Mormons and Gays


JacoJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think you should reread Elder Bednar's description; "The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."

 

Incidentally, that's King Benjamin's description. Bednar was quoting him. And I'm quite familiar, thank you very much.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an inclination is evil then it is evil. Yes. Stop applying that thinking to people. Having evil inclinations (something we all do) does not define us as good or evil. Were we to do so, then yes, all of us are evil. EVERYONE. All but Christ. But that is not the point here. It's not about labeling ourselves as good or evil, and frankly that response misses the point.

 

Yes. Overcoming the natural "evil" man is what it's about. So yes, it is evil. The natural man = evil -- hence: enemy to God.

 

No, we won't, and can't overcome all natural tendencies in this life. And I'm not saying will will or can.

 

But that is also missing the point.

 

The point is that we should try to, and giving up and just saying "forget it! I can't help it" is decidedly contrary to putting off the natural man.

 

Do you honestly believe that someone who consistently puts of natural, evil tendencies won't change over time? You believe that the inclinations remain, exactly the same, exactly as strong, no matter how much we put them off and yield to the enticings of the Spirit?

 

I do not believe that. Practice makes perfect. Practice not being angry, and over time, you stop being angry. Add the Atonement and the literal changing effect it can have on our lives and character and the recipe is complete. Change is possible.

 

Hunger is a poor example. Hunger is not evil...even when fasting. Fatigue is also not evil. Anger, lust, greed, etc...different story.

Not for everything but for some things yes, they do not go away no matter how hard someone tries.

 

We are dual beings, the one has a certain nature and the other has another nature.  They don't always match.  In some areas they might and so there is no conflict in those areas and they are different for different people.  Some people might be born with an inclination for alcoholism and so that battle is more difficult in those people.  Some people might be born with an inclination to fall asleep more often and not listen to the spirit when they should because they are fighting off the urge to sleep (i.e. - my name - seminarysnoozer).  This whole thing is hard to understand if one doesn't go at it with a strong understanding that we are dual beings with two different natures.  If one believes that it is just one thing, one nature then it would be hard to understand why it can't go away with spiritual action.

 

What changes over time is how much a person is influenced by one or the other.  We are born into this world with little ability to oppose what the body wants, when we are hungry we cry etc.  After a certain age, then we can start to oppose those inclinations and then the test starts.  We then can become born again, born of the spirit and become spiritually minded.  Even when a person is spiritually minded there is a chance they can slip back into following the passions of the body that are still there.  This is why there is the commandment to endure.  If there was no chance of reverting back to the "natural" nature then there would be no reason to endure.  If one is not actively seeking the spirit, the default, the "natural" tendency is to follow the carnal.  Like tuning the radio to a different station, one can listen to the spiritual influences more than the body (the brain).  Are the carnal influences still there?  Yes, they haven't stopped but they are on a different wavelength, one that a person doesn't have to tune into as much.  And then there are some conditions where one cannot get away from the overlaping signals from both the body and the spirit.

 

For example, if a person has Torrettes and yells out an explitive during Sacrament meeting, is that evil?  Or was that the spontaneous action of the body?   If a person does not have a great understanding of our dual nature then these kinds of situations are hard to understand and one would tend to call a person with that condition as evil.  They are not evil because in this life we are dual beings of two, often opposing natures. The body presents the opposition in some things so that we may be tested in some areas.  For another it might be in terms of same sex attraction.   The conflict exists because the two natures are opposing each other (in some ways).

 

Jesus was the Only Begotten.  He had a different type of body then we do.  If you don't believe that then what is the purpose for being the actual Only Begotten?  His different body was still human and had "natural" tendencies and therefore He had to face similar challenges but it was certainly more in tune with His spirit than ours is.  Could He have been our Savior with any body else' body?   I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Elder Wood describes our inability to get rid of the "thorn in the flesh"; "Paul then quotes the Lord, who tells him, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). All men and women are bound by mortally imposed weaknesses and limitations in strength, knowledge, and power. Contrasting these limitations with the infinite wisdom and power of God brings humility. “Weaknesses are a constant reminder of our dependence upon the Lord. It is when we take those weaknesses to Him, in humility, that we can become effectively joined with Him in a great work. It is when we have done as much as we can do that His grace … can move us beyond our natural abilities” (Carolyn J. Rasmus, “Faith Strengthened in Weakness,” Church News, 26 Feb. 1994, 10). It is in this sense that God’s strength can then be made perfect in our lives. “The Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things” (Jacob 4:7)."

