Mormons and Gays

[The Folk Prophet]

Persons my not be able to help how they feel...

 

Then we are all doomed.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just like when we talk about money, natural desires by themselves are not evil, it is the love of them over the things of God that is evil.

Money is not evil but if someone loves money and especially if it results in forgetting the things of God to obtain money than it is evil.

Similarly if one learns to love carnal things over spiritual things than that is evil.

 

One first has to understand as David O. McKay stated that these two natures, the natural man and the spirit of man are in opposition.  Combine that with the concept that we cannot serve two masters.  Satan would like us to think that we could manage that somehow, that we could serve both natures, the carnal and the spiritual at the same time.  Our leaders including Paul, David O. McKay and Elder Bednar have made it clear that we cannot do that.  To say that we somehow can do that goes against our teachings, not the other way around.

 

To have a carnal nature is not evil just like having money is not evil.  It is only when the carnal nature becomes master of the soul that it is evil. We all were given a carnal nature upon birth, that is not evil by itself as we know those that die before the age of 8 receive a carnal body and yet are saved before the foundations of the world.  Only when one chooses to let the carnal nature take control does evil enter into the soul after the age of accountability.

 

Consider the difference between one who has Tourrette's syndrome in which she uncontrollably lets out explitives vs taking the Lord's name in vain.  Is there a difference or is it just as bad when the corrupted body uncontrollably lets out an explitive?  There is a difference, taking the Lord's name in vain is when the soul lets carnal natures take control and lets it happen whereas an explitive let out because of a vocal tic caused by Tourrette's is not intentional or started out with any evil intention.  God would have to judge such things as certainly a person with Tourrette's could still take the Lord's name in vain. If a person with Tourrette's learns to like the explitives flying out of their mouth from time to time then that would be evil as well. 

 

If I am hungry during Fast and Testimony meeting I have not commited any sin because I am not letting the carnal be my master if I don't follow that drive.  To have it is not sin but to comply with it when there is an opposing command from the spirit or to fail to listen to spiritual commands is a sin.

 

I honestly don't know of anyone in our religion who believes that "having natural desires is a sin".  I am not sure where you get that from.  But to make natural desires the master over spiritual ones is a sin.

 

What does natural have to do with a desire being a sin or not? An evil desire is evil, a righteous one is righteous. Whether or not it is natural or not is irrelevant.

 

It just so happens that our natural desires seem to be, for the most part, evil. But the evilness of those desires is not caused by their being natural. They are evil because they are evil.

[Guest]

My favorite argument on FB yesterday was that condescending adults have the right to do whatever they want to. While I acknowledge that that is probably a popular opinion among condescending adults, I don't think that was exactly the point the poster was trying to make.

[Suzie]

My favorite argument on FB yesterday was that condescending adults have the right to do whatever they want to. While I acknowledge that that is probably a popular opinion among condescending adults, I don't think that was exactly the point the poster was trying to make.

 

Eowyn? Typo? Do you mean consenting adults rather than condescending adults?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Suzie

[Seminarysnoozer]

What does natural have to do with a desire being a sin or not? An evil desire is evil, a righteous one is righteous. Whether or not it is natural or not is irrelevant.

 

It just so happens that our natural desires seem to be, for the most part, evil. But the evilness of those desires is not caused by their being natural. They are evil because they are evil.

From LDS.org under "Fall of Adam"; "

Our Fallen Condition

As descendants of Adam and Eve, we inherit a fallen condition during mortality (see Alma 42:5-9, 14). We are separated from the presence of the Lord and subject to physical death. We are also placed in a state of opposition, in which we are tested by the difficulties of life and the temptations of the adversary (see 2 Nephi 2:11-14; D&C 29:39; Moses 6:48-49).

In this fallen condition, we have a conflict within us. We are spirit children of God, with the potential to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). However, “we are unworthy before [God]; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually” (Ether 3:2). We need to strive continually to overcome unrighteous passions and desires.

Repeating the words of an angel, King Benjamin said, “The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam.” King Benjamin warned that in this natural, or fallen, state, each person will be an enemy to God forever “unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19)."

 

Elder Bednar April Conference 2013; "As sons and daughters of God, we have inherited divine capacities from Him. But we presently live in a fallen world. 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."

