President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018

Calm · February 20, 2018

My view...

I don't really like most references to Satan motivating us to do evil. It seems to me to make it too easy to shift responsibility for our thoughts to someone else, which I believe is the opposite of the intent of Pres. Nelson and most who speak of us being tempted by Satan rather than it being our own less admirable natural inclinations.

I don't think many of us like to think of ourselves as haters, racists, lusters, etc even in small parts. But I don't think we will get rid of those negative attributes until we see ourselves as the source rather than others and recognize we need to change ourselves rather than just create barriers between ourselves and those types of thoughts. Removing lust, hate, etc. from our hearts is not in the same category (in the sense of type, not level) as turning off the TV to avoid sex scenes or profane language.

I do believe Pres. Nelson and others are telling us to make the soil of our souls inhospitable to such seeds of thoughts, which is what we need to do. I just think many of the seeds are already there because of the kind of soil we are...the whole natural man (kind of like weed seeds are always present in natural garden soils).

To me Satan works best as a cautionary example, but I suppose the idea of him as a tempter may make us more sympathetic to others so we don't frame their actions solely as a result of personal attributes.

I am also not claiming we are not influenced by others and our environment to sin and do evil. I think there are huge influences there. However, seeing influences in this way allows us to consider we might change those influences. I don't see us as ever being able to have a positive impact on Satan.

----

Having said all that, just because I see it this way doesn't mean I am right. Others probably have greater insight into how to influence people to change for the better.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Calm

CA Steve · February 20, 2018

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Wouldn't it be possible for Satan to turn, say the love a Home Teacher should have for a single sister he is assigned to care for into an inappropriate emotional affair that definitely derailed what may have otherwise been a good spiritual intention?

It seems that most on this board agreed that even without any sexual activity, the love that such a man developed would not be seen as a good thing.

In such a scenario the point Cinepro was making would still be valid. That is, the exact same mechanism that results in good (emotional love or sexual love) is also employed for bad. As he put it.

Quote

Our bodies are an intricate, massively complex system which includes a massively complex, hormone riddled sex drive that is both very basic, and very complex, but which operates solely without any influence from supernatural forces.

The same would apply to a misdirected emotional affair, it is still very easily explained by hormones.

And in all honesty I think my fallibility is my own doing. I don't think I need to blame Satan for my poor decisions.

On Edit:

Which I just noticed Calm said much better than I did, right before I did which now makes me very angry at her, so Satan must be tempting me to be angry. Yeah, it's his fault. (and hers)

Edited February 20, 2018 by CA Steve

Calm · February 20, 2018

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

On Edit:

Which I just noticed Calm said much better than I did, right before I did which now makes me very angry at her, so Satan must be tempting me to be angry. Yeah, it's his fault. (and hers)

So love it.

Maybe I had to listen to the comedy routine of "The Devil Made Me Do It" once too often as a child. My grandparents and dad loved it. I think we even had a record of it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ

Edited February 20, 2018 by Calm

cinepro · February 20, 2018

43 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Um, so are you saying maybe there is a devil and maybe he can influence us in some way, but not in regards to eating, drinking, or loving? I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm genuinely interested in understanding your perspective, and I don't feel like I'm getting it.

I'm just saying that I believe if Satan took a month off and he and his minions agreed not to "tempt" anyone, people would still eat stuff they aren't supposed to (like meat during the summer), drink stuff they aren't supposed to (like coffee and alcohol), and still love like they should not love.

When I'm tempted to eat a steak in July, I don't think it's Satan putting that idea in my mind. I think it's because I'm hungry, and steaks taste good. When I'm tempted to click on a link that promises to show me Kate Upton's bikini top falling off, I don't think it's an invisible, disembodied spirit that makes me think about clicking it. I think I've got more than enough natural hormones and heterosexual interest in the female form to inspire me to think about it.

And maybe it's the Holy Ghost that reminds me that God doesn't want me to click that link, but I would also probably remember that it would be disrespectful to my wife to click on it, and that might be enough.

But if tomorrow I woke up and suddenly, for the first time in 40+ years, I had an intense desire to engage in homosexual activity, then I might be convinced that an evil spirit was tinkering with my thoughts.

