The Natural Man

Disclaimer: Unlike much of my writing, this blog contains some religious material that is from our faith: The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. This blog is not an official statement of doctrine, and is the author's opinion. Any questions about the official doctrine of the church may be answered by visiting http://www.mormon.org.

In this day of moral relativism there are two words that have been grossly twisted by the intellectual community. These words are tolerance and natural. These manipulations have done a wonderful job at promoting immoral and unethical lifestyles. The societal norm, which in our grandparent's day was a safeguard against promiscuity, adultery, pornography, dishonesty and other heinous sins, has been replaced by a new societal norm in which the only thing that is seen as wrong is saying that something is wrong. As I watch the popular culture of our wonderful nation slide further and further into the gutter, I am incredibly fearful for my own son's future in this increasingly disgusting world. And so I wish to put the record straight about the meanings that these words are supposed to convey so that we can hopefully adjust some of our thinking and in so doing adjust some of our behavior.

Merriam-Webster defines tolerance in several different ways. One of them is what most people think of when they say the word tolerance. It is: "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." However, I think that the other definitions are also good to look at. This one: "the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food" is my favorite. Leave it to the FDA to help me define what I think tolerance today really is. But lets return to the first definition. Sympathy conveys that you feel sorry for a person's beliefs or practices. When you feel sorry for someone, you typically try to help them improve their situation. This is not considered wrong and is really what tolerance is all about. We don't condemn or judge, but we have sympathy and try to help them fix whatever situation we feel sorry for. Indulgence is what the world focuses on when they drop the word tolerance. Indulgence conveys images of a parent-child relationship in which the parent spoils or indulges the child. In other words the parent allows the child to make decisions that the child is not ready to make in regards to his/her appetites and desires. This harmful parent-child relationship, if carried to its extreme, leads to childhood obesity, a sense of entitlement and utter disregard for others. It also erodes or altogether eliminates self control. This is what we do when we indulge our children, and as parents have indulged their children, it has led us as a society to indulge disgusting and corrupt practices that erode the moral fabric around which any good society must be built.

Now, I don't want to make the impression that I am a closed minded bigot who wants all immorality stamped out violently. I am not a fanatic. What I do want to make the impression of is that I am sick of being called closed minded or bigoted when I call evil evil. The political correctness of our day has made it so that our opinions have to be so closely shrouded in proper vernacular that we can no longer express our opinions in a way that leaves no doubt as to where we stand. This is a tragedy. I can no longer express tolerance in a way that is sympathetic. I can no longer seek to help those who are in the wrong path because just by saying there is a wrong path I have become hopelessly politically incorrect. I have to be indulgent or silent. The fact is there is such thing as a wrong path. The human machine was made to operate in certain ways and operating it in any other way is wrong. Even though something may feel good or seem easy, does not make it right or acceptable.

This leads me to the second word that I feel is being used in all the wrong ways today: natural. Natural means literally "from nature." I have heard this word used as justification for so many things that are not right. I remember having a discussion about pornography and a person said "looking at pornography is bad but it comes from a totally natural thing, which is for a man to check out a woman." Yup, totally agree. I would even say that looking at pornography is a natural thing as well. You could look at it as browsing at the grocery store. Since sex is on the same "natural" level as eating, it only makes sense that browsing for food and browsing for sexual fulfillment are on the same level. No matter that even as women make great strides to become independent and free from male dominated society, pornography is objectifying and diminishing them much more than any 1950s husband ever did. No matter that since pornography has become widespread, the divorce and infidelity rates have become equally widespread. No matter... it's natural. This same justification has been used for homosexuality, adultery, and masturbation and those are just the ones I've heard. No doubt it is also used for justification of many other deeply heinous sins. Lets carry this to its logical conclusion. If saying something is natural is the same as saying it is acceptable, then where would we be? In the natural world carnivorous males often dominate their female herds/packs/prides (polygamy). When the male feels sexually inclined, he has sex with any female within reach (rape) including his own daughters/sisters/mother (incest). If another male threatens his standing or seeks to encroach his territory, he fights with and kills him (murder). If there is not enough food to share, the male simply eats his young or a hurt member of the herd/pack/tribe (cannibalism). Just watch Animal Planet for a day and you will very quickly see that we do not want natural to equal acceptable. Indeed there has to be a great deal of self restraint in any civilized society. So it is clear that we cannot look to nature for our moral guidance, so where can we look?

From the Book of Mormon comes this inciteful verse "For the natural man is an enemy to God ... and will be forever unless he putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord." The natural man is an ENEMY to God. Well that settles it. When somebody tells me something is "natural" that's probably a good indication that I want to stay as far away from it as possible. In the example above about "checking out" women as being natural, Christ himself said "and whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart." If adultery is bad, which it almost universally is considered to be, then pornography and all of its disgusting offspring is too. If we say that to kill in anger is natural but wrong, wouldn't it be safe to say that there are other natural things that are also wrong?

Now, the next time that you seek to justify some action because it is natural... think about

whether it is right, because quite frankly, when deciding whether or not to do something, whether or not it is natural is irrelevant. Let's try to be tolerant the right way. We should respect all people but never indulge practices that are contrary to God's commandments. Let us stand up and say "I respect you as a person, and I love you and so does God, but what you are doing is not right." That is still tolerant. We can say "I have sympathy for the makers of this filth they call a movie, but I will not let their corruption into my house." We don't have to push the limits of the FDA definition of tolerance by seeing how much poison can remain in our diets. If more people can do this, then I can have hope for the world that I am passing onto my son, but if not then I am afraid that we will come to know what exactly it means to be an "enemy to God."