 

2 Corinthians 12; "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."

 

It is not intended that the "thorn in the flesh" be taken away - it will be there our whole lives no matter how good one is at ignoring it or working through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for everything but for some things yes, they do not go away no matter how hard someone tries.

 

I didn't say everything will go away (in this life). I said we should try. Always. We should never give up, and never accept that we are incapable of change. We are. You like to pulling cryptic meaning out of quotes and scriptures that have no bearing on the point. We are, indeed, capable of growth and change, and none of your quotes are saying otherwise in the least degree.

 

I do not see wherein you're debating against the point I'm trying to make, which is, once again, that we should try and overcome the natural man. We should try and change. We should try and become like Christ in every way.

 

It seems to me that you're, rather, insisting that we embrace our weaknesses because we'll never be perfect. Is that what you're point is? If not, then what is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  I have this condition that American psychologists call Intermittent Explosive Disorder, aptly shortened to IED which can be a not-very-funny pun on the terrorist IEDs... I decided to go the med-free route and self-heal so, to prevent an IED event, I have to change my reaction to anger stimuli.  And I was successful at it going years event-free.

 

I don't understand your statement that "you're not representing yourself, you're representing God".  That's how you're supposed to live your life... you're supposed to "take on His name", therefore, to represent God is to represent yourself - if you're a faithful, Godly fella... and that success you have on your mission IS the change that is SUPPOSED to happen... everyday of your life... which is the change needed for any other "natural man" kind of ailment.

 

We do take His name, but every Joe on the street isn't thinking, "Hey, that guy represents God/some church."  When I'm attacked now (not that I'm attacked often) people aren't attacking me because I represent the church, they are attacking Paul, because they don't like Paul.  As a missionary, because of the garb, people don't see you, they see God/the church/Jesus.  So, when they attack you, they are trying to attack what you represent.  Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

We are dual beings, ...

 

The references to dual beings are symbolic.  We are unique individuals that by agency are singularly responsible for our choices.  The reference to duality is symbolic in reference to those forces (good and evil) that influence our singular being.  Please note that all evil influences come to us by an evil spirit being that is limited physically and can only communicate directly with us spiritually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do take His name, but every Joe on the street isn't thinking, "Hey, that guy represents God/some church."  When I'm attacked now (not that I'm attacked often) people aren't attacking me because I represent the church, they are attacking Paul, because they don't like Paul.  As a missionary, because of the garb, people don't see you, they see God/the church/Jesus.  So, when they attack you, they are trying to attack what you represent.  Does that make sense?

 

In a way, yes.

 

But the ideal is that we live our lives in such a manner that when one attacks us, they're attacking Jesus who we represent... or the inverse, if they attack God, they attack us who represent Him.   But then, we're not perfect.  And this is really the struggle here... because if we ever get to that level of ideal - we are CHANGED!  And that's our main purpose in life - that's what Celestial glory is all about... becoming One.

 

But, yes, this is way too deep from being attracted to the same sex... all I'm really saying is... it is not impossible - it is what we hope to become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say everything will go away (in this life). I said we should try. Always. We should never give up, and never accept that we are incapable of change. We are. You like to pulling cryptic meaning out of quotes and scriptures that have no bearing on the point. We are, indeed, capable of growth and change, and none of your quotes are saying otherwise in the least degree.

 

I do not see wherein you're debating against the point I'm trying to make, which is, once again, that we should try and overcome the natural man. We should try and change. We should try and become like Christ in every way.

