Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Thinker »

Hm... I agree that the thread wasn’t breaking rules etc. Maybe I’m being too optimistic in giving the benefit of the doubt, but this is strange. Maybe the church pulls strings here - and maybe legal issues?

Well, my main points previously were:

1) There are many forms of tribal mentality. We need to think for ourselves, study carefully along with spiritual guidance... don’t follow blindly!

2) The church is not to blame for suicides. Suicidal thoughts or action is caused by a long list of factors - especially depression. https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/07/2 ... hemselves/ This bishop seemed to accept the homosexual lie that the church is to blame for suicidal thoughts because the church denies baptism to children of parents living homosexual lifestyles. If that were true, children of polygamists would be having suicidal issues, because the same policy applies to them, but they’re not. The homosexual fanatics have a habit of shifting blame - and unfortunately some are falling for it. And in their ignor-ant effort to APPEAR loving, they are encouraging homosexual behavior whichnis known to be harmful...

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html
https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns
Last edited by Thinker on February 17th, 2018, 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by EmmaLee »

Thinker wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:20 am Maybe I’m being too optimistic in giving the benefit of the doubt, but this is strange. Maybe the church pulls strings here - and maybe legal issues?
What possible legal issues? Everything that was being said on that thread, was already said by the Bishop himself, and his wife, on their shared Facebook account. Here - it's open and public and available for anyone to read - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Durzan »

EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:56 am Why was the thread about the pro-gay Riverton Bishop deleted?? There was zero contention on the thread - no forum rule had been broken - and it was an important topic to be discussed.

What an odd place LDSFF is turning out to be - endless threads by people promoting many things AGAINST the LDS Church, and the apostles (such as all the MANY Amonhi, Robert Sinclair, et al, threads) are left up and are allowed to continue for page after page after page. Yet a thread bringing to light something that we all need to be made aware of (because it's coming to all our wards and stakes eventually, you can count on it) gets deleted. Utterly bizarre. Nothing "free" about a "freedom" forum that censors indiscriminately like that.
I "deleted" it, because someone reported it. Brian and iwritestuff are currently reviewing it, as there is still a record that can be used to restore the topic if needed. Basically, the person who reported it thought it was hear-say about a bishop (who is not a public figure like Julie Rowe), we don't have all the information, and he could just be doing his best. Thus, the person argued that it was against forum policy and was not kind to discuss him like that, even if he had an agenda. (Of course, this probably is based on just the OP)

I could've just locked the thread, but then others would be able to view it, spreading the potential rumors even further. I could've simply scrubbed the names, but that wouldn't have done any good, as his name was already publicized via the twitter account.

I will put it back if we come to a consensus on the thing. I promise.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by EmmaLee »

According to MANY of the comments on this Bishop's Facebook page, dozens of people (who are also pro-gay, like the Bishop) have already sent copies of the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting to their own Bishops and stake presidents - so anyone who is trying to keep this "quiet", for whatever lame and unrealistic reason, is failing horribly.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Durzan »

EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:28 am According to MANY of the comments on this Bishop's Facebook page, dozens of people (who are also pro-gay, like the Bishop) have already sent copies of the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting to their own Bishops and stake presidents - so anyone who is trying to keep this "quiet", for whatever lame and unrealistic reason, is failing horribly.
That is a good point. If its already being spread.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by David13 »

If he posts all the things on his Facebook page, then it obviously is not hearsay. So the hearsay claim is nonsense.

I think the post should be restored.
dc

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by EmmaLee »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:26 am
EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:56 am Why was the thread about the pro-gay Riverton Bishop deleted?? There was zero contention on the thread - no forum rule had been broken - and it was an important topic to be discussed.

What an odd place LDSFF is turning out to be - endless threads by people promoting many things AGAINST the LDS Church, and the apostles (such as all the MANY Amonhi, Robert Sinclair, et al, threads) are left up and are allowed to continue for page after page after page. Yet a thread bringing to light something that we all need to be made aware of (because it's coming to all our wards and stakes eventually, you can count on it) gets deleted. Utterly bizarre. Nothing "free" about a "freedom" forum that censors indiscriminately like that.
I "deleted" it, because someone reported it. Brian and iwritestuff are currently reviewing it, as there is still a record that can be used to restore the topic if needed. Basically, the person who reported it thought it was here-say about a bishop (who is not a public figure like Julie Rowe), we don't have all the information, and he could just be doing his best. Thus, the person argued that it was against forum policy and was not kind to discuss him like that, even if he had an agenda.

I could've simply scrubbed the names, but that wouldn't have done any good, as his name was already publicized.
It's not hearsay though, it's public knowledge. The Bishop and his wife are very open and public about their pro-gay stance. Anyone who is on Facebook can look them up and read everything they've written - including what was said at that Sunday meeting. So we DO have all the information.