CV75 · February 20, 2018

38 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

And in all honesty I think my fallibility is my own doing. I don't think I need to blame Satan for my poor decisions.

I think that we are only tempted according to the light we have. Those without the corresponding Gospel laws are going to eat, drink and ~~be merry~~ love according to their appetites sans the level of accountability or external spiritual temptation as those who possess more light. It seems to me the context was giving encouragement to relatively informed and enlightened LDS young adults, which calls for the doctrinal reference to the adversary.

I think once we have enough light to blame Satan for succumbing to our appetites to commit sin (which I don't see Elder Nelson doing), we've either lost or have been lacking a good deal of light!

kllindley · February 21, 2018

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

In such a scenario the point Cinepro was making would still be valid. That is, the exact same mechanism that results in good (emotional love or sexual love) is also employed for bad. As he put it.

The same would apply to a misdirected emotional affair, it is still very easily explained by hormones.

And in all honesty I think my fallibility is my own doing. I don't think I need to blame Satan for my poor decisions.

On Edit:

Which I just noticed Calm said much better than I did, right before I did which now makes me very angry at her, so Satan must be tempting me to be angry. Yeah, it's his fault. (and hers)

I just want to clarify that I'm not arguing that anyone "blame Satan" for their decisions.

Secondly, you use the passive verb "employed." That usage implies an employer. In the case above, who is employing the hormonal mechanism of love for bad?

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm just saying that I believe if Satan took a month off and he and his minions agreed not to "tempt" anyone, people would still eat stuff they aren't supposed to (like meat during the summer), drink stuff they aren't supposed to (like coffee and alcohol), and still love like they should not love.

When I'm tempted to eat a steak in July, I don't think it's Satan putting that idea in my mind. I think it's because I'm hungry, and steaks taste good. When I'm tempted to click on a link that promises to show me Kate Upton's bikini top falling off, I don't think it's an invisible, disembodied spirit that makes me think about clicking it. I think I've got more than enough natural hormones and heterosexual interest in the female form to inspire me to think about it.

And maybe it's the Holy Ghost that reminds me that God doesn't want me to click that link, but I would also probably remember that it would be disrespectful to my wife to click on it, and that might be enough.

But if tomorrow I woke up and suddenly, for the first time in 40+ years, I had an intense desire to engage in homosexual activity, then I might be convinced that an evil spirit was tinkering with my thoughts.

I'm still not getting it. It seems like you prefer a totally mechanistic universe. Just as we don't need to resort to supernatural entities like devils to explain things, we really don't even need an independent will. All those complex biological processes and environmental interactions can explain everything.

No worries, I'll drop it.

JLHPROF · February 21, 2018

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm just saying that the things President Nelson is referring to don't need a theory involving evil spirits to explain why humans do them.

If someone wants to argue that such spirits are needed to explain such behavior, I would be interested in seeing the evidence for that.

There may be other things that humans do because evil spirits tinker with our minds and get us to think and do things we otherwise wouldn't, but as far as "eating", "drinking" and "loving" things that we shouldn't, from what I can tell the human brain seems more than capable of having those tendencies and addictions on its own. Supernatural explanations are usually only needed to explain things that are otherwise inexplicable.

I kind of agree with this.
I think it's clear Satan tempts, but it's equally clear man chooses.
And in this fallen state our preferences don't require Satan to choose wrong. Our fallen natures can handle that just fine on their own.

Yes I believe sometimes Satan tempts us to do evil. And yes, I believe sometimes we do evil all by ourselves.

kllindley · February 21, 2018

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

None of the examples you or Calm are giving could reasonably be construed to be love that, as President Nelson put it:

So while the examples you gave may be reasonable examples of non sexual love, you need to come up with one that is non sexual and can be used by Satan to tempt us. Otherwise that is exactly what was meant by President Nelson.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This isn't the type of love that President Nelson is referring to. He specifically qualified the type of love he meant as those that Satan can turn into desires and actions that can derail the best of spiritual intentions.

IF you have an example of that kind of love that does not involve sex, then you may have a point.

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

In such a scenario the point Cinepro was making would still be valid. That is, the exact same mechanism that results in good (emotional love or sexual love) is also employed for bad. As he put it.

The same would apply to a misdirected emotional affair, it is still very easily explained by hormones.

