Mormons and Gays

[Traveler]

I would comment again - many species are capable of learning and in learning controlling a great many things.  I had a dog in my youth that I trained for hunting.  The first time I took her hunting she nearly jumped out of her skin then run and hide with every gun shot.  She had a great many instincts, feelings and fears about hunting but with training and conditioning I was able to condition her and radically change her behaviors, feelings and fears to the point that she would get excited at the sound of a gunshot and then a command to help track down the kill.  She also learned to track down my arrows for me if they missed the target.  There were some hunting skills that she seemed to be born with but her exceptional skills were the result of conditioning and training.

 

During my service in the army I was attached to an intelligence unit and I learned that people can be conditioned for a great many things with much more success than our many animal counterparts.  I myself was “hardened” or conditioned to enjoy things that prior to my military experience were very contrary to feelings I only acquired because of my conditioning and training.   I no longer hunt because of the conditioned joy of killing.  I started out in my youth feeling sorry and regretful for every animal I killed – I would kneel in prayer and thank G-d for each animal taken and promise to not waist the life.  But such thoughts and feelings changed with my military service.  If someday I should need to hunt again to sustain life and provide food – I have no doubt I could get the job done efficiently – but I quit for the single reason that killing became too much of a conditioned joy.

 

Having studied behavioral science from scientist like Pavlov, Skinner and even Goebbels I have, from experience, becomed convinced that we can be conditioned to enjoy and have feeling directly related to conditioning.  The popular term for this conditioning is “Brain Washing”.  Drugs related to the brain releasing endorphins can be used to drastically alter human feelings and behaviors.  This is why drug rehabilitation is most difficult and why acquired behaviors related to drugs are never cured and so difficult (sometimes impossible) for an individual to control.   Interestingly the endorphins released from drug use are the same as the endorphins released during sexual stimulation.  Why anyone would say such feelings and behaviors are in no way related leaves me wondering if humans are indeed capable of rational thinking.  – Sorry Anatress.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would comment again - many species are capable of learning and in learning controlling a great many things.  I had a dog in my youth that I trained for hunting.  The first time I took her hunting she nearly jumped out of her skin then run and hide with every gun shot.  She had a great many instincts, feelings and fears about hunting but with training and conditioning I was able to condition her and radically change her behaviors, feelings and fears to the point that she would get excited at the sound of a gunshot and then a command to help track down the kill.  She also learned to track down my arrows for me if they missed the target.  There were some hunting skills that she seemed to be born with but her exceptional skills were the result of conditioning and training.

 

During my service in the army I was attached to an intelligence unit and I learned that people can be conditioned for a great many things with much more success than our many animal counterparts.  I myself was “hardened” or conditioned to enjoy things that prior to my military experience were very contrary to feelings I only acquired because of my conditioning and training.   I no longer hunt because of the conditioned joy of killing.  I started out in my youth feeling sorry and regretful for every animal I killed – I would kneel in prayer and thank G-d for each animal taken and promise to not waist the life.  But such thoughts and feelings changed with my military service.  If someday I should need to hunt again to sustain life and provide food – I have no doubt I could get the job done efficiently – but I quit for the single reason that killing became too much of a conditioned joy.

 

Having studied behavioral science from scientist like Pavlov, Skinner and even Goebbels I have, from experience, becomed convinced that we can be conditioned to enjoy and have feeling directly related to conditioning.  The popular term for this conditioning is “Brain Washing”.  Drugs related to the brain releasing endorphins can be used to drastically alter human feelings and behaviors.  This is why drug rehabilitation is most difficult and why acquired behaviors related to drugs are never cured and so difficult (sometimes impossible) for an individual to control.   Interestingly the endorphins released from drug use are the same as the endorphins released during sexual stimulation.  Why anyone would say such feelings and behaviors are in no way related leaves me wondering if humans are indeed capable of rational thinking.  – Sorry Anatress.

 

Humans, unlike dogs, can train themselves.

[Traveler]

Humans, unlike dogs, can train themselves.

