What would you do

[skmo]

I would be careful in saying that the Lord will keep homosexuals out of his house.

One thing you're not making a distinction about, you're applying labels here rather than addressing actions. You can apply the label of sinner to me and be correct yet I could still be worthy to participate in any gospel ordinances, even including temple ordinances depending on my behavior. Am I repenting of my sins? Am I doing all I can to leave my sins behind me and behave in a manner consistent with one who has taken upon themselves the Name of Christ? Then yes, I am worthy to attend temple ceremonies and participate in ordinances. However, if I'm doing something serious enough to deny me a temple recommend, then no, I'm not ready.

Are homosexuals allowed into temples to partake in temple ordinances? Most certainly, as long as they're not participating in any sexual activity other than with someone of the opposite gender to whom they're married. I have a friend who is gay, but he has not had any sexual contact with another man since college decades ago, something he's repented for. He does, occasionally has sexual contact with his wife, a woman who was formerly in a sexual relationship with another woman. Neither of them are particularly comfortable and both have said they still have SSA, but they also have strong testimonies of the gospel and are committed to living the gospel. They have three daughters they are also raising in the church.

We might discover later that we don't really understand what parameters the Lord has placed on his house.

Do we know them all? Certainly not. However, we've been told quite clearly that there is to be no - zero, nada, nothing, nicht - sexual contact with anyone other than our legally wed spouse. He has also been clear that a spouse is ONLY to be a member of the opposite sex. A man may not be married to a man nor a woman to a woman. As such, any sexual activity between two people of the same gender is a sin, and there can be no ifs, and, or buts about it, no exceptions. A person may still feel they are homosexual, but if they are following the commandments they are welcomed into God's house. If they are not, they must first repent.

It's not a question of what I want or what you want or what anyone else wants. God has been very clear about it. Homosexual actions are a sin and are those who practice them must repent before being allowed back in His presence. That does not, in any way, mean we are to treat people who are homosexual any less loving or kind or decent, and certainly someone with my past intimate history would indeed be a hypocrite were I to do so. However, I would not allow someone who drank alcohol to do so in my house. I would not allow someone to smoke in my house. I would not allow someone to use porn in my house.

I have gay friends, and whenever they're in town I love to have them, visit. They're always welcome in my house, and I love to visit with them. However, I would not allow them to share a room overnight in my house. That doesn't mean I love them less, but it means I want my home to be as free of sin as I can make it.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a couple to spend the night together in your home if they have chosen themselves to stay together.

That is your right to decide for your home, I would not presume to tell you the rules to have in your home. However, in my home I will not accept openly practiced sin to take place. As a homeowner this is my right. It does not diminish the love I have for anyone but reinforces the love I have for gospel standards. I will not love someone less who sins, but I will not provide a place for them to do so.

[skmo]

Perhaps you have some piece of advice or insight than can help me understand.

Sorry, the only thing I can say about this is:

People are idiots.

Jails in the U.S. would be far smaller, and there'd be a lot less of them were I in charge. The people in them would be living a LOT differently than they are, and there'd be a way to grow in there rather than just turn into better criminals.

[Finrock]

We ought to be like Christ.

-Finrock

Are you talking about the Christ that said it would be better for someone to have a millstone tied around their neck and thrown into the sea? Or the one who let the Pharisees have it with both barrels? Or maybe the Christ who referred to Gentiles as dogs, or inspired Paul to describe homosexuals as reprobates?

There is only one Christ. You know what it means to be Christlike. If you don't, I invite you to figure it out. Has Christ spoken to you? Has He visited you? Has He healed you? Has he harmed you, ostracized you, shunned you, belittled you, or done any evil or unjust thing towards you? When He spoke to you, were you worthy of it? When He visited you and before His interventions, were you spotless? When He healed you, was it because of your righteousness? Did He look at you with disdain, dislike, or with superiority? Jesus is superior to you, but has He ever treated you that way?

Don't use your miscontextualized and your mischaracterized scriptural examples as excuses to put away the pure love of Christ or to make His love out to be something that it isn't.

-Finrock

Rockie, that's exactly what I would like to ask you to do. Jesus Christ had, and still has very specific rules to go by. And homosexuals are to go by those rules as well. And it starts with ... repentance.
dc

David13,

You are just as sinful as the homosexual. Should I prevent you from coming in to my house or the Church I go to because you are a sinner? Or, maybe you don't advertise your sin or your sin can be easily kept secret and others aren't privy to it, but, your sin and your sinfulness exist nonetheless.

You aren't better than the homosexual person. You just have different sins and different weaknesses to overcome. You are in desperate need of Jesus Christ and His mercy and grace, just as any other sinner out there. You shouldn't hyper focus on one sin while putting your own sins and weaknesses on the back burner as if they aren't as relevant or somehow better. A homosexual is no more or less heinous than you in the grand scheme of things. The issue here seems to be that you are under the delusion that you live in a state of sin that is better than or superior to the homosexual person. I'm being blunt: If you truly believe this (that you are better and homosexuals ought not to have our compassion or ought to be barred from entering our houses of worship or we shouldn't have anything to do with them) then you are in a deep delusional state.

