jb789

No problem in disagreeing! This isn't something yet specified by modern prophets so it's all up to personal revelation etc at this point. Nonetheless, I think understanding what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes is key. For me, reading the books of Max Skousen was very helpful - I can say that I felt genuine inspiration while reading them, for me they were very helpful.

Yes, I see the scripture - indeed, if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the Garden (yet Eve would have left) - thus, being separated, they would not be able to have children (yet the scripture doesn't indicate that if both were to remain in the Garden, they are incapable of having children). As for the concept of duality and opposites, my understanding is that it is necessary to experience the "bitter fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to realize that it is not the way. However, when one is spiritually reborn (eastern philosophy terms this "enlightenment", yet is is the same as being reborn spiritually/entering into the rest of the Lord, etc), they no longer view things from this dualistic mindset. They are no longer labeling this "good", and this "bad", and thus constantly judging in their own minds this versus that. They see truth as a whole, not as divided into opposites. Again, this can be hard to understand (as what this really means is we transcend the "carnal mind"), but the Spirit very much does indicate to me it is true. Surely God in the eternities does not continually experience the bitter to know the good - perhaps at one time in His probation he did, but such a continually experience of opposites is not part of joy. Remember a time when you felt great peace and joy - is there an "opposite" to this? Or rather, is such a blissful experience complete in itself? Little children do not experience life in such a conflicted, opposite-driven fashion. We are told to become as little children, and to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The great misconception, I believe, is that we forget that the promised "blessings" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of God, knowing everything has it's opposite, etc) were proposed by Lucifer, the father of all lies. This was a great deception, on under which many are still living! From God's own direction, this tree leads to spiritual death. It is the other tree - the love of Christ, that leads to life eternal.

I think Traveler provided some excellent points, in that, in the temple, we are to understand the Fall as being symbolic, and to consider ourselves as Adam and Eve. Max Skousen wrote a great book on this very subject, called Looking Beyond the Mark: Max Skousen-Looking Beyond the Mark In his book, Max explains what he believes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes - that it is our tendency to falsely judge what is good and evil, and to see things as opposites, rather than as a unified whole. This may be difficult to understand at first, but it makes a great deal of sense to me now. Lucifer (the father of all lies!) said that by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would become as Gods (Lucifer even said that is how God obtained his knowledge). Lucifer also explained that by partaking of this fruit, Adam and Eve would comprehend that "everything has it's opposite". According to Max, and I wholeheartedly agree, this was a deception of Lucifer, which led to the spiritual separation of God and man. I'm not going to explain it in detail (it would take quite a while), but I strongly suggest you read Max's book - I've provided a link above. This book was very helpful to me in understanding this very concept. We are specifically told in the scriptures that the Tree of Life is symbolic of the love of Christ. However, we are not specifically told what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes. Reading the book by Max may give you some good inspiration on this. Basically, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the illusion by which we judge this to be good, and this to be bad, this to be preferable, this to be not preferable, etc. In eastern philosophy, this would be known as "duality" - which is a condition of the fallen/natural/carnal mind, which views things in opposites, and thus always in conflict. I personally believe the Fall was helpful in this way - in order for Adam and Eve to realize what they already had by living with God, they had to experience being without Him, they had to Fall. It was still an error - the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil surely does not lead one to God! Lucifer falsely persuaded them that it would. Max Skousen teaches we can only come to the Tree of Life (pure love of Christ) by leaving the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Remember, this is symbolism. Thus, we must become as a child, "knowing nothing", having put aside all our prejudices, beliefs, etc, so that we are truly humble and teachable as children. Doing this is symbolically not partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Doing this will allow us to led by the Spirit (not by knowledge!) to the Tree of Life (love of Christ). I hope this helps - it's important to remember that these are symbols. A great part of understanding that Fall is to understand what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes, and how partaking of it draws us away from God, rather than towards Him. P.S. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe anywhere in the scriptures it states Adam and Eve could not have children while in the Garden of Eden. Adam partake of the fruit so he could remain with Eve (because she was already going to be cast out for eating the fruit). However, if neither had partaken, it appears they very would could have remained in the Garden and multiplied.