 

Perhaps – but it would seem that humans with severer psychological disorders have acquired such problems based around difficulties they experienced at a young age – very often at such a young age that the details of the events are not remembered clearly.   Efforts to reprogram self, seem to be insufficient.  I personally find the quest for truth quite interesting – in light of scripture that indicate that the possibility of training one’s self with righteousness does not occur; or in other words, that without divine tutoring by the Holy Ghost humans will fail to train themselves with anything beneficial or helpful. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Perhaps – but it would seem that humans with severer psychological disorders have acquired such problems based around difficulties they experienced at a young age – very often at such a young age that the details of the events are not remembered clearly.   Efforts to reprogram self, seem to be insufficient.  I personally find the quest for truth quite interesting – in light of scripture that indicate that the possibility of training one’s self with righteousness does not occur; or in other words, that without divine tutoring by the Holy Ghost humans will fail to train themselves with anything beneficial or helpful. 

 

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.

[Traveler]

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.

 

I would submit that if any such training be associated in any way to truth - that the Holy Ghost is necessary for success or connection to truth -- See Mormon 10:4-5

[The Folk Prophet]

I would submit that if any such training be associated in any way to truth - that the Holy Ghost is necessary for success or connection to truth -- See Mormon 10:4-5

 

*shrug*

 

This is beyond revealed knowledge, I think. The scriptures teach that the Holy Ghost teaches us truth. I'm not sure they teach us that truth cannot come by any other means. In point of fact, I believe that we are here on this earth to learn truth by experience as much as by being given it from God. Experience seems to teach quite well. (Edit: Though, as we have both noted, it is insufficient for complete truth).

Edited October 20, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

*shrug*

 

This is beyond revealed knowledge, I think. The scriptures teach that the Holy Ghost teaches us truth. I'm not sure they teach us that truth cannot come by any other means. In point of fact, I believe that we are here on this earth to learn truth by experience as much as by being given it from God. Experience seems to teach quite well. (Edit: Though, as we have both noted, it is insufficient for complete truth).

 

Isn't this the promise of the Light of Christ?  That all men born mortal receives it?  I would presume this is given, not just to the physiologically "normal", but to the "abnormal" ones as well... where they have the means to find the complete truth, if not in this life, then the next?  I think the "missing knowledge" is the pathway by which those with mental handicap - or those with emotional handicap - gets to the complete truth from the prism of the handicap... but the promise is there.

[The Folk Prophet]

Isn't this the promise of the Light of Christ?  That all men born mortal receives it?  I would presume this is given, not just to the physiologically "normal", but to the "abnormal" ones as well... where they have the means to find the complete truth, if not in this life, then the next?  I think the "missing knowledge" is the pathway by which those with mental handicap - or those with emotional handicap - gets to the complete truth from the prism of the handicap... but the promise is there.

 

I'm just saying that I'm not so sure that when you hit your thumb with a hammer that you learn something from it that it has anything to do with the Holy Ghost or the Light of Christ.

[Traveler]

*shrug*

 

This is beyond revealed knowledge, I think. The scriptures teach that the Holy Ghost teaches us truth. I'm not sure they teach us that truth cannot come by any other means. In point of fact, I believe that we are here on this earth to learn truth by experience as much as by being given it from God. Experience seems to teach quite well. (Edit: Though, as we have both noted, it is insufficient for complete truth).

 

Hmmmm.  So your position is that there are, without question, some things which we experience in which the yin and yang of opposition (good vs evil) has absolutely no possible relevance?     Can you give example? Is your hammer hitting thumb and causing pain such an example?

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmmmm.  So your position is that there are, without question, some things which we experience in which the yin and yang of opposition (good vs evil) has absolutely no possible relevance? 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm pretty sure that my position is exactly the opposite of that.

[paulsifer42]

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.

 

I am overwhelmed by your incredible amount of sympathy for others; very grown-up of you.

 

I agree that we can condition ourselves to feel certain things in certain situations by applying reward/punishment during those situations, but when someone wrongs us, we will always feel anger.  We can't condition ourselves away from that.  That's what I mean by natural feelings/emotions.  We aren't going to get rid of being angry at someone intentionally wronging us.  Now, what we do after feeling that anger is very controllable, and in that way we should be like the savior and deal with that anger appropriately depending on the situation (instead of acting like children).  But I don't think we need to feel guilty for the emotion that undoubtedly follows being intentionally wronged.

[Guest]

I am overwhelmed by your incredible amount of sympathy for others; very grown-up of you.