When you've interacted with Jesus, how did He treat you? I think your conception of Jesus Christ is based on the traditions of your father and mother. Based on what you've posed, what you've experienced as a child is not the best or the ideal. Just because your dad acted or did a certain thing, doesn't mean that it was the right or the good thing to do and that it is a tradition that you should perpetuate. You ought to learn about the true nature of Jesus Christ and conform your life to that as opposed to false traditions, ideas, and conceptualizations you may have picked up growing up or through life. I've met Jesus and I've spoken to Him and He with me. He is very different from what you appear to believe in. He isn't about doing what you want, etc., although He respects our agency completely, but He condescends to be with sinners all of the time. You have no hope if Jesus believes and acts the way that you seemingly believe and act towards homosexuals. Jesus isn't your dad and Jesus doesn't stop talking to us or interacting with us if we don't live up to His expectations. He doesn't abandon us, in other words.

-Finrock

[skmo]

Our free will is what it is and with that free will we can choose to act and to behave in any number of different ways but how we act and how we behave or what we choose to do will either be good or it will be evil.

For instance, you can rule your house with the heart of a tyrant or you can rule it with the heart of saint...and this applies to all of our actions, beliefs, behaviors, etc.

I "would" do this versus I "ought" to do this. I "can" do this versus I "should" do this. And so forth...

-Finrock

What did Jesus do when people came into His Father's House openly sinning? Did He say "You can, or ought to, or should do this..." or did He cast them out?

12 ¶ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

My home is not a temple, but it is my home and I ought to do all I can to ensure the Spirit will attend those within it. This will not happen if I allow open defiance of the commandments. Again, it's not a sign of any less love to them on my part, but rather a demonstration of my love by insistence of obedience to what I know brings true happiness.

[Finrock]

I would be careful in saying that the Lord will keep homosexuals out of his house.

One thing you're not making a distinction about, you're applying labels here rather than addressing actions. You can apply the label of sinner to me and be correct yet I could still be worthy to participate in any gospel ordinances, even including temple ordinances depending on my behavior. Am I repenting of my sins? Am I doing all I can to leave my sins behind me and behave in a manner consistent with one who has taken upon themselves the Name of Christ? Then yes, I am worthy to attend temple ceremonies and participate in ordinances. However, if I'm doing something serious enough to deny me a temple recommend, then no, I'm not ready.

Are homosexuals allowed into temples to partake in temple ordinances? Most certainly, as long as they're not participating in any sexual activity other than with someone of the opposite gender to whom they're married. I have a friend who is gay, but he has not had any sexual contact with another man since college decades ago, something he's repented for. He does, occasionally has sexual contact with his wife, a woman who was formerly in a sexual relationship with another woman. Neither of them are particularly comfortable and both have said they still have SSA, but they also have strong testimonies of the gospel and are committed to living the gospel. They have three daughters they are also raising in the church.

We might discover later that we don't really understand what parameters the Lord has placed on his house.

Do we know them all? Certainly not. However, we've been told quite clearly that there is to be no - zero, nada, nothing, nicht - sexual contact with anyone other than our legally wed spouse. He has also been clear that a spouse is ONLY to be a member of the opposite sex. A man may not be married to a man nor a woman to a woman. As such, any sexual activity between two people of the same gender is a sin, and there can be no ifs, and, or buts about it, no exceptions. A person may still feel they are homosexual, but if they are following the commandments they are welcomed into God's house. If they are not, they must first repent.

It's not a question of what I want or what you want or what anyone else wants. God has been very clear about it. Homosexual actions are a sin and are those who practice them must repent before being allowed back in His presence. That does not, in any way, mean we are to treat people who are homosexual any less loving or kind or decent, and certainly someone with my past intimate history would indeed be a hypocrite were I to do so. However, I would not allow someone who drank alcohol to do so in my house. I would not allow someone to smoke in my house. I would not allow someone to use porn in my house.

I have gay friends, and whenever they're in town I love to have them, visit. They're always welcome in my house, and I love to visit with them. However, I would not allow them to share a room overnight in my house. That doesn't mean I love them less, but it means I want my home to be as free of sin as I can make it.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a couple to spend the night together in your home if they have chosen themselves to stay together.

That is your right to decide for your home, I would not presume to tell you the rules to have in your home. However, in my home I will not accept openly practiced sin to take place. As a homeowner this is my right. It does not diminish the love I have for anyone but reinforces the love I have for gospel standards. I will not love someone less who sins, but I will not provide a place for them to do so.

This post makes sense to me.

-Finrock

[skmo]

We ought to be like Christ.

Indeed. Like Christ, who did not allow money changers to sin openly in His Father's (His) House. He explained the sin in their ways and proclaimed it a house of prayers, not a den of thieves (or sexual sinners.)

