What do you believe is the current narrative for most LGTBQ members of the Church?

[MacGyver]

I think the church is currently stuck between a rock and hard place. The LGBTQ+ movement is sweeping over the nation (and many other parts of the world). The number of people who identify as LGBTQ is growing by leaps and bounds, especially among young people. It's very popular to be LGBTQ these days. More and more members of the church are also getting caught up in this. 

The church doesn't want to drive these people away, but also doesn't want to compromise on the law of chastity, either. Many in the LGBTQ community are easily offended at the slightest appearance of intolerance and non-acceptance of their lifestyle. The church is trying to be sensitive and not offend, while maintaining that homosexual relations are a grievous sin. This has given rise in recent years to this idea in the church that one can openly identify as LGBTQ, without actually having homosexual relations, and live a fulfilled life as a member of the church. The church has shared many testimonials of members who identify as LGBTQ, live a chaste life, and are perfectly happy in the church. But in nearly all of these cases, the members who share these testimonials eventually choose to fully pursue the LGBTQ lifestyle, including engaging in homosexual sexual relationships. The church then pulls these testimonials and produces new ones. And the cycle repeats itself. 

I think it's becoming very obvious that this teaching that one can openly identify as LGBTQ and also live a happy and fulfilled life as an active member of the Lord's church is not true. One can struggle with same-sex attraction and be trying to overcome, it and find fulfillment in the church, but not openly and proudly identify as LGBTQ.

I hope that the church returns to trying to help people overcome same-sex attraction, rather than telling them that's perfectly fine to be LGBTQ and that this lifestyle is fully compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, as long as one doesn't enter into a homosexual sexual relationship. 

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

It's very popular to be LGBTQ these days.

I am guessing you are not LGBTQ. 

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am guessing you are not LGBTQ. 

No, I'm not.

But I have observed that identifying as LGBTQ is a growing fad, especially among teen girls. Some legitimately struggle with same-sex attraction, but many teens who previously would have never dreamed of being LGBT are now jumping on the bandwagon. Being a teen is hard and being insecure about one's identity and trying to fit it is a really big deal. Many teens who deal with the typical emotional swings and insecurities common to adolescence now falsely attribute this to being LGBTQ. 

[BRMC]

8 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I think the church is currently stuck between a rock and hard place. The LGBTQ+ movement is sweeping over the nation (and many other parts of the world). The number of people who identify as LGBTQ is growing by leaps and bounds, especially among young people. It's very popular to be LGBTQ these days. More and more members of the church are also getting caught up in this. 

The church doesn't want to drive these people away, but also doesn't want to compromise on the law of chastity, either. Many in the LGBTQ community are easily offended at the slightest appearance of intolerance and non-acceptance of their lifestyle. The church is trying to be sensitive and not offend, while maintaining that homosexual relations are a grievous sin. This has given rise in recent years to this idea in the church that one can openly identify as LGBTQ, without actually having homosexual relations, and live a fulfilled life as a member of the church. The church has shared many testimonials of members who identify as LGBTQ, live a chaste life, and are perfectly happy in the church. But in nearly all of these cases, the members who share these testimonials eventually choose to fully pursue the LGBTQ lifestyle, including engaging in homosexual sexual relationships. The church then pulls these testimonials and produces new ones. And the cycle repeats itself. 

I think it's becoming very obvious that this teaching that one can openly identify as LGBTQ and also live a happy and fulfilled life as an active member of the Lord's church is not true. One can struggle with same-sex attraction and be trying to overcome, it and find fulfillment in the church, but not openly and proudly identify as LGBTQ.

I hope that the church returns to trying to help people overcome same-sex attraction, rather than telling them that's perfectly fine to be LGBTQ and that this lifestyle is fully compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, as long as one doesn't enter into a homosexual sexual relationship. 

 

I agree with most of what you posted.   I think the Church is struggling with being open and supportive of ALL members, regardless of their struggles.  At the same time, they don't want to condone sin.  To the progressive Church members, it isn't enough.  To the more orthodox members, they are enabling sin.   

It's not an easy line to balance on.

[MustardSeed]

11 hours ago, MacGyver said:

hope that the church returns to trying to help people overcome same-sex attraction

This is illegal. 

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

This is illegal. 

Is it?

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Is it?

It does more harm than good, in case you weren't aware. 

