Jeff G. has posted a response of sorts to a certain strain of argument that seems to carry the day among a certain class of Mormons.
I’m not going to repeat his arguments. Instead, I have a different take, because I think people can be fooled by these arguments, since they seem so warm, fuzzy, and compassionate. However, these arguments are actually quite pernicious, and their ultimate end point is to undermine the gospel.
To illustrate, I’m going to just reword part of one argument:
———-
If someone is born with a strong sex drive, one that can only be filled by having multiple partners they aren’t married to … then what are the consequences for sexuality for those people?
I suppose the argument goes that “having those feelings is not a sin, but acting on them is”. That line of argument tends to equate sexual identity with temptation. Sexuality is not a simple matter of impulse control. Yes, we are made from our choices but we are also made from our genetics and our eternal spirits. We should take things more seriously and not compare promiscuity to say pyromania or the munchies.Indeed, if someone truly is “born that way”, then we need to consider the possibility that people are promiscuous eternally. To say to those people that they must never exercise that aspect of their existence is really tough.
——-
Or how about this:
If someone is born with a terrible, angry temper , one that can only be fulfilled by beating up other people when angry… then what are the consequences for those people?
I suppose the argument goes that “having those feelings is not a sin, but acting on them is”. That line of argument tends to equate emotional identity with temptation. Emotions are not a simple matter of impulse control. Yes, we are made from our choices but we are also made from our genetics and our eternal spirits. We should take things more seriously and not compare an abusive temper to say pyromania or the munchies. Indeed, if someone truly is “born that way”, then we need to consider the possibility that people are angry eternally. To say to those people that they must never exercise that aspect of their existence is really tough.
Or:
If someone is born with a desire for power, one that can only be filled by becoming a totalitarian (but relatively benign) dictator … then what are the consequences for those people?
I suppose the argument goes that “having those feelings is not a sin, but acting on them is”. That line of argument tends to equate insular identity with temptation. Power is not a simple matter of impulse control. Yes, we are made from our choices but we are also made from our genetics and our eternal spirits. We should take things more seriously and not compare an a desire to dominate others to say pyromania or the munchies. Indeed, if someone truly is “born that way”, then we need to consider the possibility that people are control freaks eternally. To say to those people that they must never exercise that aspect of their existence is really tough.
——
I think I’ve made my point.
In the past, I find liberal Mormons tend to brush these types of arguments off as irrelevant and baseless (as noted in the post – somehow a genetic desire to burn things isn’t the same as other genetic desires), yet they can never come up with a good reason why. The reason is – they have no good reasons, other than their loyalty to the progressive tribe is greater than their loyalty to God and his prophets.