The Folk Prophet

I don't know that I believe that humans cannot train themselves whatsoever without the divine tutoring of the Holy Ghost. There is way too much evidence to the contrary. But I do agree that without the Holy Ghost our ability to change is certainly limited, and that, ultimately, we will fail.

Humans, unlike dogs, can train themselves.

We can learn. We can train ourselves. We can overcome. We can choose. We absolutely can control our feelings. Sure...it may be over time. But we can control them. "I can't help it. It's just how I feel." -- the mantra of a child. We can too help it.

Every example ever used from now on should include slime mold!

I think this ^ may well be where we differ.

Not that it matters...but I don't find the term "putting out" crude at all. I'm actually surprised at the vehement responses. How very interesting.

I think your reply is well thought out. But I do not agree. I do not believe that Christ had a feeling ever, even once, that was wrong to feel but that He then just did not act upon. When Christ felt anger it was righteous anger. If we feel righteous anger then we are doing as Christ did. If our anger is not righteous, it is wrong and we do, indeed, have need to repent. I also do not agree that we have no need to repent of all those little things. If people put upon themselves an unreasonable and unrealistic guilt trip that's on them. But the fact remains that anything that is less than perfect requires repentance, as I see it. Wrong is wrong. I stand by it. If I find someone of the same gender sexually alluring I'm in the wrong and I need to change. It may not be grievous. We may not even technically call it sin. It may not keep me from a temple recommend. But it is not as Christ would be, and it is not who I should be. I have explained to you that I meant more by "evil is evil" than just the thought or feeling. So however it may have sounded originally, we should be past that, so I'm not replying on that.... I'm not sure we can properly define the way Jesus actually "felt", when being tempted. All we know is that he was offered a variety of things and he promptly denied them. I would dare say that if someone's promptly denied an inappropriate arousal that they would not then have anything to repent of. But, really, if the immediate though, feeling, idea, and reality of homosexuality is promptly and thoroughly denied, I think it fairly safe to say that such a person could hardly be labelled "gay", in spite of the world's kettle of lies that you either are or you aren't, it's a defining characteristic, etc... And yes, we should be judging. But righteously. Anyhow, I'm not sure if we're being useful to each other or just bantering meaninglessly at this point. I hope it's not just seeming like a big argument. If it is, let's cut it off. If it's useful, I'm more than happy to keep chatting on it.

The real question is if you break the law of chastity on a Tues when a full moon is up... ...nevermind...

And here I've been worshiping ol' Joe Smith all these years and haven't been celebrating Smithmas!!

:)

anatess already mentioned the Flood, but also anyone who feels that God doesn't create anything harmful should take a closer look at the likes of 3 Nephi chapter 9. God creates destructive things and uses them! Fear God, indeed.

Really? We all know that the gospel is actually driven by social issues.

Exactly! This "just trying to humanize them" stuff is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to slander. That may not be the motive of the presenter, but it is, without a doubt, the product received.

Is there some sort of strange perception that God would not create anything destructive or harmful? If so, why not?

Wait...I feel....insulted....

Whoa. Mind... ...blown.

Hmm. I'm not sure there is a "who we are" anymore. The membership is so diverse, it seems to me that pigeonholing members into a certain kind of person is not really possible anymore.

I'm sure that's exactly what too many members are thinking.

This has become too hot a topic politically to even discuss in many ways. I believe the church's position is neutral on such things. Their position is to turn to Christ and be healed by the Atonement. The science behind it all they leave to the scientist. Though it is interesting to note that the "science" behind these sorts of things is clearly being driven by the left, pro-gay, anti-family position in general. My personal view on conversion therapy is mine. But I'm no expert, and have no direct experience with it, so it wouldn't hold a ton of sway. However, I was listening through some of these videos earlier today (coincidental to this thread) and I thought it put a very different light on things opposite to the "conversion therapy is bad and makes people suicidal, etc.." side of things. Watch a few of these. Very interesting. Very sad. But also very hopeful. http://www.pfox.org/personal-stories/ The standards set by the Savior (and by His servants, apostles, leaders, prophets, etc.) are the standards by which the Savior dealt with His sexuality, unless we want to believe that he acted and did differently than He preached. And there are plenty of guidelines on how we are to deal with our sexuality. It starts with not looking upon a woman (or man) with lust or we've committed adultery in our hearts. It goes on to include not dating until 16, not pairing off before missions, not doing anything before marriage that arouses our sexual passions, etc., etc. It involves complete absolute fidelity within marriage. It involves respect, selflessness, and an absolute bridling of our passions. And there are guidelines a-plenty on all these things. Just because it's trendy to dismiss the explicitly defined rigidity of morality as defined by the likes of Kimball, Benson and others does not mean that their words and teachings are passe. These are the standards of Christ, and certainly the standards by which He lived. And nowhere will you find a teaching to become asexual. We are very, very, clearly taught to date, socialize, prepare for marriage, and other wholesome heterosexual things, but to clearly bridle our passions and to act, think, and feel within the bounds the Lord has set.

Show me where I said perfectly. It was stated that Brigham was an alcoholic. But His church is not and cannot be led by wicked men. I have never seen anything anywhere by anyone, and certainly not in this thread, stating that our prophets are infallible. This is a liberal interpretation of things that do not actually exist, nor have they ever existed. There is, flatly, no grand view held by the church members that prophets are perfect. I mean, sure, you may get some gullible, non-thinking simpleton here and there that may sort of view it that way. My guess is, however, that were a church-wide poll taken as to the perfection of prophets, that it would fall to pretty near 100% of the members saying "no". Now what you will see are statements and beliefs that the church, itself, is led by God's will, and that it will not fall, will not go astray, will never be taken from the earth, etc., etc... You, and others of the same mind, take these beliefs, which are scriptural, concrete, and doctrinal, and read into it a general believe that there's a problem with people deifying prophets. But they aren't. And had Brigham been excommunicated, yes...then I would accept that he was involved in wickedness. In point of fact, had he become wicked, he would and should have been excommunicated. But he also wouldn't have been considered the prophet anymore, which goes to my point. But he was not excommunicated, because he was not wicked, and he remained the prophet in good standing with the Lord accordingly. Um, I said...and I quote..."I only hope to become such a man someday." How could I hope to become such a man someday if I believed that we cannot become as our prophets? An odd interpretation of my words.