[MacGyver]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It does more harm than good, in case you weren't aware. 

I disagree

[Canadiandude]

44 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I disagree

No one cares.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

I disagree

Hopefully your mind isn't so closed that you would discount thousands of stories. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-tech/lgbt-conversion-therapy-survivors-share-stories-on-tiktok-idUSKCN25E226

http://beyondexgay.com/survey/press2.html

Edited December 12, 2021 by Tacenda

[california boy]

16 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I think the church is currently stuck between a rock and hard place. The LGBTQ+ movement is sweeping over the nation (and many other parts of the world). The number of people who identify as LGBTQ is growing by leaps and bounds, especially among young people. It's very popular to be LGBTQ these days. More and more members of the church are also getting caught up in this. 

The church doesn't want to drive these people away, but also doesn't want to compromise on the law of chastity, either. Many in the LGBTQ community are easily offended at the slightest appearance of intolerance and non-acceptance of their lifestyle. The church is trying to be sensitive and not offend, while maintaining that homosexual relations are a grievous sin. This has given rise in recent years to this idea in the church that one can openly identify as LGBTQ, without actually having homosexual relations, and live a fulfilled life as a member of the church. The church has shared many testimonials of members who identify as LGBTQ, live a chaste life, and are perfectly happy in the church. But in nearly all of these cases, the members who share these testimonials eventually choose to fully pursue the LGBTQ lifestyle, including engaging in homosexual sexual relationships. The church then pulls these testimonials and produces new ones. And the cycle repeats itself. 

I think it's becoming very obvious that this teaching that one can openly identify as LGBTQ and also live a happy and fulfilled life as an active member of the Lord's church is not true. One can struggle with same-sex attraction and be trying to overcome, it and find fulfillment in the church, but not openly and proudly identify as LGBTQ.

I hope that the church returns to trying to help people overcome same-sex attraction, rather than telling them that's perfectly fine to be LGBTQ and that this lifestyle is fully compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, as long as one doesn't enter into a homosexual sexual relationship. 

 

Tom Christofferson, brother to Elder Todd Christofferson announced a couple of days ago that he is starting to date again.

Quote

 

At the point my first book was ready to go to press, and executive of the publisher asked me if I was prepared for how it might be received.  My feelings was that because a book has a beginning, a middle and and end, it might seem as if my journey was over.  Those aware of my family's story, wrongly, assume that I had all the answers.  

Four years later, I continue to wrestle with questions I cannot easily resolve.  In particular, I struggle to balance the desire not to be alone the rest of my life with my commitment to fully engage in my religion.  In particular, I find deep meaning in covenants I have made and value my opportunity to continue to play a role in the work that takes place in temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to bind every sibling of the family of God.

I have decided to begin dating.  And to observe the same voluntary constraints as other single, believing member of my faith.  I am reminded of the verse in Ecclesiastes. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven".  I look forward to learning from the experiences of a new season.  I am eager to ad to truths already learned, adding to light already present.

I felt it important to be transparent and open about my journey, and I thank you, my friends, for joining me.

Tom

 

A comment from prominent LDS painter,  Del Parsons

 

Quote

 

I wish him all the happiness in the world.

This illustrates the problem the church has with it's current strategy of promoting faithful gay men (they seem to ignore women, hmm) as unofficial spokespersons for the joys of long term celibacy--it leads to an endlessly rotating roster of poster boys, which undermines the picture the church is trying to paint.

Painting with a broad brush here, but I think most people at some point in their life want to settle down with a partner. It's inhumane to make people choose between their faith tradition and the fulfilment of a healthy, long term relationship. It's also dumb to make them choose, because they'll probably eventually choose to form a family over staying in the church.

After all, it's not good for man to be alone.

 

 

As far as your suggestion for changing your orientation.  From Wikipedia.

Quote

There is a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.^[5] Because of this, the major mental health professional organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation. Indeed, such interventions are ethically suspect because they can be harmful to the psychological well-being of those who attempt them; clinical observations and self-reports indicate that many individuals who unsuccessfully attempt to change their sexual orientation experience considerable psychological distress. For these reasons, no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.^[6][7][8] The Royal College of Psychiatrists shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science and that so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.^[7][9]

 

 

 

 

[Chum]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I am guessing you are not LGBTQ. 

I am guessing this isn't his first account here. . .