 

David O. McKay; "Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual.

Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body. In declaring this fact the scriptures are very explicit:

“And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” [Abraham 5:7.]

Man’s body, therefore, is but the tabernacle in which his spirit dwells. Too many, far too many, are prone to regard the body as the man, and consequently to direct their efforts to the gratifying of the body’s pleasures, its appetites, its desires, its passions. Too few recognize that the real man is an immortal spirit, which [is] “intelligence or the light of truth"

 

 

The problem with saying an evil desire is evil is the fact that "far too many, are prone to regard the body as the man".  It is not the "real man", "man is a dual being" with "contrasting natures".  As Elder Bednar puts it, "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"

 

David O McKay states that the body has desires.  This may be different than "desires of the heart".

[The Folk Prophet]

From LDS.org under "Fall of Adam"; "

Our Fallen Condition

As descendants of Adam and Eve, we inherit a fallen condition during mortality (see Alma 42:5-9, 14). We are separated from the presence of the Lord and subject to physical death. We are also placed in a state of opposition, in which we are tested by the difficulties of life and the temptations of the adversary (see 2 Nephi 2:11-14; D&C 29:39; Moses 6:48-49).

In this fallen condition, we have a conflict within us. We are spirit children of God, with the potential to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). However, “we are unworthy before [God]; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually” (Ether 3:2). We need to strive continually to overcome unrighteous passions and desires.

Repeating the words of an angel, King Benjamin said, “The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam.” King Benjamin warned that in this natural, or fallen, state, each person will be an enemy to God forever “unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19)."

 

Elder Bednar April Conference 2013; "As sons and daughters of God, we have inherited divine capacities from Him. But we presently live in a fallen world. 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."

 

David O. McKay; "Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual.

Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body. In declaring this fact the scriptures are very explicit:

“And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” [Abraham 5:7.]

Man’s body, therefore, is but the tabernacle in which his spirit dwells. Too many, far too many, are prone to regard the body as the man, and consequently to direct their efforts to the gratifying of the body’s pleasures, its appetites, its desires, its passions. Too few recognize that the real man is an immortal spirit, which [is] “intelligence or the light of truth"

 

 

The problem with saying an evil desire is evil is the fact that "far too many, are prone to regard the body as the man".  It is not the "real man", "man is a dual being" with "contrasting natures".  As Elder Bednar puts it, "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"

 

David O McKay states that the body has desires.  This may be different than "desires of the heart".

 

Not a thing here addresses my point.

 

Evil is evil whether it's "natural" or not.

[Guest]

Eowyn? Typo? Do you mean consenting adults rather than condescending adults?

 

That was the point. The person was saying "condescending" instead of "consenting", which is why I said that while that might be true that condescending adults think they should be able to do what they want to, it's probably not the point that they were trying to make.

[paulsifer42]

What does natural have to do with a desire being a sin or not? An evil desire is evil, a righteous one is righteous. Whether or not it is natural or not is irrelevant.

It just so happens that our natural desires seem to be, for the most part, evil. But the evilness of those desires is not caused by their being natural. They are evil because they are evil.

Because a natural desire implies that the desire is going to be there by no fault of our own. I would argue that, at least by my definition, for something to be evil it requires either an action (possibly acting on a natural desire), or some kind of unnatural premeditation. "They are evil because they are evil" is too simple to encompass all of the desires (natural or otherwise), actions, reasons, etc. That I've encountered in my life. The post given to answer yours did speak to this, just not as directly.

[The Folk Prophet]

Because a natural desire implies that the desire is going to be there by no fault of our own.

 

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.

 

I would argue that, at least by my definition, for something to be evil it requires either an action.

 

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" is too simple to encompass all of the desires (natural or otherwise), actions, reasons, etc. That I've encountered in my life.

 

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. 

[MrShorty]

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.

 

 

But now aren't we back to the OP's original question: If our natural, sinful inclinations are bad, how do we justify saying that homosexual feelings and inclinations are "not sin" as long as they are not acted upon? It seems to me that we do believe there is a signficant difference between "thinking about" or "wanting" to commit sin and actually acting out the sin.

