pogi

This is all played out in the temple narrative and creation story. Who is the "natural man" in this story? The fallen Adam. What did Adam do after partaking of the fruit? He hid from God's voice calling out to him. Adam was genuinely scared/terrified of how God might react to his disobedience. Stan convinced him that he would be better off in hiding. Satan convinced him that he was worthless after his fall and exposed in his fallen state "see that you are naked...hide!" Satan convinced fallen Adam that he was safer in his presence than in the presence of God. He was safer putting his own will before the will of God. He embodied the sentiment of "my will not thine be done", which is the definition of enmity towards God. Satan wanted him to know without a doubt that he was now a natural man and therefore unacceptable before God (kind of like how you are interpreting this verse). God continued to call out in concern and love for Adam, hoping that he would hear his voice and soften his heart toward God, but God allowed him his agency. Adam's heart was finally pricked and took the brave step of faith in standing naked and exposed before the all seeing eye of God - fully expecting God to strike him down ("though shalt surely die"). Instead, God preserved his physical life, extended his probation, and restored his spiritual life and wrapped him in the sacrificial skins of the atonement as a token of his love. Not quite the welcoming embrace you would expect from one who perceives you as their enemy. Fallen Adam represents all of us. This is the story of the natural man and God's outreached arms, tender mercies, and love towards them.

It could be read both ways, honestly. When it says the natural man is an enemy to God, it may not be commenting on God's perspective of us at all, and may be more about our actions and behaviors toward him. It could be interpreted, "the natural man is an enemy toward God." "To" and "toward" are interchangeable in meaning.

The whole article explains it well: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-makes-mankind-an-enemy-to-god

I am not claiming that I have the answer to evil in general, but in this specific scenario while tragic, can such an event be called "evil"? I think evil is characterized by immoral or unrighteous behavior. Some may judge God's behavior to be evil/immoral for not intervening when he could, but I think that judgment is not attainable or defensible from our limited mortal perspective.

It is futile, bOObOO will just become Baba... I think we are up past 13 accounts now. The resistance is strong in this one. Blocking his account is equivalent to a woman saying "no" to him. "No" is too unclear without a physical fight.

I'm sorry, but without any sign of physical resistance/fighting, I am pretty sure that "stop" means keep doing it.

Oh yes, every woman's fantasy is for a man to not respect their wishes and attempt get physical with them against their will. "No, huh? we'll see about that!" That would change any woman's mind! How could they resist such bravado? Since this is a hypothetical, lets say that for whatever CRAZY and unreasonable reason that the physical aggression after she said "no" didn't turn her on or change her mind. In that scenario, did/could the man take her virtue from her if she didn't physically fight? Whether she changed her mind or not, this is a dangerous man and should be taken off the streets. To become physical after a woman gives no indication of consent (not physically resisting is not a sign of consent - it could be a sign of horror/fear/trauma) and who said "no" is a man that is a danger to society and needs to be taken off the streets.

Just when I thought you were starting to see the light, you come up with this... Facepalm! "No" really does mean "no". It is usually one of the first word a child learns and understands. No physical fighting required for my 2 year old to understand that "no" means "no".

This sounds more reasonable. Just saying no is enough. It is not a physically fight or lose our virtue dichotomy. None of that - it would be better to die physically fighting than not fight - junk. None of that BS about someone being able to take virtue from us.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the natural man is. God did not create the natural man. It is a choice we make. The "natural man" is not what you are thinking - a human created by natural means. In fact, essential to our nature is a spark of divinity - the light of eternity - the good. Children are celestial beings. We can live in and yield to the spiritual environment. We can choose to act and live in/partake of the spiritual environment via the light that fills the immensity of space and is endowed upon every person and literally expands our capacity beyond the limitations of our physical bodies to connect with divinity and the mind of God. Without that, we would truly be slaves to the natural world, without agency. It is the window to the spiritual realm that frees us from the bondage of the fallen world where people can truly become slaves in captivity.

Do you think that is the equivalent of a women choosing not to fight back? Even though they are not willing and never gave their consent, you think that they should be judged as a willing participant if they don't fight? Come on bro!

Even if they choose not to fight back after weighing the risks, that doesn't mean that they are willing or lose or give away their virtue in anyway. That is a disgusting belief.

You really aren't getting it. No, no I can't think of one single example where I could lose my virtue from being raped. Again, you seem to be conflating not resisting with being willing. That is toxic shame brother - unfortunately that is something that many victims carry with them unnecessarily for the rest of their lives. You should reconsider. Don't feed the toxic shame.

Agreed.

A lot of times it is not a choice. People can literally be paralyzed with fear. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201405/neuroscientists-discover-the-roots-fear-evoked-freezing