I would suggest being completely open to your bishop. The misconception many have is that they are the only ones to struggle with this - the reality is that many (perhaps as much as 50% of LDS men) have difficulties with this. Seriously, it is quite common, with probably a majority of those who struggle with it keeping it to themselves and not speaking with bishop/etc about it. You can certainly be worthy again - I would focus on doing the best you can, and relying on the Savior to help you. I learned myself that when I can be content doing the best I can, working at things, etc, I'm happy. I'm not perfect according to some external standard, but I always feel that God loves me, and that I can rely on the Savior to make up the difference. This is a great key to happiness - "worthiness" is not some goal out in the distant future - it is something we achieve each day as we fulfill our potential and do our best. This is the attitude that leads to peace and eventually returning to God. I would be completely honest with your bishop, and commit to doing your best as your work through this. Ironically, not attending the temple may not be the best option - I've found that regular temple attendance greatly decreases the desires to sin and err. Just like regular prayer and scripture study. Ask your bishop what he would suggest - I've spoken with a couple bishops concerning this and they both agreed (myself included) that continuing to regularly attend the temple is an important part of reducing the desires to sin. Be as realistic as you can. Idealistic expectations (which are very common in LDS culture) will not help us. We have to be humble enough to see ourselves as we are, flaws and all. Only then can we begin to improve. Focus on doing your best, and be content with the results. We all have weaknesses - it may feel like you are the only one, but this is far from the truth.

I cannot speak for others, but for myself I've certainly felt the Spirit indicating that in time, with patience and diligence, such a weakness can be overcome. But to think it can be overcome immediately is not the case. I've felt the Spirit on many occasions confirm that God is understanding of our weaknesses - and that often he will not immediately remove them, so that we can learn humility, reliance on the Saviour, and patience. This really is a never-ending process - we will never get to a point, until resurrection, where we aren't having to work on something.

I think this is the real trick - easier said than done, I know =) I think it can happen when we do things because we inwardly, of ourselves, want to do them. If you're doing it because your husband is demanding it, or any other external motive, it is destined to fail. Even focusing too much on the goal (such as weight loss) can be detrimental - I've found that when I work on things that I personally want (not that someone else wants for me), and I enjoy the journey, and am not focused too much on the end goal, that is where joy and peace can be found. There's a psychological theory called the Paradoxical Theory of Change, that essential states: "that change occurs when one becomes what he is, not when he tries to become what he is not. Change does not take place through a coercive attempt by the individual or by another person to change him, but it does take place if one takes the time and effort to be what he is — to be fully invested in his current positions." How this might apply to your situation, is that, you shouldn't change because other people want you to - that is their problem. If, however, of yourself you have the desire and motivation, then you will be able to persist at something. But you have to really examine your heart and determine what it is you really want - I think sometimes we get caught up into doing what we think we "should" do, without our hearts really being in it, and this is essentially a losing battle. We have to be true to ourselves. P.S. Just for the record, if what you're saying about your husband is true, he certainly is in no way living the gospel. To be quite honest it might be better being without him - to me he sounds absolutely ridiculous (he sounds more like a vain 20 year old then a man approaching 40 - quite honestly rather pathetic and infantile).

I could be wrong, but I've read, and found through personal experience, that unhealthy attachments to other people (as in your case, that prevent you from moving forward) arise when we allow ourselves to attach to other people. Buddhist thought teaches that attachment and love are two very different things - attachment is when we feel we cannot be without someone - in essence, we don't really love them, the pain is actually self-pain: we are pained because we think we cannot live without them. True love of a spiritual nature is not so - it respects the agency of others, and does not feel the need for reciprocation. Anthony de Mello once said (I paraphrase), that others cannot hurt us - only our incorrect attachments and views cause us to hurt ourselves. The truth of this can be very hard to see at times, it took me several years to finally see it, but it is true nonetheless. One of the greatest things to learn is that attachment and love are two different things - attachment leads to sorrow and frustration, love leads to peace and happiness.

This is a good point - sometimes, though our hearts are in the right place, and we rely on the Savior and thus receive forgiveness of our sins and the helping power of His grace, the desires themselves do not, at least immediately, cease. Remember, even Nephi lamented how easily he fell to sin (after having many revelations and personal visitations!), and Paul spoke of his "thorn in the flesh", he himself being an elect of God. The power of the Savior is that he can heal us and make up the difference - yet, this does not mean we get to a point, before being resurrected, where we are without flaw or mistakes. I don't think, until one is resurrected, this is even possible.

While I would say your husband is being ridiculous in his demands and obviously has many problems of his own to deal with, I do think that trying to be healthy (eating, exercise, etc) is very helpful. While love is not based on physical attraction alone, the physical attraction is part of a healthy relationship. And regular exercise/healthy eating can do a lot for our personal self-esteem. I used to not exercise years ago, now I do it every day (except Sunday), I can say if is a great help for stress relief, feeling better about your body, etc. Regardless of what your husband thinks, I do think maintaining care of our bodies is a very healthy and positive thing.

If anyone is interested, this was the article I was referencing: Mormon Masturbation I'm not going to comment yea or nay on the views of the LDS writer of the article, though I thought some might find it interesting.