[Guest]

Gay marriage starts in Idaho today. I knew it would happen, I just didn't think it would be so soon.

[The Folk Prophet]

But now aren't we back to the OP's original question: If our natural, sinful inclinations are bad, how do we justify saying that homosexual feelings and inclinations are "not sin" as long as they are not acted upon? It seems to me that we do believe there is a signficant difference between "thinking about" or "wanting" to commit sin and actually acting out the sin.

 

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.

[Guest]

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.

 

You are very very close to my position...

 

But I can simplify it:

We are brought to mortality to face mortal challenges.  The presence of the mortal challenge is not a sin.  What you do with the mortal challenge (deciding to not do anything about it is still an action) is what can be righteous or sinful.

 

So, one may be born with homosexual attraction as a mortal challenge.  The presence of that challenge is not a sin.  Deciding to act on it by dwelling on the feeling in one's mind (or physically acting on it) when the attraction is triggered is an action towards unrighteousness.  Deciding not to act on it by not trying to overcome the challenge/temptation is also an action towards unrighteousness (a decision is an action).

 

But I'm not going to pretend I know the inner struggles of homosexual people.  I can only relate it to my own different set of struggles.

[The Folk Prophet]

You are very very close to my position...

 

But I can simplify it:

We are brought to mortality to face mortal challenges.  The presence of the mortal challenge is not a sin.  What you do with the mortal challenge (deciding to not do anything about it is still an action) is what can be righteous or sinful.

 

So, one may be born with homosexual attraction as a mortal challenge.  The presence of that challenge is not a sin.  Deciding to act on it by dwelling on the feeling in one's mind (or physically acting on it) when the attraction is triggered is an action towards unrighteousness.  Deciding not to act on it by not trying to overcome the challenge/temptation is also an action towards unrighteousness (a decision is an action).

 

But I'm not going to pretend I know the inner struggles of homosexual people.  I can only relate it to my own different set of struggles.

 

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.

[MrShorty]

So if we do not react to wrong feelings by trying to change them, we are sinning in action,

So, one may be born with homosexual attraction as a mortal challenge.  The presence of that challenge is not a sin.  Deciding to act on it by dwelling on the feeling in one's mind (or physically acting on it) when the attraction is triggered is an action towards unrighteousness.  Deciding not to act on it by not trying to overcome the challenge/temptation is also an action towards unrighteousness (a decision is an action).

 

How do we apply these positions to the question of "conversion therapies"? I think I have mentioned before that, looking back on my youth, I felt like my "goal" from the point of view of the Church was to become asexual (temporarily). What does this mean in the sexual arena? Do we expect singles to become temporarily asexual? Do we expect homosexuals to become either heterosexual or asexual?

 

anything that keeps us from becoming like the Savior should be overcome.

I think this makes perfect sense -- except the scriptures do not seem to give any insight into how the Savior dealt with His sexuality. Many Christians are completely opposed to any suggestion that the Savior was married or had children, preferring a truly asexual view of the 2nd personage of the Trinity. What does it mean to become more like the Savior as it pertains to sexuality?

[The Folk Prophet]

How do we apply these positions to the question of "conversion therapies"? I think I have mentioned before that, looking back on my youth, I felt like my "goal" from the point of view of the Church was to become asexual (temporarily). What does this mean in the sexual arena? Do we expect singles to become temporarily asexual? Do we expect homosexuals to become either heterosexual or asexual?

 

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/

 

I think this makes perfect sense -- except the scriptures do not seem to give any insight into how the Savior dealt with His sexuality. Many Christians are completely opposed to any suggestion that the Savior was married or had children, preferring a truly asexual view of the 2nd personage of the Trinity. What does it mean to become more like the Savior as it pertains to sexuality?

 

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.

[paulsifer42]

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. 

 

I'm going to take this paragraph by paragraph, as I don't know how to break it up with it clearly outlining what are your quotes.

 

You've shown my point in your response:  'it may not be our fault', no fault, means no sin.  Of course, part of this comes back to the problem of definition (as you spoke of later in this thread), but the issue with laying a blanket, "anything that makes us different from God is sin" drives people to think they are doing worse than they are.  We are naturally going to notice things and feel things, we don't need to ask forgiveness for noticing, as it is not our fault.  Sin implies a need to ask forgiveness.

