
I don't think we can or should be saying what is and is not spiritual and physical in black-and-white terms. To do so is judgment that only the Lord can make. We simply cannot know.
 
Incidentally SS, I think you're entirely misinterpreting Bednar and the meaning of having a dual nature. It does not mean that we have two natures that are distinct and separate. Our physical and our spiritual are one and the same. Being of a dual nature is no different than being, for example, of mixed race. Yes, both races are part of us. But they are not separate. We are a whole consisting of the different contributing factors..

I mostly agree here--though I think there's a fair amount of guessing going on and we don't really understand these things at all. But it argues for the point that women will never need the priesthood, because they can experience the blessings of it vicariously. It also argues (going back to an old thread debate with you) for the potential of polygamy, in that one celestial sister-wife would vicariously share in the joy of all her celestial sister-wives joy in progeny. I believe you argued before that celestial polygamy could not be fair because the husband's progeny would be greater than the wife's. According to this vicarious sharing theory, that would not be true.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
The quote may be the one in which he says the resurrected body with grow to the stature of the spirit in reference to mothers being allowed to raise their children. Joseph F. Smith; "But we know our children will not be compelled to remain as a child in stature always, for it was revealed from God, the fountain of truth, through Joseph Smith the prophet, in this dispensation, that in the resurrection of the dead the child that was buried in its infancy will come up in the form of the child that it was when it was laid down; then it will begin to develop. From the day of the resurrection, the body will develop until it reaches the full measure of the stature of its spirit, whether it be male or female."

I think it is more complicated than that.  "Coping mechanisms" can be described as physical traits as well.  We know, for example, that self-mutilation is a form of an abnormal coping mechanism that can be triggered by brain injury such as traumatic brain injury to bilateral temporal poles. There was a recent study that showed that posterior hypothalamic deep brain stimulation removed that abnormal coping mechanism.
 
Bialteral lesions to the anterior temporal lobe which can occur in traumatic brain injury (being in a car accident) can result in hypersexuality (see Kluver Bucy syndrome).  In my career I have seen cases like that. They were previously wholesome, church going chaste people who turn into a different personality and one in particular I remember suddenly became hypersexual and had an addiction to pornography and would go to Tijuana for prostitutes after this injury.  He truly had a sex addiction after the injury.  The reason to point this out is that we don't know how much influence the wiring of the brain plays a role in these things in any given person versus some agency allowed choice, we can't judge that.
 
The bottom line is whether something becomes written in our heart or not.  Is it taken to heart, meaning do our spirits incorporate that trait or not.  How do we know that Pauls "thorn in the flesh" was not some addiction, that he now does not have? 
 
What is of "their own making" is hard for us to distinguish in any given person.  That is for only God to know.  We have to assume, as we show love to those around us that may be suffering from addiction, that all of it is not of their own making, that the whole thing is a "thorn in the flesh".  We are not allowed to judge that way because we don't have the ability to know which components are driven by brain anatomy vs. the part that is spiritual characteristics.

I was just scanning through this thread and got knocked off my chair by this statement. 1) No. No it isn't. Tourette's and other neurological disorders are NOT caused by unclean spirits or any other kind of possession, demon or otherwise. They're physiological disorders. Just like any other physiological disorder.
2) To continue to pick on Tourette's for a moment... There is NOTHING inherently wrong, evil, or unclean with Tourette's! Ya wanna start talking badly about psychopathy, then I might be tempted to get on board for even a moment, but Tourette's??? It's just a series of tics, that while distracting and frustrating at times for sure, but in no way predicts anything about the person themselves who has it. No more than a sprained ankle predicts a limp. People with Tourette's can be phenomenally holy, totally normal like most of us, or complete jerks. Their disorder has nothing to do with their personality, who they are, or how they think or choose to act.
Q

From Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Like a Broken Vessel: 
 
 

I can answer that, somewhat.  From an LDS woman's standpoint, I see that the basic unit of organization for God is the family unit.  From the Garden of Eden on, God has always established his order based in the family unit.  It will be the same in the next life.  Whatever my husband has, if he and I both make it to the Celestial Kingdom, will be mine too.  We will share those burdens and I will help him with his roles and he with mine.  This is the basic unit of organization with God. The basic unit of organization is not the individual.  Satan wanted that.  He wanted to be recognized in and of himself without anybody else to attribute his glory to.  He couldn't stand the idea of saying that his glory was given to him by someone else.
 