[Finrock]

Our free will is what it is and with that free will we can choose to act and to behave in any number of different ways but how we act and how we behave or what we choose to do will either be good or it will be evil.

For instance, you can rule your house with the heart of a tyrant or you can rule it with the heart of saint...and this applies to all of our actions, beliefs, behaviors, etc.

I "would" do this versus I "ought" to do this. I "can" do this versus I "should" do this. And so forth...

-Finrock

What did Jesus do when people came into His Father's House openly sinning? Did He say "You can, or ought to, or should do this..." or did He cast them out?

12 ¶ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

My home is not a temple, but it is my home and I ought to do all I can to ensure the Spirit will attend those within it. This will not happen if I allow open defiance of the commandments. Again, it's not a sign of any less love to them on my part, but rather a demonstration of my love by insistence of obedience to what I know brings true happiness.

We have one example out of likely millions of interactions of people in temples. How many people today enter the temple unworthily? We don't know, but its a safe assumption to say that likely some, if not many, do. It isn't the norm to go around tossing folks out of temples and that isn't what we learn from the account in the scriptures. That scripture is also not intended to teach us to prevent homosexuals from coming in to our houses of worship, or that we should not have compassion on them, or that they are somehow more heinous and miserable than the rest of us, or that we shouldn't interact with them, or we should abandon, ostracize, or reject friends and family who struggle with SSA.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

We ought to be like Christ.

Indeed. Like Christ, who did not allow money changers to sin openly in His Father's (His) House. He explained the sin in their ways and proclaimed it a house of prayers, not a den of thieves (or sexual sinners.)

I wouldn't allow a person to smoke in my home or to use my electronics to view pornography, for instance. But, I'm not responding to those ideas. Other more extreme ideas have been shared and I'm responding to those.

-Finrock

[skmo]

That scripture is also not intended to teach us to prevent homosexuals from coming in to our houses of worship, or that we should not have compassion on them, or that they are somehow more heinous and miserable than the rest of us, or that we shouldn't interact with them, or we should abandon, ostracize, or reject friends and family who struggle with SSA.

Oh, absolutely, all of my gay friends are gladly welcomed into my home. Dinner, games, movies, whatnot, same as my hetero friends, married or not. However, I wouldn't allow two single people sleep together regardless of their persuasion because it would be sinning, and I try my best to not allow sin into my house. Does it come in anyway? Certainly, none of us are free from it, but we certainly are wise to do all we can to limit it. I have no right to demand you live your life however you want, and I'm a very poor source of good judgement based on my own past, but I am still master of my house. I will reject open sin as much as I can.

If I go to a movie theater and I'm cold, I'm not allowed to build a fire by my chair to warm up. If I'm in my own home, I build a fire to keep it warm, but that doesn't give me the right to do it where I want. If I go to Sacrament Meeting and I don't like what the speaker is saying, I can't shout and tell that person they're an idiot. In God's house, I do my best to obey His rules. In my house, if you visit I insist you follow my rules. If you don't, it doesn't justify me treating you harshly, but it would justify me asking you to leave. I must still treat you with love, but I may ask you to leave my house unless you're willing to obey house rules.

[Rose Garden]

The words of the Lord in the scriptures never says that homosexuals will be kept out of his house, unless I'm forgetting something. In fact, it's those who withhold food and shelter from those who are "the least" who are kept out of the house if the Lord in the parable of the goats and the sheep.

...

You see, now you have added to the story here. Now you have made them, in addition to being practicing sinners, you have made them poor and needy. Where was the evidence that they had no money of their own for food, or that they had no means for a motel room? There was none.
Stick to the facts. You can't change the facts.
dc

No. I didn't change it.

Well, yes, you did.
The original facts were merely that these were two practicing homos. Not that they would starve or spend the night on a park bench if they weren't invited in. Nothing was said at all about their financial situation.

But you added in there " ... In fact, it's those who withhold food and shelter from those who are "the least" ... ", thereby implying that these were the "least" in that they would go without food and shelter if not for being invited in to spend the night in sin. That they needed it, and it would be withheld from them.
That wasn't the case here.
dc

Nice try but you can only make your argument by telling me what I meant. I didn't change it. You did.

[Rose Garden]

I would be careful in saying that the Lord will keep homosexuals out of his house.

One thing you're not making a distinction about, you're applying labels here rather than addressing actions. You can apply the label of sinner to me and be correct yet I could still be worthy to participate in any gospel ordinances, even including temple ordinances depending on my behavior. Am I repenting of my sins? Am I doing all I can to leave my sins behind me and behave in a manner consistent with one who has taken upon themselves the Name of Christ? Then yes, I am worthy to attend temple ceremonies and participate in ordinances. However, if I'm doing something serious enough to deny me a temple recommend, then no, I'm not ready.