 

It seems to me that you're, rather, insisting that we embrace our weaknesses because we'll never be perfect. Is that what you're point is? If not, then what is your point?

I am debating the point that you are saying we should try to overcome the natural man in the same breath (so-to-speak) that we should try to change the natural man.  My point is that sometimes we can overcome the natural man without changing the natural man, it is still there, underneath but by enduring it till the end.  In the end we overcome it through death. Some aspects of the natural man can change, such as the previous alcoholic developing a dislike for the taste of alcohol but there are many things that are simply the "thorn in the flesh" that we cannot change about our physical, carnal body, fallen self during this life.  To lump them together as if all tendencies should be overcome in this life is wrong. 

 

I think it is wrong to tell someone that if they have a desire for alcohol even though they are controling it and not giving into it that they are somehow evil for having that craving.  In my opinion, a person who has a craving for alcohol, that may be there their whole life and doesn't give into it despite being tempted over and over is doing excellent in this test!

 

In this life, yes, we are supposed to endure through our imperfections. When we die, we finally give up this corruption and it turns to dust where it came from.  Then we get a perfect body which allows us to receive a fullness of our perfection.  The test of endurance is not to see how much we can overcome but how we can perfect our ability to depend on the Lord.  Why did Job get stricken with so many things towards the end of his faithful life?  Were the number of things he was striken with a reflection of how successful he was in being faithful?

 

And by the way, your earlier comment about hunger when fasting not being evil is not correct, that is one of the things Christ was tempted with after His 40 day fast.  He was hungry and Satan used that as a temptation. The hunger was coming from Christ' own body, from himself and yet Christ was not evil.  The judgement of righteous or evil desires is not in what is presented but what is chosen after it is presented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The references to dual beings are symbolic.  We are unique individuals that by agency are singularly responsible for our choices.  The reference to duality is symbolic in reference to those forces (good and evil) that influence our singular being.  Please note that all evil influences come to us by an evil spirit being that is limited physically and can only communicate directly with us spiritually. 

That is not what Elder Bednar said in April 2013 conference.  Evil influences come to us by way of our body.  If we take them in spiritually that is a choice of the spirit.  They are presented via the body, thus the need to receive a body to undergo the second estate test.  The choice between intellectual right vs wrong already took place in the first estate test.

 

David O. McKay said clearly that we have two opposing natures, one from the body and one from the spirit.  It is not just symbolic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am debating the point that you are saying we should try to overcome the natural man in the same breath (so-to-speak) that we should try to change the natural man.  

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. We can always overcome the natural man. We should always try and change the natural man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

How do you know what others have or have not endured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Faith In Christ and the Atonement should assure all of us that any weakness can be overcome......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

To clarify, since I haven't been following closely: are people saying that gays can change, or just that they can control their urges?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, since I haven't been following closely: are people saying that gays can change, or just that they can control their urges?

 

Technically I don't think that anyone has outright said that gays can change. But it's been very strongly implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, since I haven't been following closely: are people saying that gays can change, or just that they can control their urges?

 

Both.

 

And this is not just for gays.

 

People with clinical depression.

 

People with <insert whatever> addictions.

 

People born left-handed.  People born right-handed.

 

People attracted to the same sex.  People already married attracted to people not their spouse.  People attracted to children.

 

People liking blue.

 

The question in my mind is not that they can/can't change.  I believe they can.  The question in my mind is if they should.

 

Seminarysnoozer keeps on shoving words in my (and TFP's, I suppose) mouth that we are insisting that not trying to change it is evil.  We keep on saying that it is only as evil as the natural man is evil.  So, if you believe the natural man is evil, then it is evil.  If you think the natural man is not evil but a necessary opposition, then it's not evil but merely a necessary opposition.  In any case, the goal in life is to be as Christ is - that is, he didn't just tell Satan that he's not going to jump off the mountain.  He stated, empathically, to "get away from me, Satan!".

 

The issue, I think is that it is still debatable if sexual attraction (either homo or hetero doesn't matter) can be changed.  I know Catholic Priests spend their seminary lives working, not just on overcoming, but in changing.  Because, a lifetime of having to fight that inner struggle to overcome attraction over and over and over and over is much, much, much harder than if the change is made.