Exaltation itself is based in that family unit.  The pathway to exaltation would not deviate from that or provide opportunity to receive all the blessings in some secondary fashion. 
 
Why is the family unit the basic unit of organization for God?  that is a question for another thread.

As a sister in the Church, I think the other misconception created by this issue is that there is some limitation to one's progress by that separation of roles.  In other words, can women really become like our Heavenly Father or not?  Can women have all that the Father has like it is promised to anyone entering the Celestial Kingdom?  (key word being all)
 
I think the answer to that is that a role doesn't necessarily change the quantity of glory available.  And, I think the way around that is to understand that in the Celestial Kingdom everyone is part of the "one" body. 
 
1 Corinthians 12; "18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."
 
I don't think there is more honour in one role than another when in the Celestial Kingdom as it is shared as one body without schism.  I think one would see herself as the whole while in the Celestial Kingdom and not as an individual, in other words.  In this life, we tend to separate the two, which I believe is what you are saying as well.

I wanted to both allow you to answer and see how you would answer before I responded.  I believe your line of thinking is critical to understanding men and women are different and fulfill different roles - not just in mortality but in eternity.  I believe your observation of a particular phrase enlightens in part that difference.  It is obvious that in creation, especially in the creation of human life - men and women fulfill different and necessary roles.
 
By the nature of creation a woman gives herself (both physically and spiritually) to the creation of human life as she becomes pregnant with child.    Without giving herself in such a manner children could not be created.  But at the same time she should not be alone - thus there is also a role of husband and father that the man needs to take upon himself to take or received the woman unto himself to oversee and provide for her being a mother.
 
The problem is that many see the woman giving herself as being subservient to the man that in taking her and her pregnancy unto himself she becomes less than him.  It seems most obvious to me that a woman cannot give herself in selfishness.  The problem is in understanding the man receiving or taking the woman and child unto himself.  This act of receiving is often seen as selfishness in the role of men but the truth could not be farther from this understanding.   Taking a woman in pregnancy is and ought to be understood as complementary to the unselfishness of the woman and makes the whole of unselfishness greater than the sum of it parts. 
 
But the role of men and women do not suddenly just start when the woman is pregnant but rather is part of the eternal nature of creation which is in the greatness of G-d.  Thus it seems to me that priesthood and the man being ordained to priesthood is an element of the eternal order of G-d.  The priesthood being the means by which manhood and woman hood is fulfilled.  It seems clear to me, concerning righteous and unrighteous dominion that the priesthood is useless to the man that uses priesthood to have unrighteous dominion of women.  Likewise the woman cannot fulfill her giving of herself outside of giving herself to a man that does not honor her and the priesthood through which he receives her.
 
As I understand the priesthood - it is the divine order of G-d.  What I am not sure is if in this life the priesthood is given unto man only as training and preparation for roles that will be such the same or different in eternity.  I am inclined to believe that when we understand the eternal nature of marriage and the eternal roles of giving and receiving as a divine order or G-d - we will understand the priesthood and why men and women have different eternal roles.

I don't know the full meaning. But I think it is significant to put it in terms of "...priestess to her husband", whereas the husband is not referred to in terms of "priest to his wife".
 
If I was going to throw a guess, I'd put it something along the lines of this: Men become priests through ordination to the priesthood. Women become priestesses by marrying their husbands. There is no implication therein as to the power and authority the woman has,- that simply is what it is -- but there is, perhaps, a strong implication that ordination is not, and will not be, the means women become priestesses.
 
Realistically, I also think that the usage of the term priest and priestess in the temple is much more universal than the way we use the term priest in the mortal order of the priesthood. Anyone who reaches the highest kingdom permanently joins the Celestial order and becomes a part of the "priesthood" (meaning an organization of priests and priestesses) of God, with all the attending power, glory, and dominion. Whereas on this earth we are only given authority to act for God, rather than actually holding any power ourselves. The ultimate requirement (as far as ordinances go) for achieving this is marriage, which responsibility is equal to men and women. Without marriage, neither qualify. But men have the additional requirement of being ordained to the priesthood in life to qualify, whereas women join the order when they marry.