Are homosexuals allowed into temples to partake in temple ordinances? Most certainly, as long as they're not participating in any sexual activity other than with someone of the opposite gender to whom they're married. I have a friend who is gay, but he has not had any sexual contact with another man since college decades ago, something he's repented for. He does, occasionally has sexual contact with his wife, a woman who was formerly in a sexual relationship with another woman. Neither of them are particularly comfortable and both have said they still have SSA, but they also have strong testimonies of the gospel and are committed to living the gospel. They have three daughters they are also raising in the church.

We might discover later that we don't really understand what parameters the Lord has placed on his house.

Do we know them all? Certainly not. However, we've been told quite clearly that there is to be no - zero, nada, nothing, nicht - sexual contact with anyone other than our legally wed spouse. He has also been clear that a spouse is ONLY to be a member of the opposite sex. A man may not be married to a man nor a woman to a woman. As such, any sexual activity between two people of the same gender is a sin, and there can be no ifs, and, or buts about it, no exceptions. A person may still feel they are homosexual, but if they are following the commandments they are welcomed into God's house. If they are not, they must first repent.

It's not a question of what I want or what you want or what anyone else wants. God has been very clear about it. Homosexual actions are a sin and are those who practice them must repent before being allowed back in His presence. That does not, in any way, mean we are to treat people who are homosexual any less loving or kind or decent, and certainly someone with my past intimate history would indeed be a hypocrite were I to do so. However, I would not allow someone who drank alcohol to do so in my house. I would not allow someone to smoke in my house. I would not allow someone to use porn in my house.

I have gay friends, and whenever they're in town I love to have them, visit. They're always welcome in my house, and I love to visit with them. However, I would not allow them to share a room overnight in my house. That doesn't mean I love them less, but it means I want my home to be as free of sin as I can make it.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a couple to spend the night together in your home if they have chosen themselves to stay together.

That is your right to decide for your home, I would not presume to tell you the rules to have in your home. However, in my home I will not accept openly practiced sin to take place. As a homeowner this is my right. It does not diminish the love I have for anyone but reinforces the love I have for gospel standards. I will not love someone less who sins, but I will not provide a place for them to do so.

This is where you and I differ on this point, I believe. You believe God had been very clear on the matter of homosexuality and whether or not practicing homosexuals will be allowed in his house. I do not believe he has been clear on that matter. There are other things he makes incredibly clear but that specific point is not one of them.

[skmo]

You believe God had been very clear on the matter of homosexuality and whether or not practicing homosexuals will be allowed in his house. I do not believe he has been clear on that matter. There are other things he makes incredibly clear but that specific point is not one of them.

I believe it's very clear because the prophet has been very clear about God's word to us on this paramount matter, and I believe the scripture that says "...whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Believe me, no one would have been happier than I were we to receive word that we could have sex with anyone we want. At one point in my life I would have had sex with everyone on earth who would say yes, but those days are gone for me as I understand a little better this sacred responsibility. "...only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." Nothing unclear, nothing about exceptions, no room for debate. God has given His word on that. One may disagree, but they do so at the peril of their own exaltation.

God has established His Church to help us through our mortal trials. He has given us commandments through His prophets the way He has done since Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and in our own dispensation Joseph Smith and currently Thomas Monson. They all give us His commandments with His same authority. Whether or not we accept them is up to us, but my experience and my testimony is that the fullness of the gospel delivered through the living apostles and prophets, which includes the Proclamation to the World on the family, is the only way we will get back to His presence.

[Rand]

If you believe the Temple is the House of the Lord, then your stance does not hold up.

If you are just talking of a lower Kingdom of Glory, your argument holds up. If you are talking Celestial Kingdom, it does not.

If we are to establish Zion, your argument does not hold up. Zion is the pure in heart. It is established on a celestial law. Gathering all to you, and facilitating their capacity to sin, in all places, is not a celestial law, because God himself denies that approach. Again, it is not a rejection of the person, but it is a statement about the sin, by not letting them sleep together in your home.

Actually, it's more important whether the Lord accepts the temple as his house than if I do.

I don't know what Zion is like because I've never been there.

In your mind that may be a pertinent question. But, I have no doubts to that reality. I am sorry that you hold such doubts. I find Zion in the Temple on a weekly basis. I hope you would come and enjoy it as well.

[David13]

You see, now you have added to the story here. Now you have made them, in addition to being practicing sinners, you have made them poor and needy. Where was the evidence that they had no money of their own for food, or that they had no means for a motel room? There was none.
Stick to the facts. You can't change the facts.
dc

No. I didn't change it.

Well, yes, you did.
The original facts were merely that these were two practicing homos. Not that they would starve or spend the night on a park bench if they weren't invited in. Nothing was said at all about their financial situation.

But you added in there " ... In fact, it's those who withhold food and shelter from those who are "the least" ... ", thereby implying that these were the "least" in that they would go without food and shelter if not for being invited in to spend the night in sin. That they needed it, and it would be withheld from them.
That wasn't the case here.
dc

Nice try but you can only make your argument by telling me what I meant. I didn't change it. You did.