And in all honesty I think my fallibility is my own doing. I don't think I need to blame Satan for my poor decisions.

Talk about moving the goal post! First you're stating that President Nelson can't possibly be referring to anything other than sex, because it's the only kind of love that "Satan can turn into desires and actions that can derail the best of spiritual intentions."

Then when I provide an example of non-sexual love, your response is: That doesn't count because the same mechanism that is used for good is employed for bad.

Huh? Isn't that exactly what President Nelson is taking about?

kllindley · February 21, 2018

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I kind of agree with this.
I think it's clear Satan tempts, but it's equally clear man chooses.
And in this fallen state our preferences don't require Satan to choose wrong. Our fallen natures can handle that just fine on their own.

Yes I believe sometimes Satan tempts us to do evil. And yes, I believe sometimes we do evil all by ourselves.

I totally agree that we are capable of plenty of evil on our own as natural, fallen individuals.

What I'm confused about is Cinepro's assertion that the idea of Satan temping us is extremely problematic.

Gray · February 21, 2018

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly! Like you, I find it deeply troubling that our current prophets are teaching the words of Jesus instead of Greek philosophy.

Greek philosophy? Is someone agitating for that?

CA Steve · February 21, 2018

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Secondly, you use the passive verb "employed." That usage implies an employer. In the case above, who is employing the hormonal mechanism of love for bad?

I'm still not getting it. It seems like you prefer a totally mechanistic universe. Just as we don't need to resort to supernatural entities like devils to explain things, we really don't even need an independent will. All those complex biological processes and environmental interactions can explain everything.

No worries, I'll drop it.

Nature is the employer.

And it's not about whether or I prefer a totally mechanistic universe or not, It was about Cinepro's question. I was just pointing out that the examples you and Calm were using to show Cinepro why you disagreed with his question did not fit the criteria Nelson was using for love. As I read President Nelson's quote he is definitely talking about sexuality. He is just trying to approach the subject a little less directly by referring to it using the term love.

Daniel2 · February 21, 2018

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

This is where I get tripped up with his statement as well. How is loving someone ever something we shouldn't do? Or is he talking about love of things?

I think counterfeit forms of love are those that are ultimately self-serving, abusive, parasitic, confusing lust with love, etc. I believe that whatever "evil spirit(s)" that exist(s) are those that possesses us--whether external influencers or the 'darker' reflections of our own spiritual selves--to seek out love that consumes others, or abuses others, or uses others, or misdirects love that is life-affirming, relationship-affirming, selflessness-affirming, service-affirming, etc. 'True' love (if I can speak of absolute 'Truth,' in this sense) seeks to put others', and romantically-speaking, another's, needs and happiness before our own. When we convince ourselves into deception otherwise, it would count as "loving as we should not love." And I think we all are susceptible to that type of pitfall, regardless of the gender(s) of the object(s) of our affection. Taking Nelson's comments in the best possible light, I really like what he said, and I truly agree with him, even though he and I would likely disagree in how and in which scenarios his comments are applicable.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Daniel2

kllindley · February 21, 2018

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Nature is the employer.

So the devil is imaginary, but nature we can blame? Are we looking at a classic Mother Nature employing . . . nature. . . For good and bad?

CV75 · February 21, 2018

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm just saying that the things President Nelson is referring to don't need a theory involving evil spirits to explain why humans do them.

If someone wants to argue that such spirits are needed to explain such behavior, I would be interested in seeing the evidence for that.

There may be other things that humans do because evil spirits tinker with our minds and get us to think and do things we otherwise wouldn't, but as far as "eating", "drinking" and "loving" things that we shouldn't, from what I can tell the human brain seems more than capable of having those tendencies and addictions on its own. Supernatural explanations are usually only needed to explain things that are otherwise inexplicable.

The things President Nelson is referring to, I believe, are precisely those particular things that involve the adversary's temptations. That seems to be the scope of his message, as I read it on the Newsroom. The things he is referring to are not the mechanical behaviors per se without any spiritual context, but those that qualify as sins by choice, those choices the saints make against "the better angels of our nature" as Abraham Lincoln put it (Happy Belated President's Day!). To say that you can commit enough evil on your own, after taking the name of Christ upon you, is to say taking His name upon you was not done in faith in the first place, a graceless thing to do. Why take His name upon us if we can conversely do enough good on our own?