 

Others, though, believe that sexual attraction (either homo or hetero) is like being born with Down Syndrome.  You can't change to rid yourself of Down Syndrome no matter how hard you try.

 

The jury is still out on that one, I think.

 

The only reason I side with the Change being Possible part is because of my experience with IED.  But, IED is, of course, quite different than sexual attraction.  I would equate IED closer to clinical depression... but then, I've never really tried changing my sexual orientation because I don't need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue, I think is that it is still debatable if sexual attraction (either homo or hetero doesn't matter) can be changed.  I know Catholic Priests spend their seminary lives working, not just on overcoming, but in changing.  Because, a lifetime of having to fight that inner struggle to overcome attraction over and over and over and over is much, much, much harder than if the change is made.

 

Others, though, believe that sexual attraction (either homo or hetero) is like being born with Down Syndrome.  You can't change to rid yourself of Down Syndrome no matter how hard you try.

 

The jury is still out on that one, I think.

 

 

This issue, like most, is not a black-and-white, you-are-or-you-aren't, everybody's-the-same issue. The liberal view has tried very hard to paint it that way to push their agenda. But it simply is not so.

 

The jury may be out on it in some cases, but there is no question whatsoever, in my thinking, that choice can and does play a huge role in many, if not most, cases.

 

In other words, there may be some who are just wired that way. But that doesn't mean that everyone who is gay is just wired that way. Anecdotaly, I personally know someone who intentionally opted to be gay because they couldn't get dates with women.

 

It's all fine and dandy to accept the idea that perhaps some are faced with an inborn challenge that they may never overcome. It's quite something else to teach the entire world that you either are or you aren't, you have not choice, and if you are in that state then there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Even if that is true for some, it is certainly not true for all.

 

It's something else again entirely to mandate by government stipulation that professionally helping someone overcome homosexuality is illegal.

 

Seriously...it's like the entire world has turned their brains off concerning it. The gay community said, "We're born this way" and without a further thought everyone just bought into that, hook, line and sinker. Must be a fact, no exceptions, no variations, you are or you aren't, etc.

 

What aspect of life, motivation, drive, and taste is ever that simple?

 

From a doctrinal point of view, if one truly has no choice in the matter, then one is not accountable. Agency requires choice. No agency = no accountability. So if, as the left would have us believe, no one has a choice in their feelings, then I acquiesce -- they are not accountable, there is no evil in it, and the only choice they have is to not act on it. But that's quite a mindless conclusion. Everyone who ever faces any level of sexual attraction for someone of the same sex has no say in the matter concerning their feelings? A bit of a stretch, methinks. I'd go so far as to argue that if there are those who have no choice, it is far and in-between, and quite rare. For the most part, choice plays a primary role in who we are, and who we become.

 

Having no ability to control one's feelings would be, I believe, quite the disability. And I stand by my previous general statement that children tend to have this inability, but normally as we mature we learn to control our feelings. It's one of the primary indications that we are maturing, in fact. Someone who continues through their lives to have absolutely no control over how they feel about things is in a fairly sad state.

 

Frankly, sex drive in and of itself is fully controllable (with time, practice, patience, effort, crossing oneself, etc., etc.). It's more of our modern, sex-is-a-right, we're-just-animals-at-the-core-of-it, we-can't-control-ourselves, that has pushed so hard, particularly since the sexual revolution, that we have no choice or ability to control these things. (To be clear: I'm not talking about physical arousal -- which having been a teenage boy, I know full well is sometimes out of our control. I'm speaking of thought processes and emotional drive).

 

I cannot state this clearly enough: No choice is Satan's lie. He would have us believe this about all aspects of our humanity. This is what the war in heaven was over. God's plan was choice. Pure and simple. Satan wanted to remove our agency. And he is still striving to do just that. By convincing us that we have no choice, he wins that battle. We remove our own agency as soon as we accept that we have not choice in ANY given matter.