 

I agree that we can condition ourselves to feel certain things in certain situations by applying reward/punishment during those situations, but when someone wrongs us, we will always feel anger.  We can't condition ourselves away from that.  That's what I mean by natural feelings/emotions.  We aren't going to get rid of being angry at someone intentionally wronging us.  Now, what we do after feeling that anger is very controllable, and in that way we should be like the savior and deal with that anger appropriately depending on the situation (instead of acting like children).  But I don't think we need to feel guilty for the emotion that undoubtedly follows being intentionally wronged.

 

On the bolded... Yes, we can.  As a matter of fact, this is EXACTLY what Catholic Priests and Tibetan/Buddhist Monks spend a lot of their entire seminary life training for.  It's like being Jedi, actually.  You can choose when to feel or not feel anger.  But yes, it's not something you just pick up on the streets.  It's complete surrender to God that takes a lifelong study.  It's a sumbersion in the 2nd greatest commandment of Love.  When Jesus upended the tables in the temple, he was angry.  But this anger is a result of his perfect love for the Father - an anger that he righteously felt.  I actually studied this for a long time... I could get to that level but I lose a lot of my empathy in the process so when I got married, my training quit working...

 

Now, what's interesting about this is that this is actually what psychotropic drugs do.  It stops the undesired feeling through chemical alteration.  And if nothing else we learn from Scientology, Dianetics has explored this phenomena in great detail providing evidence that one can actually train the brain (not considering physiological abnormalities) to produce these chemicals and self-heal at will.

 

No, I'm not saying everybody should start doing this, or that it's even a good thing.  I'm saying that one can definitely CHANGE what one feels in response to certain stimuli through training.

Edited October 22, 2014 by anatess

[paulsifer42]

On the bolded... Yes, we can.  As a matter of fact, this is EXACTLY what Catholic Priests and Tibetan/Buddhist Monks spend a lot of their entire seminary life training for.  It's like being Jedi, actually.  You can choose when to feel or not feel anger.  But yes, it's not something you just pick up on the streets.  It's complete surrender to God that takes a lifelong study.  It's a sumbersion in the 2nd greatest commandment of Love.  When Jesus upended the tables in the temple, he was angry.  But this anger is a result of his perfect love for the Father - an anger that he righteously felt.  I actually studied this for a long time... I could get to that level but I lose a lot of my empathy in the process so when I got married, my training quit working...

 

Now, what's interesting about this is that this is actually what psychotropic drugs do.  It stops the undesired feeling through chemical alteration.  And if nothing else we learn from Scientology, Dianetics has explored this phenomena in great detail providing evidence that one can actually train the brain (not considering physiological abnormalities) to produce these chemicals and self-heal at will.

 

No, I'm not saying everybody should start doing this, or that it's even a good thing.  I'm saying that one can definitely CHANGE what one feels in response to certain stimuli through training.

In your experience, did you actually test this?  As in, was there actually a time when you were seriously, deliberately wronged and you literally felt no anger?  I'm genuinely curious.  I don't take much stock in what Priests/Monks do, mostly because they stop representing themselves.  The reason that makes a difference is because I pretty much rid myself of anger on my mission, but it was because I wasn't representing myself, I was representing God.  So, when someone abused me, they weren't wronging me, they were wronging what I stood for.  It was pretty easy not to be angry. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I am overwhelmed by your incredible amount of sympathy for others; very grown-up of you.

 

I agree that we can condition ourselves to feel certain things in certain situations by applying reward/punishment during those situations, but when someone wrongs us, we will always feel anger.  We can't condition ourselves away from that.  That's what I mean by natural feelings/emotions.  We aren't going to get rid of being angry at someone intentionally wronging us.  Now, what we do after feeling that anger is very controllable, and in that way we should be like the savior and deal with that anger appropriately depending on the situation (instead of acting like children).  But I don't think we need to feel guilty for the emotion that undoubtedly follows being intentionally wronged.

 

*sigh*

 

Attacking me really assists the conversation along well.

 

I'm done.

[paulsifer42]

*sigh*

 

Attacking me really assists the conversation along well.

 

I'm done.