Au contrere
You added to the issue of homosexuality that now they were starving, and needy. They were the lowly, the meek, the least of them. No they aren't. They are proud of their sins. The openly flaunt their sin. The march in parades on the street, they take their perversion into the schools and all of entertainment to indoctrinate the kids, and they also make a lot of money on it.
You didn't feel that we were being sympathetic enough to the unrepentant sinner here, so you added that they are the ... least.

Just like someone else here added that I or we feel we are "superior". None of us have stated that at all. We merely responded to the question in the title of the thread.
dc

[drtanner]

Yes, then what did he do with the adulterer? Invite her over for dinner, and offer her a room to spend the night, with her lover? No. He said go forth and sin no more. What do you think go means?
dc

Go away, I love you, but keep your sin far from me.

This has nothing to do with Christ not wanting to be around a person. This was an expression of love. Go.... live your life, your free of the burden of this sin. Remember at this point she was forgiven, "neither do I condemn thee" she was clean from this particular sin.

You are reading forgiveness into it. She was not forgiven. She did not repent.
All he did was not stone her, and not allow, or discourage the others from stoning her.
Forgiveness is dependent upon repentance, and there was no repentance in that story whatsoever.
Somehow repentance and forgiveness was placed into the story by you.
That's called imagination, I guess.
dc

Or interpretation, which is exactly what you are doing by saying there was no forgiveness granted. How many experiences do we need to illustrate the saviors forgiveness to understand what took place here? The Roman soldiers on the cross? Or many like this:

Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.
20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Where is the mans repentance in this story? Is that what he was even seeking initially? I think we mis understand what repentance is. It is not suffering, punishment, remorse, confession, or sorrow and can be instantaneous.

[Rose Garden]

No. I didn't change it.

Well, yes, you did.
The original facts were merely that these were two practicing homos. Not that they would starve or spend the night on a park bench if they weren't invited in. Nothing was said at all about their financial situation.

But you added in there " ... In fact, it's those who withhold food and shelter from those who are "the least" ... ", thereby implying that these were the "least" in that they would go without food and shelter if not for being invited in to spend the night in sin. That they needed it, and it would be withheld from them.
That wasn't the case here.
dc

Nice try but you can only make your argument by telling me what I meant. I didn't change it. You did.

Au contrere
You added to the issue of homosexuality that now they were starving, and needy. They were the lowly, the meek, the least of them. No they aren't. They are proud of their sins. The openly flaunt their sin. The march in parades on the street, they take their perversion into the schools and all of entertainment to indoctrinate the kids, and they also make a lot of money on it.
You didn't feel that we were being sympathetic enough to the unrepentant sinner here, so you added that they are the ... least.

Just like someone else here added that I or we feel we are "superior". None of us have stated that at all. We merely responded to the question in the title of the thread.
dc

Seriously. I don't say all that. It gets even greater every time you comment.

[BruceRGilbert]

Rather than foster disagreement - some guidelines are in order:

1.) Hypothetical Constructs such as those posed by the OP in the form of "What would you do . . . ," cannot be answered because they are "imaginary" and not real. The conditions and boundaries of such "constructs" are fluidic and lie outside the bounds of reality. The "variables" are endless as opposed to those constraints that exist in real life.

2.) Relationships and personalities are "unknowable" without familiarity. This has much to do with directing our decisions and interactions with others.

3.) Does it matter? If it does, then "Why?" What is the point in asking the question?

4.) Judgment is meant for "identification" and not condemnation.

Consider the following:



In reference to the "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy - one should not try to support a "negative" proposition. For example: An attempt to "prove" or support the proposition that there is no "God." In order to do so one must exhaust all possibilities. The "sample space" is infinite. Has every corner of the Universe been examined to validate such a proposition?

Hugh B. Brown in his talk on "Profile of a Prophet" suggests the utilization of what is termed an "examination for discovery." This process should be used when we encounter those who have "other" paradigms as a means to establish coherent and acceptable vernacular. Many times we do not speak the same language and things get lost in the interpretation.

An experience with an Atheist. (Shared F.Y.I. Only)

As a foreword, please understand that "definitions" have to be agreed upon between participants of a discussion in order to come to understanding. The term "god" is a title and has many applications. In such a discussion, I was given the opportunity to define "God" to a man who insisted that He did not exist. The following is a synopsis of that definition that, by observable appearance, caused significant cognitive dissonance within this individual to the point that the discussion could not be pursued. Please note that at this juncture I have not had the experience of ever witnessing the conversion of someone with whom I have had a debate or "confrontation" with and, therefore, do not recommend this approach. The only viable reason to pursue such a dialogue in the first instance has to do with the defense and protection of susceptible audience.

1.) We have means to measure the Intelligence Quotient of individuals and can "scientifically" ascribe a value to such intelligence.