 

Which leads us right into the next paragraph where I am misrepresented.  Sitting and stewing in a rage falls under the second thing I said was evil:  unnaturally thinking about something.  It is natural and understandable that we get angry, sitting and stewing goes beyond that.  So, no, you're not good if you sit and stew about something.

 

You'll notice that each of those feelings goes beyond a more basic one, ie. it takes work to go from the basic to the next.  Noticing can become lust, wanting becomes greed/envy, and being upset leads to being angry/vengeful.  The first in this list is not evil, it's taking those feelings and moving them to something worse that is.

 

And, let's not pretend Christ had no feelings, when he did, and not all of them pleasant ones.  It was how he acted on those feelings that mattered.

 

"Evil is Evil" makes it sound like you've taken nothing more into account than the thought or feeling.  And your example only shows that something being 'natural' does matter, and because it comes naturally we should not automatically judge it as evil, but should look on what someone does with those inclinations (not that we should be doing the judging anyway).  Jesus was tempted by the natural man, if we are to be like Jesus, then we are to be tempted by the natural man.  You'll notice Jesus didn't go racing to ask forgiveness when the idea of turning some rocks into bread appealed to him, because he didn't act on it, just as we don't need to go racing for forgiveness because we find someone of our own gender attractive.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm going to take this paragraph by paragraph, as I don't know how to break it up with it clearly outlining what are your quotes.

 

You've shown my point in your response:  'it may not be our fault', no fault, means no sin.  Of course, part of this comes back to the problem of definition (as you spoke of later in this thread), but the issue with laying a blanket, "anything that makes us different from God is sin" drives people to think they are doing worse than they are.  We are naturally going to notice things and feel things, we don't need to ask forgiveness for noticing, as it is not our fault.  Sin implies a need to ask forgiveness.

 

Which leads us right into the next paragraph where I am misrepresented.  Sitting and stewing in a rage falls under the second thing I said was evil:  unnaturally thinking about something.  It is natural and understandable that we get angry, sitting and stewing goes beyond that.  So, no, you're not good if you sit and stew about something.

 

You'll notice that each of those feelings goes beyond a more basic one, ie. it takes work to go from the basic to the next.  Noticing can become lust, wanting becomes greed/envy, and being upset leads to being angry/vengeful.  The first in this list is not evil, it's taking those feelings and moving them to something worse that is.

 

And, let's not pretend Christ had no feelings, when he did, and not all of them pleasant ones.  It was how he acted on those feelings that mattered.

 

"Evil is Evil" makes it sound like you've taken nothing more into account than the thought or feeling.  And your example only shows that something being 'natural' does matter, and because it comes naturally we should not automatically judge it as evil, but should look on what someone does with those inclinations (not that we should be doing the judging anyway).  Jesus was tempted by the natural man, if we are to be like Jesus, then we are to be tempted by the natural man.  You'll notice Jesus didn't go racing to ask forgiveness when the idea of turning some rocks into bread appealed to him, because he didn't act on it, just as we don't need to go racing for forgiveness because we find someone of our own gender attractive.

 

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.

[paulsifer42]

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.

I think this is where we fundamentally differ. I don't believe it's wrong to have feelings (so long as you don't dwell on what's wrong, or do anything wrong), any feelings. My experience, and my study lead me to believe God would expect me to feel guilt for something outside of my control. Obviously we believe (experiences added to perspective) differently, and it doesn't seem like the experience of our conversation is changing anything, not are we able to change each other's perspective. I'll think on what you said and perhaps my beliefs will change.

[Traveler]

I think this is where we fundamentally differ. I don't believe it's wrong to have feelings (so long as you don't dwell on what's wrong, or do anything wrong), any feelings. My experience, and my study lead me to believe God would expect me to feel guilt for something outside of my control. Obviously we believe (experiences added to perspective) differently, and it doesn't seem like the experience of our conversation is changing anything, not are we able to change each other's perspective. I'll think on what you said and perhaps my beliefs will change.