 

We are not just animals. We can control ourselves at every level. If we cannot, it is because of some disorder. I do not doubt that there are those with disorders who are thereby incapable of controlling themselves. But by and large, this is a result of an agenda that has been taught to us through a myriad of sources, blinding us to the reality of life, that God actually did give us the ability to choose. Exceptions exist, of course. And when they do, those who do not have choice have no accountability because they have no agency in the matter. This is true of young children. This is true of those mentally or emotionally disabled. And it would hold true for someone who had a sexual disorder that did not allow them to choose.

 

But these exceptions do not influence the principles of truth that we should embrace. The fact that some are incapable of physical movement does not justify laziness in the rest of us. The fact that some are incapable of learning does not justify giving up on study when it gets hard. The fact that some are homicidal sociopaths does not justify teaching that we cannot control our tempers. And the potential, jury's-still-out, fact that some may have no control over their sexual orientation does not justify a broad teaching that we all have no control over our own sexual feelings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two are not mutually exclusive. We can always overcome the natural man. We should always try and change the natural man.

I agree with you there but we have to also accept the possibility that the "thorn in the flesh" may not change, it may be there throughout ones life.  We are not expected to make it go away in this life but we are expected to not choose that over following God.  Weaknesses in this life are for our growth.  Wanting to not have any weaknesses around is what Satan argued as a good point to not come here in the first place.

 

So, you think Paul was wrong about wanting to accept his "thorn in the flesh"?

 

 

Elder Oaks from his talk on Same Gender Attraction, "

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

“God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Ne. 2:2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

“‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

“‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9–10)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you there but we have to also accept the possibility that the "thorn in the flesh" may not change, it may be there throughout ones life.  We are not expected to make it go away in this life but we are expected to not choose that over following God.  Weaknesses in this life are for our growth.  Wanting to not have any weaknesses around is what Satan argued as a good point to not come here in the first place.

 

So, you think Paul was wrong about wanting to accept his "thorn in the flesh"?

 

 

Elder Oaks from his talk on Same Gender Attraction, "

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

“God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Ne. 2:2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

“‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

“‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9–10)."

 

None of these teachings or scriptures say that the thorn cannot every be removed, or that glorying in one's infirmities means that they should not still try and overcome them with all their might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these teachings or scriptures say that the thorn cannot every be removed, or that glorying in one's infirmities means that they should not still try and overcome them with all their might.

Again, overcoming them and doing away with them are two different things.

 

The thorns are removed upon death.  So, yes they can be removed when the body is gone.  In the meantime they are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, overcoming them and doing away with them are two different things.

 

An entirely pointless response. First. So what? That doesn't mean they can't be overcome and/or done away with. Secondly. Says who? Doing away with them is certainly a subset of overcoming them. They can too be viewed as the same thing. I'll rephrase for clarity: None of these teachings or scriptures say that the thorn cannot be entirely done away with, or that glorying in one's infirmities means that they should not still try and do away with them with all their might.

 

The thorns are removed upon death.  So, yes they can be removed when the body is gone.  In the meantime they are here.

 

You have nothing concrete to support that they can, in each and every case, only be removed upon death. Sorry. Your views on this are your own.

 

I accept, obviously, that some thorns may stay with us through this life. But that any and all thorns do?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An entirely pointless response. First. So what? That doesn't mean they can't be overcome and/or done away with. Secondly. Says who? Doing away with them is certainly a subset of overcoming them. They can too be viewed as the same thing. I'll rephrase for clarity: None of these teachings or scriptures say that the thorn cannot be entirely done away with, or that glorying in one's infirmities means that they should not still try and do away with them with all their might.

 

 

You have nothing concrete to support that they can, in each and every case, only be removed upon death. Sorry. Your views on this are your own.

 

I accept, obviously, that some thorns may stay with us through this life. But that any and all thorns do?