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully your mind isn't so closed that you would discount thousands of stories. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-tech/lgbt-conversion-therapy-survivors-share-stories-on-tiktok-idUSKCN25E226

http://beyondexgay.com/survey/press2.html

Hopefully you're not so closed minded that you would discount the many stories of those who overcame their same-sex attraction and their LGBTQ lifestyle through Jesus Christ. 

All weakness and sin can be overcome through Jesus Christ. 

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Tom Christofferson, brother to Elder Todd Christofferson announced a couple of days ago that he is starting to date again.

I hadn't heard this, but I'm not surprised. This is precisely what I'm talking about.

The idea that it's possible to be openly LGBTQ and also have a fulfilled life as an active member of the Lord's church is a mirage. I don't think it exists. People try to do it, but eventually most choose to fully pursue the LGBTQ lifestyle over the church. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Hopefully you're not so closed minded that you would discount the many stories of those who overcame their same-sex attraction and their LGBTQ lifestyle through Jesus Christ. 

All weakness and sin can be overcome through Jesus Christ. 

Maybe God wants you to be who He created. The Bible isn't God breathed throughout is it? And the word "homosexual" was added in the 80's and I'm talking 1980's. How do you know that it isn't just men speaking and not God anyway?

Edited December 12, 2021 by Tacenda

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

How do you know that it isn't just men speaking and not God anyway?

Because we have a Prophet to help us.

[MacGyver]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe God wants you to be who He created. The Bible isn't God breathed throughout is it? And the word "homosexual" was added in the 80's and I'm talking 1980's. How do you know that it isn't just men speaking and not God anyway?

God wants us to overcome the natural man (and woman). If we come unto him, he has promised to make our weaknesses strengths.

 

[Canadiandude]

I think it’s funny that a retort against conversion therapy is more controversial to some here than an argument for the church to get back into the practice.

May I suggest that you start shop in Canada first? I really wanna test our legislation bill C-4’s viability here, and am looking for some folks to report. 
 

😇
 

Edit: here’s some articles, the second one even mentions the church. Not that their lobbying did much to change the bill from becoming law as written. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna8253

 

https://www.hilltimes.com/2021/12/03/legislative-bottleneck-facing-parliament-in-rush-before-december-break/332391

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Canadiandude

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, MacGyver said:

God wants us to overcome the natural man (and woman).

I recognize this as a scriptural phrase from King Benjamin (who used "putteth off" rather than "overcome", but the idea seems to be the same), but what does it actually mean? We seem to use this phrase frequently (almost exclusively???) when talking about sexual issues, and, in those contexts, it always seems to mean some variation on "stop doing/thinking/desiring sexual thing(s)." I would go so far as to say that, when I was much younger, it means that God wanted me (and the rest of us) to become asexual (speaking of changing one's orientation). I no longer believe that, but now I am uncertain exactly what we mean by overcoming the natural man/woman if it doesn't mean, in part, become asexual.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

God wants us to overcome the natural man (and woman).

I recognize this as a scriptural phrase from King Benjamin (who used "putteth off" rather than "overcome", but the idea seems to be the same), but what does it actually mean?

The Church's definition:

Quote

A person who chooses to be influenced by the passions, desires, appetites, and senses of the flesh rather than by the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Such a person can comprehend physical things but not spiritual things. All people are carnal, or mortal, because of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Each person must be born again through the Atonement of Jesus Christ to cease being a natural man.

From a 2018 Ensign article written by Elder Carl B. Cook:

Quote

The natural man is the mortal part of us that allows our temporal desires to overrule our inherent spiritual goodness and our desires to become like our Heavenly Parents.

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

The phrase "natural man" is understood by Latter-day Saints to be an unrepentant person; it does not imply that mortals are by nature depraved or evil, but only that they are in a fallen condition. Natural man describes persons who are "without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God" (Alma 41:11). The Lord declared to Joseph Smith: "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God" (D&C 93:38).
...
Because the natural man is unrepentant and indulgent, one must overcome this condition through repentance and submission to the Spirit of God. President Brigham Young stated that God "has placed us on the earth to prove ourselves, to govern, control, educate and sanctify ourselves, body and spirit" (JD 10:2, in Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. J. Widtsoe, p. 57, Salt Lake City, 1971). Parley P. Pratt, an apostle, explains how the Holy Ghost aids in the process: [It] increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections; and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings and affections of our nature [Key to the Science of Theology, 10th ed., p. 101, Salt Lake City, 1973].