2.) One would expect that in an exhaustive analysis of all sentient life, would yield a normal distribution of scores in the form of a bell curve.

3.) There would exist on that bell curve those who could be termed as "outliers," being more intelligent than the average.

4.) My God, by scientific and quantifiable means, would be defined as the extreme outlier of all, being the most intelligent being of them all.

I asked, "Do you think that such a being exists?"

The basis for this rationale can be found in a footnote belonging to the 'King Follett Discourse' in "Teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith" made by B.H. Roberts on Page 353:

Undoubtedly the proper word here would be “co-eternal,” not “coequal.” This illustrates the imperfection of the report made of the sermon. For surely the mind of man is not co-equal with God except in the matter of its eternity. It is the direct statement in the Book of Abraham—accepted by the Church as scripture—that there are differences in the intelligences that exist, that some are more intelligent than others; and that God is “more intelligent than them all” (Book of Abraham, Chapt. 3). I believe that this means more than that God is more intelligent than any other one
of the intelligences. It means that he is more intelligent than all of the other intelligences combined. His intelligence is greater than that of the mass, and that has led me to say In the second Year Book of the Seventies:—“It is this fact doubtless which makes this One, ‘more intelligent than them
all’,” God. He is the All-Wise One! The All-PowerfulOne! What he tells other Intelligences to do must be precisely the wisest, fittest thing that they could anywhere or anyhow learn—the thing which it will always behoove them, with right loyal thankfulness, and nothing doubting, to do. There goes with this, too, the thought that this All-Wise One will be the Unselfish One, the All-Loving One, the One who desires that which is highest, and best; not for himself alone, but for all: and that will be best for him too. His glory, his power, his joy will be enhanced by the uplifting of all, by enlarging them; by increasing their joy, power, and glory. And because this All Intelligent One is all this, and does all this, the other Intelligences worship him, submit their judgments and their will to his judgment and his will. He knows, and can do that which is best; and this submission of the mind to the Most Intelligent, Wisest—wiser than all—is worship. This is the whole meaning of the doctrine and the life of the Christ expressed in—“Father, not my will but Thy will, be done.”—Note by Elder B. H. Roberts.

How was that for a Red Herring?

[gardener4life]

OK so I meant to post this a few days ago. I am sorry at the time I wasn't feeling good and it didn't get up in time. But here are some scriptures for you that are relevant.

D&C Section 46 applies here!

2 But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit. [Key Terms; spirit to be directing and guiding --> There are situations where if someone wanted to do violence they could in theory be nullifying that and not be right in being there.]
3 Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world. [OK, if and when possible we shouldn't cast anyone out...however later in the section CONDITIONS apply]
4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.
5 And again I say unto you, ye shall not cast any out of your sacrament meetings who are earnestly seeking the kingdom—I speak this concerning those who are not of the church. [OK 3 times he's said it to not cast people out specifically lining out that it applies to members, nonmembers, and meeting before the world (notice verse 2 isn't about sacrament meeting but about press hearings, etc. mormon newsroom would be covered by verse 2.)
6 And again I say unto you, concerning your confirmation meetings, that if there be any that are not of the church, that are earnestly seeking after the kingdom, ye shall not cast them out. [Again stated to not cast out others...but conditions apply...]

OK 7,8, and 9 are the conditions...remember every goal associated with the sacraments and even the sacramental prayers state... "...that we may always remember him that we may have his spirit to be with us...(implied; that we will love and revere him always, and want to be with him)..." This is the very core of sacrament meeting. If his spirit is denied, and evil is present then we are not required to still allow evil to be present. Remember Jesus in Galilee and Judea when running into evil spirits immediately cast them out without giving place for discussion. He cast the spirits out of the swine and cast the evil spirits out of the child when the parent of said child cried out, "help thou my unbelief!"

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. [So if the spirit is present we can conduct a meeting. If the spirit is present no good will come of it, also Priesthood should be present.] [We are not to allow doctrines of evil or devils or false man philosophy to be present. This is important.]

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given; [Tools of deception to corrupt the doctrine are not welcome. Remember 4 Nephi this was a key in the downfall of the Nephites; they allowed those who were unworthy to have blessings of the church and temple! They allowed the church to be corrupted. This cannot be allowed. This is also what happened to the Jaredites. in effect they not only committed great sin against the gospel but basically nullified the whole concept of obedience to earn blessings. Obedience and repentant righteous living has always been the core of progression to return to Heavenly Father. It can NOT be allowed for others to try to come into the temples unworthy or try to force us to allow unworthy into the temple. But this is one of the next tactics Satan will try to do!--> FORCE churches in America to allow LGBTQ overthrowing their rights like how they forced gay marriage in all 50 states. Watch and guard for this.]

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts. [Homosexuality doesn't want to participate in meetings in how they dominate but they want to overthrow the priesthood. This is why children of these unions aren't being baptized anymore. It has more to do with wanting to OVERTHROW the priesthood leaders than same sex attraction! This is important to discern!]