I already said some a while back, look at post #83; "Some aspects of the natural man can change, such as the previous alcoholic developing a dislike for the taste of alcohol but there are many things that are simply the "thorn in the flesh" that we cannot change about our physical, carnal body, fallen self during this life.  To lump them together as if all tendencies should be overcome in this life is wrong."

 

I never said any and all do.

 

Do you want to talk about trying to do away with them or doing away with them?   Those are two different things. 

 

As Elder Oaks explained people are born with some of these "thorns" as no fault of their own.  If someday we can engineer the genetics then great, we can do away with some of those things.  But until then, people are kinda stuck with their genetics.  Yes they can fight genetics and go against the natural tendencies.  I have not said anything against that and if anything have supported that idea, that one should endure to the end through these thorns. It is but a short time, then they are gone.  The test will be over soon enough. 

 

The main thing is to not learn to love them, to not say "God made me this way and so I accept it as the way I am supposed to be."  We can live in the world without being of the world.  God never told us to go live in some remote part of the forest and isolate ourselves from everything so we don't have to face any challenge in this life, like a monk is some far away monostary. 

 

In a person that has same sex attraction, for example, that test and challenge may be there their whole life, it likely will not go away, no matter how good they are at controlling it.  That does not mean the person failed in any way just because the tendency persists, because it is a carnal one that dies with the body so long as they don't take it in as "this is the way God made me so I desire to remain this way."  Which is what you are saying about "fighting" the tendeny and I agree with that part.  But you have to realize that there is a lot of guilt associated with the idea that one should be able to make it go away in this life and then it doesn't.  For any given person, that "thorn in the flesh" may very well be there their whole life, just like Pauls didnt go away until he died.  One should not feel like they failed any part of the test simply because the tendency is still there so long as they are controling that passion.  Just like I don't feel guilty about being hungry on Fast Sunday.  I do not expect to some day not even be hungry on Fast Sunday if I 'keep fighting the carnal instinct of hunger'.  That is an unreasonable goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God never told us to go live in some remote part of the forest and isolate ourselves from everything so we don't have to face any challenge in this life, like a monk is some far away monostary. 

 

Who suggested that?

 

I already said some a while back, look at post #83; "Some aspects of the natural man can change, such as the previous alcoholic developing a dislike for the taste of alcohol but there are many things that are simply the "thorn in the flesh" that we cannot change about our physical, carnal body, fallen self during this life.  To lump them together as if all tendencies should be overcome in this life is wrong."

 

I never said any and all do.

 

And I never said we would get rid of them all. But that we should always try to, and never give up on trying to.

 

I feel like we're talking past each other. It's wearying.

 

If you believe it's okay to quit trying to become like the Savior and to not make every effort to be perfect, then that's your prerogative.

 

If you want to twist my words to make it sound like I'm being judgmental by suggesting we never quit trying, I cannot help that either.

 

I've spoken my peace on it. Repeatedly at this point. If you disagree, you disagree. I don't want to beat the horse any more. It's dead.  :deadhorse:

So if there's further insight...great...but the back and forth has gotten old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accidentally posted before I was done...just a bit more:

 

it likely will not go away, no matter how good they are at controlling it.

 

How can you possibly feel it's correct to authoritatively say such a thing? You have no idea any more than I do whether any person's given issue will go away.

 

That does not mean the person failed in any way just because the tendency persists, 

 

This is where you keep banging away at that dead horse and talking past me. The only way one fails is if one quits trying. I have never said anything to imply failure as long as one keeps trying.

 

But you have to realize that there is a lot of guilt associated with the idea that one should be able to make it go away in this life and then it doesn't. 

 

Then people need to get realistic expectations about change. It's been repeatedly said by me and others holding this position that change may not happen in this life. If someone ignores that that's on them and you seeming to ignore it is on you. I'm not going to feel bad about making others feel guilty when I've been clear on that matter and they choose to ignore it just to be defensive.

 

One should not feel like they failed any part of the test simply because the tendency is still there so long as they are controling that passion.  Just like I don't feel guilty about being hungry on Fast Sunday.  I do not expect to some day not even be hungry on Fast Sunday if I 'keep fighting the carnal instinct of hunger'.  That is an unreasonable goal. 

