THE NATURAL MAN

            The expression, Natural Man, sprang from theocratic dissertations.  The following is found in I Corinthians 2:14:

            But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

            The above excerpt came from the New Testament and probably caught the eye of Joseph Smith because in Mosiah of the Book of Mormon and other Mormon discussions the concept of the Natural Man is more definitive.  The following excerpt was taken from www.greaterthings.com on the Internet:

            Mosiah states that the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the fall of Adam and that we need to put off the natural man and become as a child.  … A pretty safe definition would be one who grows without spiritual restraint, a worldly person.  A worldly person cares nothing for others but is focused on himself. “

            The implication is that if you are not a religious person you are a “natural man” and being a Natural Man is not good.  The definition apparently becomes more comprehensive if one consults the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism.”  The following excerpt was taken from the Internet, “byu.edu.com, authored by R. J. Snow:”

            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 (bold lettering is mine).  Natural man describes persons who are “without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God (bold lettering is mine).”

            What is a “fallen condition?”  If we consult Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, we come even closer to the Mormon concept of the Natural Man.  The following is taken from “Fallen Man”, page 267:

            After the fall of Adam, man became carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature; he became fallen man.  (Moses 5:13;  Mosiah 16:1-4;  Alma 42:10; D. & C. 20:20)  All accountable persons on earth inherit this fallen state, this probationary state, this state in which worldly things seem desirable to the carnal nature.  Being in this state, “the natural man is an enemy to God,” until he conforms to the great plan of redemption and is born again to righteousness.  (Mosiah 3:19)  Thus all mankind would remain lost and fallen forever were it not for the atonement of our Lord.  (Alma 42:4-14).

             McConkie’s assessment is well thought out, careful not to label all non Mormons as “fallen.”  In dissecting the statement his use of the word “accountable” implies “freedom of choice.”  “Probationary” means change is possible.  “Worldly” connotes “non religious.”  The “great plan of redemption” could be the “restored gospel,” meaning Mormonism. 

            This apparently brings us to what is meant by the nature of God?  McConkie doesn’t address that meaning but he does identify God as being the God of Nature.  Does that mean God is the creator of the “natural man?”  I doubt that is what McConkie wants us to think.  I suspect that like the Catholics he was thinking of the attributes of God: supremacy, uniqueness, eternalness, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and self-existent.  But is this the same God worshiped by the Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, etc.?  I don’t think so because they are not the same – even if their God is based on the God of the Bible.  Each religion has molded God into being like themselves.

            However one chooses to interpret it, the Natural Man is carnal, meaning he gravitates towards sensual pleasures and appetites [selfish instincts].  I’m not sure how the best way is to label the antithesis of a Natural Man – maybe a “Righteous Man,” or “Godly Man” will suffice.  In any event Mormon fundamentalism is flooded with “righteous, godly men,” which brings me to the purpose of this mini essay about the Natural Man.

            To me, the Natural Man is one who adheres to his genetic programming, one whose brain does not fully inhibit those aggressive predispositions that are imprinted in the Y-chromosome.  McConkie’s rhetorical “fallen man” is a metaphorical explanation for my biological contention.  It is true that the early Christians as depicted in Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity, tended to civilize the natural instincts but in time those selfish, “natural” instincts crept into the world’s religions disguised as righteousness.  The oppression of women and the Inquisition are examples of “natural impulses” directing so called religious edicts.    

            Religion in and of itself, and invoking the name of Jesus Christ, or God, does not necessarily elevate one above that of the Natural Man, regardless of the professed truthfulness of the religion.  Mormon fundamentalists claim to be living higher laws, mainly the “new and everlasting covenant,” a fancy euphemism for plural marriage.  But when we examine the doctrine that commands Mormons to become polygamists, we find it appeals to the natural instincts, which is sex with many women.  When we examine the behavior of the leading Mormon polygamists we find them acting more like McConkie’s Natural Man than a Godly man.  They talk Godly but their actions are that of carnal men. 

            Warren Jeffs, pictured smiling with an adolescent girl in his arms, presumably one of his plural wives, is disgustingly carnal by any definition.  (Google Warren Jeffs on the Internet)   The caption tells us the girl may only be 12 years old.  What do you suppose is going through the mind of this apparent, lascivious pedophile?  What indoctrination has this “child” undergone to accept this “depraved” man’s conduct without resistance?  What is going through the minds of the people Jeffs presides over?  How does this behavior resonate with mainstream society?  I noticed one comment that stated, “What a sick bastard.”  But within the concept of Mormon fundamentalism Warren Jeffs is a Godly man, pleasing God by taking this child as a wife, and has not sinned.  In all probability he has received his “Calling and Election Made Sure” (an esoteric Mormon ritual) which means he can’t sin and is assured of going to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. 

            The LDS Church no longer tolerates or condones this type of pedophilic behavior.  But keep in mind, the Fundamentalists believe they are keeping alive those ordinances and practices that were labeled “sacred and holy” under Brigham Young and John Taylor’s dispensation [Suzerainty].  And in researching Nineteenth Century Mormon polygamy we find that contemporary fundamentalists are correct; they are keeping alive those disgusting carnal behaviors of the past.

            When you take into consideration the aberrant, sexual customs of Mormonism, the righteous thievery [bleeding the beast and milking the gentiles], lying for the Lord, and blood atonement, to suggest that non Mormons are in a fallen state to me is the height of  hypocrisy. 

             It would seem that true blue Mormons cloaking themselves with “rhetorically created godly robes” are unaware how transparent those robes are.  Do they really think that the world will accept that coercing a pubescent girl into a plural marriages is a “sacred religious belief?”  Furthermore, religion is not the only medium in which a human being can rise above the foibles of the Natural Man.  Christianity embraces many excellent attributes but recommends “submission” to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  This is all well and good as far as it goes but the problem is which Jesus Christ?  Each religion and sect has its own version of Jesus Christ.  The Jesus Christ of Section 132 is a personification of the Y-chromosome. 

            A person can be “self-actualized” with or without religion or adhering to the alleged teachings of Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Confucius, Martin Luther, John Calvin or the socialistic leanings of Barak Hussein Obama.  If one wants to be autonomous and still rise above the worldly selfish instincts of the Natural Man, “self-actualization” may be the way.  The following is a definition of “self actualized:”

            "What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization…It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming."  Abraham Maslow

                Self-actualized people become all they can be in a realistic world.  He doesn’t use or manipulate others or try to tell others what they should or should not do.  He stands on his own two feet.  He doesn’t succumb to feelings of inadequacy or impotence to the point he needs myths or potentates to give meaning and purpose to his life.  He is not morally degenerate, and he needn’t have many wives to build his self esteem and make him feel manly.  The reader is encouraged to research the characteristics of self-actualized persons on the Internet for it transcends Mormonism by leaps and bounds.  The “self-actualized” person is autonomous, not driven to manipulate, victimize or abuse others to give purpose and meaning to his life.  He is not born that way, nor was he foreordained.  It’s a learned fulfillment through trial and error and adopting the good examples of others.  For him the purpose and meaning of life is to be all he can towards making family and the world a better place and passing on this quest to his posterity.