CA Steve · February 21, 2018

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I totally agree that we are capable of plenty of evil on our own as natural, fallen individuals.

What I'm confused about is Cinepro's assertion that the idea of Satan temping us is extremely problematic.

In a nutshell what Cinepro is questioning is why we have to include Satan in the temptation scheme that President Nelson laid out when nature accounts for it all by herself. If you agree that we are capable of bad decisions all on our own, it seems like adultery, over eating and drinking are evils which probably can happen without Satan needing to get involved.

I know, for example, that the second cream puff I ate this morning was totally my own decision, because if Satan had been these he would not have been able to resist one either. :blink:

CA Steve · February 21, 2018

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

So the devil is imaginary, but nature we can blame? Are we looking at a classic Mother Nature employing . . . nature. . . For good and bad?

The question isn't whether or not the devil is imaginary here, it is whether or not he is necessary to the items President listed. See my previous post.

CV75 · February 21, 2018

Just now, CA Steve said:

In a nutshell what Cinepro is questioning is why we have to include Satan in the temptation scheme that President Nelson laid out when nature accounts for it all by herself.

Nature accounts for the stimuli, individuals account for their behavior in relation to the stimuli inasmuch as they can choose, and the Gospel accounts for the Spirit and the devil being involved in those instances where the saints deal with their stimuli in a spiritual context.

kllindley · February 21, 2018

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

In a nutshell what Cinepro is questioning is why we have to include Satan in the temptation scheme that President Nelson laid out when nature accounts for it all by herself. If you agree that we are capable of bad decisions all on our own, it seems like adultery, over eating and drinking are evils which probably can happen without Satan needing to get involved.

I know, for example, that the second cream puff I ate this morning was totally my own decision, because if Satan had been these he would not have been able to resist one either.

Right. Why include Satan at all? Are there any evils you can think of that require Satan?

CV75 · February 21, 2018

Just now, CA Steve said:

The question isn't whether or not the devil is imaginary here, it is whether or not he is necessary to the items President listed. See my previous post.

I don't think President Nelson was saying the devil is necessary for all behaviors, but that when he is involved, he is involved for his reasons and through a means, and when heeded by us, such behaviors constitute sin.

CA Steve · February 21, 2018

Just now, kllindley said:

Right. Why include Satan at all? Are there any evils you can think of that require Satan?

Well basically you are asking about theodicy, and that is a question that people have been arguing about for thousands of years.

I am not one qualified to give in depth answers about that and freely admit the best I can do is just ask questions.

I do find the concept of Satan and evil in Mormon theology to be complicated and, in my uninformed opinion. very limited.

CA Steve · February 21, 2018

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Right. Why include Satan at all? Are there any evils you can think of that require Satan?

By the way, when it comes to my own behavior, I believe that is all on me.

Trump on the other hand is Satan's minion for sure.

Calm · February 21, 2018

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To say that you can commit enough evil on your own, after taking the name of Christ upon you, is to say taking His name upon you was not done in faith in the first place, a graceless thing to do. Why take His name upon us if we can conversely do enough good on our own?

Are you suggesting that if we feel intense, inappropriate anger or hatred after we are baptized, it must be from the influences of Satan, otherwise we were baptized under false pretenses (at the age of eight for many of us, which is not known for having reached the age of self control, but knowing right from wrong)?

Edited February 21, 2018 by Calm

Scott Lloyd · February 21, 2018

To those who are marginalizing or discounting the role of Satan in influencing men and women to choose evil, I wonder what you make of the doctrine that Satan will be bound for the duration of Christ’s millennial reign. What’s the purpose of binding him if he doesn’t pose that big of a problem anyway?

Hamba Tuhan · February 21, 2018

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Greek philosophy? Is someone agitating for that?

Yes, hope_for_things:

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Rather than teaching concepts of moderation in all things, and balance, there seems to be a focus on perfection and exact obedience in our current Mormonism ...

This comes directly from Epicureanism, though it was oft-repeated in various contexts throughout the Greek-influenced world:

Quote

He [Epicurus] argued for moderation in all things (emphasis original).

President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members