I think you make a very good point - it's interesting how in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed - then it was Lucifer that pointed out they were naked, and shame entered (they ran and hid - also, God asked them "Who told you thou wast naked" - and it was Lucifer). I do think that growing up in the church there can develop a lot of shame/repression towards one's own sexuality - because the "shall nots" are so focused on. I would agree that a healthy view of sexual purity should allow some sexual thoughts/urges/etc, otherwise it seems to be a never-ending battle against yourself. I remember reading the account online of an LDS physician who commented that he had actually felt the Spirit when mb as a youth, and when he did this with an eye towards eventually marriage, it helped him cope with his sexuality and keep a healthy view of it. Others may disagree with his comments, but I thought they were interesting. At the least, it implied that sexual purity is more about directing our sexuality towards a spouse when unmarried, rather than putting a stoppage to it.

Agreed, without any doubt. However, when one is unmarried, dealing with natural sexual desires can be very difficult - on the one hand we're told to be pure in all thought/action, and on the other, the fact that as humans we are sexual beings means we have our sex drive regardless of whether we're married or not. I'm not making excuses, I agree with all that's been said here, it just seems to pose greater difficulties if one isn't married, and there isn't any healthy outlet for the sex drive.

This is a very helpful comment, and it makes sense what you say about using porn/mb as a way to cover/mask/medicate deeper underlying issues. I have a question though - is it possible someone may look at porn/masturbate, not as a means to cope with pain/difficulties/etc (other root issues), but simply because their body/biology wants a physical sexual release? Meaning, for lack of a better term, it's simply because one feels a need for physical sexual release, and this can be the cause of their porn/mb? This is assuming they aren't married and thus don't have a proper sexual outlet.

It's a tough thing to do, but if we can uncover the cause of our despair/sorrow, that is very helpful in feeling better. For example, though my experiences differ, when I graduated from college and had a major career turning point, I was very disappointed that things didn't work out the way I expected them to. After a while, I realized it was my expectations that were causing my sorrow - and when I learn to put my life more in the hands of God, and go with the flow, that sorrow and disappointment is greatly diminished. I've found this to be the case with relationships also - having expectations of others can set us up for a lot of disappointment and sorrow. I hope that helps - it is very hard to deal with despair, but I've found that uncovering the cause of our despair is very helpful, then working from there. I've found that just trying to be upbeat, rather than investigating the root cause of our unhappiness, does little long-term help.

Yes, you may very well be correct, as to my own experience I can't say at this time if I know either way. But what you are describing certainly makes sense.

I, like many others, have struggle with the temptation for this, and these are my thoughts: 1) In order for the behavior to truly end, we must lose the desire to do it. If the desire/urge arises for porn/masturbation, and then we say "what can I do to fight this desire/avoid acting out", we may gain a few victories, but eventually, the urges will get the better of us. In my own struggles with this the Spirit has hinted that, in order to be truly free of this, our nature must change, so that we no longer desire sexual activity in any form that does not involve the loving union of a spouse. This is a massive change of heart/spirit, and can very well take years to fully develop, that is, to lose all desire to engage in any sexual act outside of the marriage union (including porn, etc). 2) At the same time, I do believe the male sexuality has physical needs for sexual release from time to time - it's part of our biology. As an unmarried person myself, this can pose some problems =) So, in short, I believe if the desire isn't uprooted at it's root, we're fighting an essentially losing battle. Nonetheless, getting to the point where we truly have no desire to engage in any unworthy sexual act is a long process. I think as we do our best and strive to follow the Spirit and rely on the Saviour, our natures will gradually change, eventually we will lose all desire to sin in this way. In the meantime, we need to be steadfast and keep trying. There is no easy fix. I've asked bishops for advice, most of the time they gave me no advice I hadn't thought of on my own for coping with these urges. I believe that is because, plain and simple, there is no magic fix - it takes years of self-discipline and gradual changing of our hearts to overcome this. And to overcome it means to lose all desire to do it.

I think this is great, and the approach of continual learning/spiritual development is a critical one. It is different for every person, as we are all at different points on our spiritual journey back to God. The principle is that we continue to grow and learn, and there is no end to this until the resurrection and we become like God Himself. So, what for one might be unnecessary to concern oneself with, for another might be a vital part in growing to more understand the mysteries of Godliness. Sometimes the mistake we make is assuming because it is not important for our current understanding or development, that it isn't important for another. For prophets like Joseph, Brigham, and others, what would be for us mysteries that we aren't ready for were very much important in their progression, where they were at. And likewise with everyone in-between. The key is learning by faith and humility (humility meaning we admit we don't know!), and in our mortal/prohibition state there is no end to this.

I second this, I think it is a good, concise statement of the matter. I would add that, on occasion, teachings from other faiths may also supplement what we learn in Church, with the caveat that eventually the fullness of the gospel/ordinances/Christ are ultimately necessary (in this or the next life).