 

Oh, you insulted everyone who admits they can't condition themselves away from all negative emotions and I tried my best to keep the conversation going (while helping you see how you were offensive in a teasing manner); you can't do the same? :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Oh, you insulted everyone who admits they can't condition themselves away from all negative emotions and I tried my best to keep the conversation going (while helping you see how you were offensive in a teasing manner); you can't do the same? :)

 

If you took it personally and thereby read insult into it I apologize, but my comment was theoretical and broad. It was not attacking anyone.

 

I'm walking away because I am not interested in contention and frustration. I'm here to give and get insight in a peaceful manner. When I get personally attacked in response to something I say, I plan on walking away, not because I'm hurt, but because I don't want to be involved in those those sorts of conversations. They happen when people start taking things personally.

 

Anatess is carrying my position quite well, however.

[paulsifer42]

If you took it personally and thereby read insult into it I apologize, but my comment was theoretical and broad. It was not attacking anyone.

 

I'm walking away because I am not interested in contention and frustration. I'm here to give and get insight in a peaceful manner. When I get personally attacked in response to something I say, I plan on walking away, not because I'm hurt, but because I don't want to be involved in those those sorts of conversations. They happen when people start taking things personally.

 

Anatess is carrying my position quite well, however.

 

I didn't take it personally, I was just trying to give a little insight.  If you felt attacked, I'm sorry, it was meant to be a lighthearted way of helping you receive that insight while pushing past it.  I have every intention of continuing to discuss this peacefully, but if you feel the need to walk away you are more than welcome.

[MrShorty]

No, I'm not saying everybody should start doing this, or that it's even a good thing.  I'm saying that one can definitely CHANGE what one feels in response to certain stimuli through training.

 

Reading into the OP's original question, I think the key question being asked is if this change can and should be properly applied to sexual orientation.TFP presented a body of anecdotal evidence that some people do change their sexual orientation, but most of the secular literature concludes that sexual orientation is something more fundamental to a person's identity and, in general, cannot nor should not be changed. Based on recent statements from the Church (like the mormonsandgays website), it seems that the Church is following the secular position (sexual orientation does not change), while insisting that standards of behavior (no sexual relations outside of marriage, and homosexual marriage is not recognized by the Church) be maintained. While there are many aspects of personality and temperment that can and should be changed, it seems to me that our Church leaders are telling us that there are a few things, like sexual orientation, that are so fundamental that the inclinations and desires that flow out of those cannot be changed. Our goal in those situations is to "control" and "bridle" (measured by behavior rather than thought) rather than "change".

Edited October 22, 2014 by MrShorty

[Guest]

In your experience, did you actually test this?  As in, was there actually a time when you were seriously, deliberately wronged and you literally felt no anger?  I'm genuinely curious.  I don't take much stock in what Priests/Monks do, mostly because they stop representing themselves.  The reason that makes a difference is because I pretty much rid myself of anger on my mission, but it was because I wasn't representing myself, I was representing God.  So, when someone abused me, they weren't wronging me, they were wronging what I stood for.  It was pretty easy not to be angry. 

 

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.

Edited October 22, 2014 by anatess

[carlimac]

In your experience, did you actually test this?  As in, was there actually a time when you were seriously, deliberately wronged and you literally felt no anger?  I'm genuinely curious.  I don't take much stock in what Priests/Monks do, mostly because they stop representing themselves.  The reason that makes a difference is because I pretty much rid myself of anger on my mission, but it was because I wasn't representing myself, I was representing God.  So, when someone abused me, they weren't wronging me, they were wronging what I stood for.  It was pretty easy not to be angry. 

My daughter yelled at me last night. Something that would have curdled my blood even last year. Last night, I literally felt no anger. In fact I smiled and shrugged my shoulders.

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP presented a body of anecdotal evidence that some people do change their sexual orientation, 

 

I did? Do you mean the videos I posted. Because they were meant as a matter of interest, not as evidence. I could care less for evidence one way or another. What I'm interested in is doctrine.

 

but most of the secular literature concludes that sexual orientation is something more fundamental to a person's identity and, in general, cannot nor should not be changed. 

 

Ah...secular literature. Yes...that is what I've missing. My faith has been askew. (I know...snarky reply...sorry...)

 

Based on recent statements from the Church (like the mormonsandgays website), it seems that the Church is following the secular position (sexual orientation does not change),

 

Um...I challenge you...seriously...to find one quote anywhere from the church that says that sexual orientation does not (or cannot) change.