I think there's also a bit of a looseness in the meaning of "sin" in some of these discussions and official statements. What defines a "sin" is not particularly concrete. I tend to go with anything that isn't perfect=sin. But others, certainly have seen it differently. There have been talks separating the meaning of sin and transgression, for example. But they also are used interchangeably, and from a certain logical point of view, they mean the same thing. So that may play into the reconciliation of these things a bit. I think it safe, from a certain point of view, to just stay away from whether it's officially a sin or not, and simply go with -- anything that keeps us from becoming like the Savior should be overcome.

I'm still working this out a bit, but here's my thoughts: It's like anything in the Gospel. There is no neutral. There is no standing still. There is no fence sitting. You either move forward or backward. So when one has a feeling, perhaps the feeling is not a sin, but a reaction of acceptance for said feeling is a sin. A reaction that does not cross oneself is sin. A reaction of complacence is sin. Etc., etc... The way we react, even mentally, to feelings, is action. And action is either sinful or righteous. So if we do not react to wrong feelings by trying to change them, we are sinning in action, even if that action is a sin of omission. Like I said, still working it out a bit. But we can't just ignore everything else in the gospel based on a few recent quotes stating that homosexual feelings are not sins. It has to reconcile with gospel truths. The above paragraphs are my best effort to reconcile it so far.

They are not irrelevant. That our leaders are and were righteous (in spite of imperfections) is of profound importance. It most certainly matters. A drunken man cannot possibly be led by the spirit. That Brigham Young was led by the spirit matters very, very much. No...the testimony I have that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets is very definitely tied to my perception of their righteousness. If they were wicked men, they could not also be prophets. It is absolutely and entirely incorrect to approach things this way. God does not, and cannot, reveal himself to someone steeped in the devil's ways. It is only through righteousness that a prophet can lead us. Prophets are righteous or they are not prophets! I don't understand how this fundamental idea is being missed. God does not work through sinful, evil, wicked men. There is a whole, wide gulf of difference between imperfection and wickedness. And all of us, prophets and members alike, must be worthy to receive the companionship and guidance of the Holy Ghost. It is not deification to believe that prophets are righteous. Using terms like that twists things...I suppose to suit some agenda. I'm not even sure what that agenda is, but it's not helpful. Oh yes they were. It is the distinct standard of God that he reveals himself to those who have qualified themselves thus. He does not reveal himself to anyone, despite their standing, despite their wickedness, despite anything. We are not all on the same footing. That is false. I have no delusions that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and all the prophets before and after them, were better men than me. I only hope to become such a man someday. It does and it would. Wickedness would, without any doubt, negate their ability to lead, and their status as prophets, seers, and revelators. Absolutely, without any question, such wickedness, were it real, would have destroyed their ability to lead the church. Once again, there is a big difference between not being perfect and being a sex-crazed, drunken, wrath-monster. A prophet doesn't need to be perfect. But the idea that one can be steeped in serious sin and still be a viable prophet...no way, no how.

The idea that natural implies no fault of our own is, in my opinion, blatantly wrong. How can that possibly be reconciled with the natural man being an enemy to God? That is not an "action only" idea. The natural thinking man. The natural feeling man. The natural existing man. The full range of "natural" is an enemy to God. Our natural tendency is towards evil. So, yes, it may not be our fault that these things come to us naturally. They come by way of the fall of Adam. But it is, without a doubt, our fault if we we allow them to be rather than putting off the natural man. So if I sit and stew in rage at every little thing but never act on it, I'm good? I'm sorry...but this doesn't work for me. Most things listed as evil in the scriptures are, actually, feelings, not actions. Sure, there's the basic actions. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't kill. Don't commit adultery. But lust, greed, anger, envy, etc...? Those are feelings. Natural feelings that come from being the natural man and make us enemies to God. I'm having a hard time seeing justification in being lustful, greedy, angry, envious people, as long as we don't commit adultery, lie, steal, and murder, then we're good. The bottom line is that we are commanded to be like Christ. Christ never had evil feelings. If we do, whether we act on them or not, we have need to change and become more like Christ. If we do not, we may be following the commandments of not killing, lying, etc. But we aren't following the full measure of the commandments to become like him, accept him fully into our lives, and to let the atonement work within us to actually change our hearts. They are evil because they are evil, while being a simple way of saying it, is not a simple idea at all. The myriad of variables in our actions play into what is evil and is not evil and it is, decidedly, complex. The point of my saying it was not to simplify things, it was to point out that they are evil because they are wrong, after all variables are factored in, and that the natural variable is not one of the components that determines whether they are evil. For example, the natural desire for sexual relations. I have it. But I only exercise it within the bounds of legal and lawful marriage according to God's standards. Therefore, my feelings and choices in this matter are righteous. But they're still natural. The fact that I'm naturally driven to this thing doesn't make it evil. Acting within the bounds of what the Lord has established as appropriate makes it righteous. Acting outside these bounds makes something evil. As we are naturally inclined to not act within the Lord's bounds for things, we are naturally inclined to evil. Hence, the natural man is an enemy to God. Once again, however, the "natural" part of this is not the causative factor.

Not a thing here addresses my point. Evil is evil whether it's "natural" or not.