 

It is nonequivalent to compare passions and emotions to physical hunger. And your repeated harping on the hunger thing falls pretty flat accordingly.

 

But...no one said anything about failure. This began with my statement that wrong is wrong, evil is evil, etc... Hunger is never evil. EVER. It just isn't. But certain passions are.

 

We agree that someone shouldn't feel like they've failed if they've never given up on controlling their passions. That does not make the passion itself good. Ever. Evil is evil. If we overcome the evil (whether the inclination goes away or not) then we haven't failed. But an evil inclination is still evil. Overcoming evil inclinations, as we have both stated, is part of life. But don't put it on me that I'm making people feeling guilty by calling evil evil. It is. And we all have evil inclinations, as you well know. So telling me I'm wrong for saying so also falls flat. It's truth. And, once again, if someone feels guilty for being imperfect...sorry...but welcome to mortality. We're all imperfect. Deal with it. It does no good to blame others for the guilt someone feels for not being perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accidentally posted before I was done...just a bit more:

 

 

How can you possibly feel it's correct to authoritatively say such a thing? You have no idea any more than I do whether any person's given issue will go away.

 

 

This is where you keep banging away at that dead horse and talking past me. The only way one fails is if one quits trying. I have never said anything to imply failure as long as one keeps trying.

 

 

Then people need to get realistic expectations about change. It's been repeatedly said by me and others holding this position that change may not happen in this life. If someone ignores that that's on them and you seeming to ignore it is on you. I'm not going to feel bad about making others feel guilty when I've been clear on that matter and they choose to ignore it just to be defensive.

 

 

It is nonequivalent to compare passions and emotions to physical hunger. And your repeated harping on the hunger thing falls pretty flat accordingly.

 

But...no one said anything about failure. This began with my statement that wrong is wrong, evil is evil, etc... Hunger is never evil. EVER. It just isn't. But certain passions are.

 

We agree that someone shouldn't feel like they've failed if they've never given up on controlling their passions. That does not make the passion itself good. Ever. Evil is evil. If we overcome the evil (whether the inclination goes away or not) then we haven't failed. But an evil inclination is still evil. Overcoming evil inclinations, as we have both stated, is part of life. But don't put it on me that I'm making people feeling guilty by calling evil evil. It is. And we all have evil inclinations, as you well know. So telling me I'm wrong for saying so also falls flat. It's truth. And, once again, if someone feels guilty for being imperfect...sorry...but welcome to mortality. We're all imperfect. Deal with it. It does no good to blame others for the guilt someone feels for not being perfect.

This is what you posted in #75; "

Do you honestly believe that someone who consistently puts of natural, evil tendencies won't change over time? You believe that the inclinations remain, exactly the same, exactly as strong, no matter how much we put them off and yield to the enticings of the Spirit?

 

I do not believe that. Practice makes perfect. Practice not being angry, and over time, you stop being angry. Add the Atonement and the literal changing effect it can have on our lives and character and the recipe is complete. Change is possible."

 

Now in this post you say; "If we overcome the evil (whether the inclination goes away or not) then we haven't failed."

 

... you cant have it both ways.

 

What changes is what inclinations we listen to, the spiritual ones or the carnal ones.  The inclinations can remain the same and yet the being changes because those carnal inclinations are not listened to.  But that does not mean those inclinations have changed, the body can keep them going with those evil influences even though they are ignored or overcome.

 

This is why we have to endure till the end. 

 

If someone overcame some evil inclination through their spiritual prowess and they no longer listen or feel the influence of that particular inclination, you want me to believe that if the person dropped their gaurd and stopped being righteous that the evil inclination has dissapeared and will never challenge that person again?   Or could it be that simply the person in their spiritual righteousness is keeping at bay the evil inclination that persists as a "thorn in the flesh" but kept under control as they don't give heed to that inclination when they are keeping their self spiritually pure.  If they were to drop their armor, the evil inclination would gain power again - why? Because it never went away!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share