What would you do

[Rose Garden]

What makes you say that?

The scriptures, the prophets, the promptings of the Spirit, and common sense. God lets us choose our lifestyles, but he has requirements on what we do with our bodies while we're here. I can think my neighbor has a cute wife and not be guilty of a sin. I can't sleep with her and say the same. I may not always have a choice about what my desires are, but I certainly have a choice about whether or not I give in to those desires. If I want to fool around with another guy, it's not a sin. If I DO fool around with another guy, it is a sin. That's the difference.

To me, this comes down to a choice of what I will accept in my home. It's not whether or not I'll allow homosexuals in my home, that has no being on the situation. I have many gay friends, they're always welcome in my home. They're not allowed to borrow my home to have sex. If I had a child with a partner of the opposite sex to whom they were not married, I would not allow them to sleep in the same room.

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.

[Gage]

If the gay friend could cook, maybe I would allow him in long enough to do that, what a blessing that would be to get a good cooked meal in my house.

[Finrock]

Everybody who is participating in this thread is a hopeless sinner who is not worthy of any kingdom of glory.

Another thing I am is the master of my house. I can set rules for what is allowed and what isn't.

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

[Finrock]

Everybody who is participating in this thread is a hopeless sinner who is not worthy of any kingdom of glory. Only by God condescending to interact with you, unworthy creatures, are you able to ever be in the presence of Deity or get to know Deity in any way. It isn't your goodness that saves you. Its God's mercy and grace. It is silly to think that you are morally superior to any person in any way.

-Finrock

Did any one claim to be "morally superior to any person in any way"?
Please point out where this has occured on this thread.

In general, why don't we show people love and respect? Why do we have feelings of contempt towards others? Why are we in a state of opposition to anyone? Why would we refuse to be around someone or refuse to allow them to be around us?

We don't demonize and ostracize people that we feel morally equal to or inferior to. We don't place barriers to our love, goodness, kindness, and respect to people who we feel are "good". We look at someone and their life choices and we say to ourselves,"Wow, that person is such a sinner. Their sin is so horrible and so horrendous that I don't want to be around them and they can't be with me and my family or my church." Why? Because we feel we are better than them. We think that our sins are not as horrendous or horrible. That is how we justify these things by pitting other people's sins against our sins. Sometimes we may live in a deep delusion thinking that we aren't sinners, but often we downplay our own sins or our sins aren't as bad, while others we judge to be living in the bitterness of death and hell.

The truth is that no matter who you are, no matter what race you belong to, no matter how much wealth you have, how poor you are, who you know, or who you are related to, no matter what, you are an unworthy creature who doesn't deserve to be in God's presence and who doesn't deserve to be saved. It is the fact that God condescended from His high position to interact with you, unworthy creatures, and to show love, kindness, goodness, and even acceptance, despite your sin and despite your fallen state.

We ought to be like Christ.

-Finrock

[Robin Hood]

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?

[Arenera]

Modern day Pharisees?

[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

[David13]

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]

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?

Hoodie
Finrock, or Rockie is one of those who apparently took to heart all those long haired bearded paintings of Jesus Christ that we shouldn't have. He thinks Jesus Christ was some type of "cool cat, whatever turns you on, man, sort of guy". Rockie probably got that from the sixties, maybe even he himself was like that, the long hair, with the pony tail, going to the protest, the sit in, etc., so that's how he sees Jesus Christ.
He may even see Jesus Christ as some type of "Renaissance man, man" who's motto was "all things in moderation".

It won't do us any good to try to convince him that Jesus Christ was no such thing, but a different spirit altogether, based on scripture.
dc

[David13]

The scriptures, the prophets, the promptings of the Spirit, and common sense. God lets us choose our lifestyles, but he has requirements on what we do with our bodies while we're here. I can think my neighbor has a cute wife and not be guilty of a sin. I can't sleep with her and say the same. I may not always have a choice about what my desires are, but I certainly have a choice about whether or not I give in to those desires. If I want to fool around with another guy, it's not a sin. If I DO fool around with another guy, it is a sin. That's the difference.

To me, this comes down to a choice of what I will accept in my home. It's not whether or not I'll allow homosexuals in my home, that has no being on the situation. I have many gay friends, they're always welcome in my home. They're not allowed to borrow my home to have sex. If I had a child with a partner of the opposite sex to whom they were not married, I would not allow them to sleep in the same room.

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

[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.