 

I would make a comment because I am not sure if or how I agree or disagree or with whom.  When we talk about things like control and what we can control – I am not so sure we can control much of anything.  I think that the concept of “control” is mostly an illusion.  I prefer to think that we are more dynamic and that rather than thinking in terms of control – think instead in terms of intelligently learning. 

 

Let me give an example – slime mold does not seem to control very much.  But slime mold seems to learn very quickly despite not having a brain or nervous system.  When slime mold encounters quality nourishment – it gravitates towards the good stuff.  When it encounters bad food – it avoids such in the future.    It is all very simple – go for the good – avoid the not good.

 

The basis of intelligence is discipline.  In short a learning process to enjoy and love that which is good and learning to avoid, reject, dislike or loath that which is bad.  In the process of learning what is good there are some pit falls.  For example – standing up at a football game in order to see better may seem like a good idea because the desire is to see better – but if everybody stands up to see better – then no one sees better.  Thus we can or should learn that we cannot use our individual perspective as the single test of what is good.  In fact – understanding that if individual perspective is only individually beneficial but globally devastating then such a perspective is globally and individually bad – such selfish individual perspective is the essence of evil thinking or selfish thinking - it is the justification of horrible things like murder because in only benefits the unique individual perspective.  But at the same time many dismiss such global thinking if it is perceived that some or partial perspective (some minority engagement) is okay – just as long as everybody does not so engage.

 

This is the problem I have with the homosexual affront to global human benefit.  It is a process to excuse discipline that is necessary for global benefit and replace it with selfish desire for individual benefit.

[The Folk Prophet]

...something outside of my control...

 

I think this ^ may well be where we differ.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would make a comment because I am not sure if or how I agree or disagree or with whom.  When we talk about things like control and what we can control – I am not so sure we can control much of anything.  I think that the concept of “control” is mostly an illusion.  I prefer to think that we are more dynamic and that rather than thinking in terms of control – think instead in terms of intelligently learning. 

 

Let me give an example – slime mold does not seem to control very much.  But slime mold seems to learn very quickly despite not having a brain or nervous system.  When slime mold encounters quality nourishment – it gravitates towards the good stuff.  When it encounters bad food – it avoids such in the future.    It is all very simple – go for the good – avoid the not good.

 

The basis of intelligence is discipline.  In short a learning process to enjoy and love that which is good and learning to avoid, reject, dislike or loath that which is bad.  In the process of learning what is good there are some pit falls.  For example – standing up at a football game in order to see better may seem like a good idea because the desire is to see better – but if everybody stands up to see better – then no one sees better.  Thus we can or should learn that we cannot use our individual perspective as the single test of what is good.  In fact – understanding that if individual perspective is only individually beneficial but globally devastating then such a perspective is globally and individually bad – such selfish individual perspective is the essence of evil thinking or selfish thinking - it is the justification of horrible things like murder because in only benefits the unique individual perspective.  But at the same time many dismiss such global thinking if it is perceived that some or partial perspective (some minority engagement) is okay – just as long as everybody does not so engage.

 

This is the problem I have with the homosexual affront to global human benefit.  It is a process to excuse discipline that is necessary for global benefit and replace it with selfish desire for individual benefit.

 

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

[Guest]

I think this ^ may well be where we differ.

 

 

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

 

I differ too... only because... we are not slime mold.  We are the only species on the planet gifted with rational thought... hence, capable of control.

Edited October 17, 2014 by anatess

[paulsifer42]

I think this ^ may well be where we differ.

 

According to neurological research, emotions (feelings) come before thoughts.  As in, we feel something, then we choose what to do with it.  In other words, we literally cannot control what we feel, only what we decide to do after the feeling occurs.  Unless you don't want to believe the research, then you can continue to differ with me in this area.

[Guest]

According to neurological research, emotions (feelings) come before thoughts.  As in, we feel something, then we choose what to do with it.  In other words, we literally cannot control what we feel, only what we decide to do after the feeling occurs.  Unless you don't want to believe the research, then you can continue to differ with me in this area.

 

You can't control the PRESENCE of the feeling.  You can TRAIN yourself to quit feeling what you're feeling.  This is the premise and foundation of the power of the Atonement and Repentance... how it works in one's life... it is designed to promote CHANGE.