Further clarification from a 1992 Ensign article written by Robert Millett:

Quote

So what characterizes the natural man? Simply stated, the natural man is the man who remains in his fallen condition; he has not experienced a rebirth. At the one end of the spectrum, the natural man may be a person bent on lasciviousness; he may be one who loves Satan more than God and thereby is carnal, sensual, and devilish. (See Moses 5:13.) Of such Alma said: “All men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.” (Alma 41:11; see also Mosiah 16:2–5.)

At the other end of the spectrum, the natural man may well be a “nice man,” a moral and upright person bent upon benevolence. Such a person, acclimated to the present fallen world, still does not enjoy the enlivening powers of the Holy Ghost and does not enjoy the sanctifying power of Christ’s covenants and ordinances. Even though the light of Christ is making an impact on him, he has not followed it into the Lord’s full gospel truths.

“The whole world lieth in sin,” the Savior declares, “and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin. And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.” (D&C 84:49–50.) More specifically, “There are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this generation.” (D&C 35:12.)

And what of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Are any of us “natural” beings? We can answer that question, perhaps, by examining some broad characteristics of the natural man:

1. The natural man is unable or unwilling to perceive spiritual realities.
...
2. The natural man is proud.
...
3. The natural man is overly competitive and externally driven.
...
4. The natural man yields himself to the harsh and the crude.

Hope that helps.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We seem to use this phrase frequently (almost exclusively???) when talking about sexual issues, and, in those contexts, it always seems to mean some variation on "stop doing/thinking/desiring sexual thing(s)."

I don't know about that.  I think the "natural man" arises in all sorts of contexts.  However, it is in matters of sexual behavior that people tend to go sideways.  Part of this is because our behavioral ethics generally coincide with widely-held constructs.  Theft is bad.  Violence is bad.  Dishonesty is bad.  Broadly speaking, society gets this.  However, large swaths of society have abandoned many of the constrains on sexual behavior that we believe have been set by God.  For example, fornication is, we believe, prohibited, but many people think it's fine (and that we are weird/wrong/evil for prohibiting it).  

Losing track of sexual ethics, then, is one of the most common ways a person can succumb to "natural man" tendencies.  

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I would go so far as to say that, when I was much younger, it means that God wanted me (and the rest of us) to become asexual (speaking of changing one's orientation).  I no longer believe that, but now I am uncertain exactly what we mean by overcoming the natural man/woman if it doesn't mean, in part, become asexual.

Asexual: "experiencing little or no sexual attraction to other people."

I don't think that works (as a description of what the Church teaches/expects).  We are supposed to contrain our sexual appetites and expressions to stay within the boundaries set by God.  The sexual appetite is still there, but it is moderated.  No fornication, adultery, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Chum said:

I am guessing this isn't his first account here. . .

It seems like insinuating that a new poster is really Ahab in sock puppet form has become an all-too quick and convenient means of well poisoning. I say we give MacGyver a chance before jumping to a conclusion. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I recognize this as a scriptural phrase from King Benjamin (who used "putteth off" rather than "overcome", but the idea seems to be the same), but what does it actually mean? We seem to use this phrase frequently (almost exclusively???) when talking about sexual issues, and, in those contexts, it always seems to mean some variation on "stop doing/thinking/desiring sexual thing(s)." I would go so far as to say that, when I was much younger, it means that God wanted me (and the rest of us) to become asexual (speaking of changing one's orientation). I no longer believe that, but now I am uncertain exactly what we mean by overcoming the natural man/woman if it doesn't mean, in part, become asexual.

The concept of the natural man is not all that difficult to grasp (see Smac’s post). 

[Teancum]

On 12/12/2021 at 2:15 AM, MacGyver said:

No, I'm not.

But I have observed that identifying as LGBTQ is a growing fad, especially among teen girls. Some legitimately struggle with same-sex attraction, but many teens who previously would have never dreamed of being LGBT are now jumping on the bandwagon. Being a teen is hard and being insecure about one's identity and trying to fit it is a really big deal. Many teens who deal with the typical emotional swings and insecurities common to adolescence now falsely attribute this to being LGBTQ. 

A fad?  Or maybe because society does not marginalize this group as much as they used to these people are more open to identify what their sexuality really is.