This is what I mean by an honest discussion turning into a war of who's right and whose wrong! It's a bit ridiculous, reads like a lawyer trying to make their point in court At any rate, I'm not going to exchange in a heated debate of tit-for-tat, I have other things to do. When the pursuit of truth becomes a war of contention, we've lost it's essence already.

Woah! Just a second, I was only saying I understand where Heber is coming from :) Years ago actually I was quite exacting in defending the LDS faith, being sometimes a bit harsh in judgement to those of other faiths. Since then, my approach has become more moderate, in that I really can see that many of the founders of other religions, and their followers today, very much have their hearts honestly seeking truth. This doesn't mean one can escape the need of the Saviour/ordinances/etc, of course, but spiritual sensitivity takes on more a role of understanding and genuine appreciation/even learning from other faiths, as opposed to lumping them in a pile of "doctrines of men" (which some are, but some are truly inspired!). But when any discussion leads to a battle of "I'm right, you're wrong", this is not the spirit of the gospel, it's nothing more than a defense of beliefs that doesn't help anyone, and causes those involved to just close off more in their own beliefs.

Heber, I think your inquiry is a very thoughtful one, and is a point in one's spiritual inquiry that, if they are honest, all will eventually reach. It's unfortunate that some have been railing against you for this honest inquiry, which is, seeing the good in other religions/faiths, and then wondering if they might also be vehicles in some form to take one to eventual exaltation. In my experience, when people at at a certain level of spiritual maturity (that is, their faith is sufficiently strong in the Savior, they are not moved about by winds of doctrine, etc), then they are able to see more of the inherent good in all religions. This doesn't mean such a person discounts the Saviour or his church! Rather, similar to our Father in Heaven, they see the sincerity in people seeking God in the ways available to them, and that these are indeed valid ways of seeking God in certain times/places (again, the Buddha comes to mind, also Lao Tzu, Mother Teresa, etc - these were indeed spiritual people, I dare say even among the elect of God that devoted their lives to helping others). When people respond with defensiveness (even concerning the LDS church), while technically they may be correct, the defensiveness stems from a faith that is not yet mature enough to see the good in various sources. Such defensiveness actually stems from fear - the fear that one's absolute beliefs may be shaken. I guess what I'm saying is, I understand where you're coming from, and you make very valid points. However, depending on the spiritual maturity of those you speak with, they may or may not be capable of the notion that indeed there is truth, and inspired men, in all of the world's great religions. Anthony de Mello had a great quote: "There was once a student who never became a mathematician because he blindly believed the answer he found at the back of his math textbook - and, ironically, the answers were correct." I think that's a great quote that indicates, though our beliefs may be correct, it is the pursuit of spirituality, the spirit within us, that is essential.

Yes, I agree that Buddhism is certainly incomplete (no Christ!) Nonetheless, I think some religions/philosophies come from men that are living according to the best light they have (I would count the original Buddha as one of these), whereas others are by misguided individuals who in some cases even distort the truth (think many of the Christian sects of Joseph Smith's time, who Joseph himself noted their hearts were far from the truth). In the case of the Buddha, while I can't be sure, I'm led to believe from all I've read that he lived according to the light he had the best he could, and sincerely strove to live at peace and help others. He received no direct revelations, so knew not concerning God/the afterlife/etc, yet nonetheless was a great example and help to those around him.

I think this true - the need for the Atonement never goes away, often it's our mistakes/weaknesses that serve to continually remind us of this and keep us humble. Thanks for sharing!

In what I've read from Buddhism (the words of the Buddha himself), he never stated there was a God or not, because he honestly didn't know (no restored Gospel in his time/place), so he simply refrained from commenting on it, and instead focused on how to live a peaceable life here. As with many, perhaps all religions, the farther they get from the source, the more "doctrines of men" can creep in - but in what I've read of the Buddha's own teachings/words, he never denied the existence of God, nor proposed it - because he (in my view) honestly didn't know either way, he simply focused on this life.

I believe that Buddhism (or another of the world's great religions) could be a pre-cursor to exaltation, if that is the most light/teaching a person has available in this life. But, at some point (in this life or the next), they will need to be taught the full gospel, including Christ, his role as Savior, and the ordinances, in order to progress further. I believe that many of the world's religions/philsophies can be precursors to the full gospel, in times/places when the fullness of the gospel wasn't had (Buddha was an example of this). The mistake I think some LDS people make is assuming that many/most of the originators of other faiths/religions are misguided - having read a fair amount of Eastern philsophy (including Buddhism), I can say with fair certainty this is not the case - the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and others were very spiritual men, I would say among the "noble and great ones", who were most likely placed where they were to help others, in a time/place where the fullness of the restored gospel was not. They were "spiritual giants" in their own time and place. Despite this, at some point, one must learn the fulness of the gospel - so while many of the world's great religions might be a precursor to this, in and of themselves, they aren't sufficient.