I cannot speak to what others have experienced but from my own experience, I would speak to this post and clarify some of I have found to take place concerning my experience with the Holy Ghost and have received revelation of knowledge.  At times of my life I have come to know things to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost.  At the moment of this experience the knowledge was like a vast flood completely overtaking me in my understanding to expanding my comprehension.  But like being overtaken by a flood; some time later I also experienced a "receding" from the vast knowledge that was once very clear to me.  This receding from vast knowledge was not so much doubt as not being able to remember the full extent of my previous insight. 
 
From my experience it would seem that knowledge experienced through the Holy Ghost ebbs and flows in a manner that seem to be directly related to my ability to be connected with the Holy Ghost.  If for whatever reason I continue to remain distant my diminishing comprehension will become doubt and eventually disbelief.  Then should I find myself surrounded again by a flowing of the spirit - I discover again what I knew before.    For me understanding and knowledge is not a constant or a one and done thing but in reality a continual struggle to stay connected.  For this very reason I welcome gathering with other Latter-day Saints on any given Sunday regardless of where I travel and find myself.   I also find benefit in associating with other of honest and compassionate demeanor.   Strangely I find the opposite to also be the case - especially if I allow myself to become angry - anger will cause doubt and confusion to creep in.  For this reason I believe Satan uses such tools to dissuade us from truths that we once enjoyed.

I agree with him, but I also think he should shut up about it and not declare it across the pulpit. I believe most people do believe and very few know, but I'm not going to tell them which word they ought to use.

Quite to the contrary.  I believe the saying is that you go to heaven for the climate and you go to hell for the company. 
 
 
I don't think we fundamentally disagree at all:  there's certainly a component of addiction that is chemical/physiological, and is just something that the spirit inhabiting the body has to deal with; and to which death does offer release.  But does addiction often run concurrently with a spiritual ailment that will persist beyond the veil?  I think the answer can be (not always, but sometimes) "yes".  Obviously, that doesn't change our obligation to be universally compassionate in the here-and-now.  It just means that we can't medicate, operate, or electrically stimulate our way out of every form of addiction.
 
On a semi-topical tangent:  Just_A_Girl swears that there's a quote out there from JFS implying that our bodies are not immediately perfect on resurrection morning, but that they gradually become so over time.  I can't find it anywhere.  Does it ring a bell to you?

I think it is more complicated than that.  "Coping mechanisms" can be described as physical traits as well.  We know, for example, that self-mutilation is a form of an abnormal coping mechanism that can be triggered by brain injury such as traumatic brain injury to bilateral temporal poles. There was a recent study that showed that posterior hypothalamic deep brain stimulation removed that abnormal coping mechanism.
 
Bialteral lesions to the anterior temporal lobe which can occur in traumatic brain injury (being in a car accident) can result in hypersexuality (see Kluver Bucy syndrome).  In my career I have seen cases like that. They were previously wholesome, church going chaste people who turn into a different personality and one in particular I remember suddenly became hypersexual and had an addiction to pornography and would go to Tijuana for prostitutes after this injury.  He truly had a sex addiction after the injury.  The reason to point this out is that we don't know how much influence the wiring of the brain plays a role in these things in any given person versus some agency allowed choice, we can't judge that.
 
The bottom line is whether something becomes written in our heart or not.  Is it taken to heart, meaning do our spirits incorporate that trait or not.  How do we know that Pauls "thorn in the flesh" was not some addiction, that he now does not have? 
 
What is of "their own making" is hard for us to distinguish in any given person.  That is for only God to know.  We have to assume, as we show love to those around us that may be suffering from addiction, that all of it is not of their own making, that the whole thing is a "thorn in the flesh".  We are not allowed to judge that way because we don't have the ability to know which components are driven by brain anatomy vs. the part that is spiritual characteristics.