Do you have any science to back up your position?

 

[MrShorty]

@smac97 All of those look familiar, and there is nothing unexpected in any of that (remember that I have been an active member for my enter 50ish year life, none of this is new). So I still ask the question -- what does it mean to overcome the natural man?

Re: the definition from the Guide to the Scriptures -- I reject this one. It sets up the belief that makes up the heart and soul of "good boys/girls" that sexuality (physicality/sensuality) and spirituality are polar opposites and cannot coexist. I know we don't really believe that, but the superficial reading of this one leads too easily to that false dichotomy. At best it is poorly worded. At worst, it is flat out false doctrine.

Re: the others -- Nothing new under the sun here. These are the same things that, as you note, have been around the Church's discourse for decades. As "high level" or "generic" ideas, I think they work, but they neglect the implied discernment steps to determining what is part of "fallen nature", what changes when you "experience rebirth." What attitudes and behaviors are "unrepentant and indulgent"? What beliefs and practices are included in "the mortal part of us", or what desires are "temporal" that "overrule our inherent spiritual goodness?"

I might even go so far as to say that, at the "high level" of these quotes, most of us would agree that the natural man needs to be overcome. The disagreements are in the discernment parts of going from the high, generic level down to determining what beliefs, attitudes, desires, and behaviors are actually part of the natural man. We just spin our wheels round and round the same disagreements over what is to be included. So, I end up asking again, what does it mean to overcome the natural man?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 All of those look familiar, and there is nothing unexpected in any of that (remember that I have been an active member for my enter 50ish year life, none of this is new). So I still ask the question -- what does it mean to overcome the natural man?

Plenty of literature about this.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Re: the definition from the Guide to the Scriptures -- I reject this one.

Seems pretty apt.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

It sets up the belief that makes up the heart and soul of "good boys/girls" that sexuality (physicality/sensuality) and spirituality are polar opposites and cannot coexist.

That is simply not so.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I know we don't really believe that, but the superficial reading of this one leads too easily to that false dichotomy.

If so, the individual ought to be less superficial in his/her reading.  

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

At best it is poorly worded. At worst, it is flat out false doctrine.

It is neither.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Re: the others -- Nothing new under the sun here.

I don't understand.  Must an explication of the Law of Chastity be "new" in order to be valid?

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

These are the same things that, as you note, have been around the Church's discourse for decades. As "high level" or "generic" ideas, I think they work, but they neglect the implied discernment steps to determining what is part of "fallen nature", what changes when you "experience rebirth."

Again, there are all sorts of resources about this.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

What attitudes and behaviors are "unrepentant and indulgent"?

That's a pretty broad question.

By way of example: A person under covenant to, inter alia, obey the Law of Chastity nevertheless regularly violates it by committing fornication.  That's the "behavior."  When encouraged by a loved one to cease such behavior, to repent, to meet with his bishop, etc., the person refuses, insists there is nothing wrong with his behavior, and declares an intention to continue in it.  That's the "attitude."

There are a thousand ways this can play out.  I don't think we can fault the Church for teaching a generalized principle.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Leaders teach correct principles and help those they lead learn to govern themselves.

John Taylor, the third President of the Church, reported: “Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. ‘How?’ responded the gentleman; ‘to us it is very difficult.’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’”

Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, reported: “The question was asked a great many times of Joseph Smith, by gentlemen who came to see him and his people, ‘How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?’ Said he, ‘I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to gather out His people from the wicked, and He is going to cut short His work in righteousness, and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.’”

See also Mosiah 4:29: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

What beliefs and practices are included in "the mortal part of us", or what desires are "temporal" that "overrule our inherent spiritual goodness?"

Those beliefs and practices and desires that contravene or exceed the boundaries of the commandments.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I might even go so far as to say that, at the "high level" of these quotes, most of us would agree that the natural man needs to be overcome. The disagreements are in the discernment parts of going from the high, generic level down to determining what beliefs, attitudes, desires, and behaviors are actually part of the natural man.

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about some particulars.

That said, in the main most of the "disagreement" I see is not about "tough calls," is instead is about things that are pretty clear.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

We just spin our wheels round and round the same disagreements over what is to be included. So, I end up asking again, what does it mean to overcome the natural man?

Not sure what you mean by spinning wheels.

Thanks,

-Smac