Now one last example. I would show the story where Joseph Smith in Nauvoo was tarred and feathered. Then all night his family was trying to remove the tar with little or no sleep. Then first thing in the morning he delivers another talk to the church congregations with mobsters present! They then become repentant and are moved to repent and see that there's no way he could have done that except if the church were true. Someone joined the church that way. However in this story I would point out that it is verifiable and true but had the mobs intended to do violence at the meeting or overthrow the meeting then the conditions set forth in D&C46 wouldn't have to apply.

We also have 'roundabout examples'; the converted Lamanites in the Book of Mormon would rather die rather than hurt or kill another child of God. They chose to sacrifice themselves first. MANY Lamanites were converted by this too and their hearts were moved by the truth. This is a wonderful example.

OK, another example... Nephi saw that his brethren were going to kill him. The Lord also warned him to leave. He took the others with him and separated from Laman and Lemuel and the other sons of Ishmael who were with them. In effect, Nephi took the version of 'sacrament' of his day away from them in a way (Though they did burnt offerings in his day). So in a way because there was obvious harm present he was no longer required to have Laman and Lemuel at his meetings...but before he got to that point he still tried to help them. I think this example is most like what's happening with many communities trying to force legal hardship and overthrow rights in America such as ...you know who here... There is also the example of the Lord telling Mormon and Moroni to no longer preach the gospel to the wicked Nephites because they would just be killed or hurt. (This reveals also how our day is and reveals the hearts of those that we are told shouldn't be baptized as having hatred against us.)

This is why the apostles and prophet are not requiring them to be baptized at this time. They need to soften their hearts first. But someone is going to say they aren't murdering anyone. (Yet...this could happen.) I would point out that our society merely favors economic murder over body harm murder. We have thousands of people economically murdering people and taking away their livelihoods. Yet, how come no one talks about economic murder? We steal someone's livelihood, or lay them off just to give a family member more nice clothes, etc...

[David13]

Well, yes, you did.
The original facts were merely that these were two practicing homos. Not that they would starve or spend the night on a park bench if they weren't invited in. Nothing was said at all about their financial situation.

But you added in there " ... In fact, it's those who withhold food and shelter from those who are "the least" ... ", thereby implying that these were the "least" in that they would go without food and shelter if not for being invited in to spend the night in sin. That they needed it, and it would be withheld from them.
That wasn't the case here.
dc

Nice try but you can only make your argument by telling me what I meant. I didn't change it. You did.

Au contrere
You added to the issue of homosexuality that now they were starving, and needy. They were the lowly, the meek, the least of them. No they aren't. They are proud of their sins. The openly flaunt their sin. The march in parades on the street, they take their perversion into the schools and all of entertainment to indoctrinate the kids, and they also make a lot of money on it.
You didn't feel that we were being sympathetic enough to the unrepentant sinner here, so you added that they are the ... least.

Just like someone else here added that I or we feel we are "superior". None of us have stated that at all. We merely responded to the question in the title of the thread.
dc

Seriously. I don't say all that. It gets even greater every time you comment.

Nobody said you have to own your own words. You distance yourself further and further.
dc

[Finrock]

That scripture is also not intended to teach us to prevent homosexuals from coming in to our houses of worship, or that we should not have compassion on them, or that they are somehow more heinous and miserable than the rest of us, or that we shouldn't interact with them, or we should abandon, ostracize, or reject friends and family who struggle with SSA.

Oh, absolutely, all of my gay friends are gladly welcomed into my home. Dinner, games, movies, whatnot, same as my hetero friends, married or not. However, I wouldn't allow two single people sleep together regardless of their persuasion because it would be sinning, and I try my best to not allow sin into my house. Does it come in anyway? Certainly, none of us are free from it, but we certainly are wise to do all we can to limit it. I have no right to demand you live your life however you want, and I'm a very poor source of good judgement based on my own past, but I am still master of my house. I will reject open sin as much as I can.

If I go to a movie theater and I'm cold, I'm not allowed to build a fire by my chair to warm up. If I'm in my own home, I build a fire to keep it warm, but that doesn't give me the right to do it where I want. If I go to Sacrament Meeting and I don't like what the speaker is saying, I can't shout and tell that person they're an idiot. In God's house, I do my best to obey His rules. In my house, if you visit I insist you follow my rules. If you don't, it doesn't justify me treating you harshly, but it would justify me asking you to leave. I must still treat you with love, but I may ask you to leave my house unless you're willing to obey house rules.

As I've stated, this makes sense to me. I expect people to respect my house, my stuff, and my rules when they are within my home.

-Finrock

[skmo]

Rather than foster disagreement - some guidelines are in order:

1.) Hypothetical Constructs such as those posed by the OP in the form of "What would you do . . . ," cannot be answered because they are "imaginary" and not real. The conditions and boundaries of such "constructs" are fluidic and lie outside the bounds of reality. The "variables" are endless as opposed to those constraints that exist in real life.