 

it seems to me that our Church leaders are telling us that there are a few things, like sexual orientation, that are so fundamental that the inclinations and desires that flow out of those cannot be changed.

 

That's a real doosey of an interpretation of the Church's position. But that's all it is. There is nothing of that sort in what the church has said anywhere. One could search far and wide to find a church teaching that states, implies, or otherwise embraces the idea of -- "Don't bother to change. You can't change. You are who you are." -- and it will never be found.

 

Our goal in those situations is to "control" and "bridle" (measured by behavior rather than thought) rather than "change".

 

How can gospel principles surrounding a mighty change of heart, change of character, becoming like Christ, and a literal myriad of quotes from General authorities that this is a gospel of change, all be discarded as "not applicable" to this particular aspect of humanity?

 

Personally, it strikes me that the entire, "not a sin if you don't act on it," approach is a bandaid being applied to a worldly philosophy that is too corrupted to accept deeper truths. It is, to my mind, milk before meat. Because the meat is there. The scriptures and sermons are replete with it. And it makes no sense whatsoever that we should simply discard one of the the core teachings of the Atonement -- that we can experience change through repentance -- based on a simple statement from mormonsandgays that does not say what you and others seem to be reading into it. Milk: An eye for an eye. Meat: Turn the other cheek. Milk: No adultery. Meat: Don't even look to lust. Milk: Don't act on homosexual feelings. Meat: Through the Atonement we can actually change.

[carlimac]

Reading into the OP's original question, I think the key question being asked is if this change can and should be properly applied to sexual orientation.TFP presented a body of anecdotal evidence that some people do change their sexual orientation, but most of the secular literature concludes that sexual orientation is something more fundamental to a person's identity and, in general, cannot nor should not be changed. Based on recent statements from the Church (like the mormonsandgays website), it seems that the Church is following the secular position (sexual orientation does not change), while insisting that standards of behavior (no sexual relations outside of marriage, and homosexual marriage is not recognized by the Church) be maintained. While there are many aspects of personality and temperment that can and should be changed, it seems to me that our Church leaders are telling us that there are a few things, like sexual orientation, that are so fundamental that the inclinations and desires that flow out of those cannot be changed. Our goal in those situations is to "control" and "bridle" (measured by behavior rather than thought) rather than "change".

 

 

 

 

I believe this is a bit of a cop out. People can and do change, according to their desire. It's a very individual thing. Some will be able to change more readily than others. So to say, "the Church is telling me I can't/won't change so I just have to bridle it" sounds like excuse making to me... opening the door to failure.  Yes, people CAN change their natures and orientation. They first and foremost have to WANT to.

 

I think it's especially important to not believe that sexual orientation can't change in this day and age where there is so much encouragement from the LGBTs who are rabidly seeking validation for their cause. They will instantly tell teens who show the slightest interest in their same gender that, "Yes, indeed you are gay. Just accept it, love yourself the way you are, explore it, etc"  

 

The teen may not actually BE homosexual but by listening to those voices and finding acceptance in that community (the soft flaxen cords dragging them down till they are bound forever) they are brainwashed into believing they are and by then are fully entrenched in the lifestyle.   Their true nature may actually be heterosexual but they've been seriously messed up. 

 

I have read testimonials of these kinds of things. I think sexual orientation is far more fluid than society wants us to believe.

Edited October 22, 2014 by carlimac

[Seminarysnoozer]

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 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."

 

There are the "inclinations" of the natural man which is separate from the idea of whether they are "responded" to or not.   In other words, one can have an inclination but not respond to it.  Is that evil in your mind?

 

I would suggest that, as Elder Bednar described, the test of this life is to see which one we respond to.  Therefore, the "inclinations" are not going to go away while we are still in the test.  If the "inclinations" of the natural man were not there then there would be no test.  So, just to have a natural man "inclination" is not evil.   Is it evil that I am hungry during Fast Sunday?  Was it evil that the apostles slept when they didn't want to in the garden?  The spirit is willing but the body is weak.

[The Folk Prophet]

There are the "inclinations" of the natural man which is separate from the idea of whether they are "responded" to or not.   In other words, one can have an inclination but not respond to it.  Is that evil in your mind?

 

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.