A simple hypothetical can often be answered by a careful examination. The situation was fairly simple:

If you have someone you love who is gay (I do)

Who was married to their same sex partner (they are)

If they came to stay at your house would you let them sleep together as a married couple in your home or as them to have separate rooms?

Simple question to me, I have no children, but I have people I love in that situation, I would not allow people to sleep together in my house if they were not married by what my religious beliefs are. It doesn't mean I love them less, it doesn't mean I think poorly of them, it doesn't justify any bad behavior or feelings toward them, but I have the right and the will to have the rules in my house apply as I desire. That's why it's my house.

2.) Relationships and personalities are "unknowable" without familiarity. This has much to do with directing our decisions and interactions with others.

If they're your children, I would hope you have a familiarity with them.

3.) Does it matter? If it does, then "Why?" What is the point in asking the question?

It is a reasonable discussion to have so people may be exposed to differing opinions to examine when they find a possibility of a new situation which may place them in a difficult spot. It's kind of like a spiritual example of how I ride my motorcycle: I ride a block ahead of where I am in my mind so I can imagine scenarios I may have to adjust for in a split second in order to avoid an accident. If I think about problems before they occur and plan for them, I am better prepared to deal with a situation if it happens.

4.) Judgment is meant for "identification" and not condemnation.

Identification of situations we may find ourselves in. It is also prudent to use that judgement to prepare ourselves to ready actions we may need to take at some point.

And judgement may be used for condemnation, if it is done in righteousness. I condemn the use of alcohol, porn, or drugs in my house. I condemn sexual impropriety in my house. I don't condemn the people who do it, but I can condemn their actions. In my home I have the right to refuse my home to be used for those things. I wouldn't presume to tell others what they may do in their own homes (or in many other places for that matter) but if I believe it prudent I may testify about things I believe in. However, in my own home most people are welcome ( as imperfect as I am there are a few people I still refuse into my life, but I may work on that in the future) but some actions are prohibited.

[BruceRGilbert]

Rather than foster disagreement - some guidelines are in order:

1.) Hypothetical Constructs such as those posed by the OP in the form of "What would you do . . . ," cannot be answered because they are "imaginary" and not real. The conditions and boundaries of such "constructs" are fluidic and lie outside the bounds of reality. The "variables" are endless as opposed to those constraints that exist in real life.

A simple hypothetical can often be answered by a careful examination. The situation was fairly simple:

If you have someone you love who is gay (I do)

Who was married to their same sex partner (they are)

If they came to stay at your house would you let them sleep together as a married couple in your home or as them to have separate rooms?

Simple question to me, I have no children, but I have people I love in that situation, I would not allow people to sleep together in my house if they were not married by what my religious beliefs are. It doesn't mean I love them less, it doesn't mean I think poorly of them, it doesn't justify any bad behavior or feelings toward them, but I have the right and the will to have the rules in my house apply as I desire. That's why it's my house.

2.) Relationships and personalities are "unknowable" without familiarity. This has much to do with directing our decisions and interactions with others.

If they're your children, I would hope you have a familiarity with them.

3.) Does it matter? If it does, then "Why?" What is the point in asking the question?

It is a reasonable discussion to have so people may be exposed to differing opinions to examine when they find a possibility of a new situation which may place them in a difficult spot. It's kind of like a spiritual example of how I ride my motorcycle: I ride a block ahead of where I am in my mind so I can imagine scenarios I may have to adjust for in a split second in order to avoid an accident. If I think about problems before they occur and plan for them, I am better prepared to deal with a situation if it happens.

4.) Judgment is meant for "identification" and not condemnation.

Identification of situations we may find ourselves in. It is also prudent to use that judgement to prepare ourselves to ready actions we may need to take at some point.

And judgement may be used for condemnation, if it is done in righteousness. I condemn the use of alcohol, porn, or drugs in my house. I condemn sexual impropriety in my house. I don't condemn the people who do it, but I can condemn their actions. In my home I have the right to refuse my home to be used for those things. I wouldn't presume to tell others what they may do in their own homes (or in many other places for that matter) but if I believe it prudent I may testify about things I believe in. However, in my own home most people are welcome ( as imperfect as I am there are a few people I still refuse into my life, but I may work on that in the future) but some actions are prohibited.

Skmo, I have always liked you . . . even from the beginning. I find you to be a genuine person . . . honest, forthright and real. Thank you for expressing your viewpoints. I find them valid and non-threatening. My respect.

[Fiannan]

I would rather have two gay men stay overnight at my house than I would someone like Romney or McMullin.

[Elizabeth]

Fiannan, That is an extraordinary statement and one which I am unable to comprehend.

I would rather have two gay men stay overnight at my house than I would someone like Romney or McMullin.

[Robin Hood]

I would rather have two gay men stay overnight at my house than I would someone like Romney or McMullin.

I think you'll probably regret writing that when you think about it a bit more.