I'd be curious if the person who report that thread, and who thinks it wasn't "kind" to discuss the Bishop, also thinks it isn't kind to throw trash at all the apostles and prophet, which is done on COUNTLESS threads on LDSFF on a DAILY basis.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Durzan »

What could be considered heresay is the notion that the bishop has an agenda. Now that may very well be the case... or it could be that the LGBT group is just using the poor guy and he's doing his best with the situation.

Things get blown out of proportion and twisted on the web, and not everything you hear (even on facebook) is true. Regardless, I thought it prudent to remove the thread. As stated, we are currently discussing it. I am not against restoring it though. Kinda wanna hear Brian's take on it first.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Thinker »

EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:23 am
Thinker wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:20 am Maybe I’m being too optimistic in giving the benefit of the doubt, but this is strange. Maybe the church pulls strings here - and maybe legal issues?
What possible legal issues? Everything that was being said on that thread, was already said by the Bishop himself, and his wife, on their shared Facebook account. Here - it's open and public and available for anyone to read - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein
Good point. It’s not here-say since he’s openly sharing his beliefs which might be considered contradicting higher church authorities policy. Tricky situation.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by David13 »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:38 am What could be considered heresay is the notion that the bishop has an agenda. Now that may very well be the case... or it could be that the LGBT group is just using the poor guy.

Things get blown out of proportion and twisted on the web.
You are confusing two words.
One is hearsay. Which is not reliable because it comes from the word of someone else. I heard it said that Durzan did, or was, or had ... for example.

The other is heresy. False doctrine, doctrine contrary to official church doctrine is heresy.

When he posts pro homosexual stuff on his Facebook, it is because he is pro homosexual, and as to why is indeed left up to our discussion. And speculation.

If he is "being used" it would and could only be with his full knowledge, agreement, and consent. They didn't hypnotize him.
dc

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by David13 »

Thinker wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:43 am
EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:23 am
Thinker wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:20 am Maybe I’m being too optimistic in giving the benefit of the doubt, but this is strange. Maybe the church pulls strings here - and maybe legal issues?
What possible legal issues? Everything that was being said on that thread, was already said by the Bishop himself, and his wife, on their shared Facebook account. Here - it's open and public and available for anyone to read - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein
Good point. It’s not here-say since he’s openly sharing his beliefs which might be considered contradicting higher church authorities policy. Tricky situation.
Thinker.
It's hearsay. I heard it said, someone said that Thinker was playing the piano in Lehi. But I was unable to confirm that, but it was heard from a reliable source.
dc
Last edited by David13 on February 17th, 2018, 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by EmmaLee »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:29 am
EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:28 am According to MANY of the comments on this Bishop's Facebook page, dozens of people (who are also pro-gay, like the Bishop) have already sent copies of the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting to their own Bishops and stake presidents - so anyone who is trying to keep this "quiet", for whatever lame and unrealistic reason, is failing horribly.
That is a good point. If its already being spread.
Not only is it being spread on all social media, etc. but the Bishop and his wife sent a video recorded copy of the meeting to Church headquarters in SLC. So the Church itself is aware of all this and what the Bishop is up to (including the upcoming gay cruise the Bishop is sponsoring). Members who want to put blinders on and pretend things like this aren't happening in the Church, are setting themselves up for disaster and sore disappointment. This type of thing is affecting my own ward, too. In fact, if our Bishopric gets ahold of the video of this other Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, I have no doubt they would show it in our ward, as well.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Durzan »

Not confusing the two words.

The actual quote from the report is:
It names a bishop who is not a very public person and accuses him of "hidden agenda to bring about a discussion on changing church doctrine". This seems to be hearsay. cyclOps did provide some quotes, but there is nothing about changing doctrine in them.
Thus the part quoted in the quote is therefore hearsay.

The bishop's position could be considered heresy, though.

thisisspartaaa
captain of 100
Posts: 770

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by thisisspartaaa »

This is why moderators are a bad thing.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by EmmaLee »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:38 am What could be considered heresay is the notion that the bishop has an agenda. Now that may very well be the case... or it could be that the LGBT group is just using the poor guy and he's doing his best with the situation.

Things get blown out of proportion and twisted on the web, and not everything you hear (even on facebook) is true. Regardless, I thought it prudent to remove the thread. As stated, we are currently discussing it. I am not against restoring it though. Kinda wanna hear Brian's take on it first.
Thank you for discussing this with Brian - I appreciate that.

As for what the Bishop and his wife are saying - anyone on the planet can read their own words on their own Facebook page. Don't even read anyone else's comments - just read THEIR OWN WORDS - and in doing so, it is crystal clear what their agenda is. That is NOT hearsay in any definition of the word. No one is forcing them to organize a pro-gay cruise on a ship. That's all them - their doing - and they are more than happy to do it. No one is forcing them to affiliate with (hmm, what about that temple recommend question....) 'Affirmation' - the pro-gay/same-sex sex isn't a sin/Mormon group. If this Bishop is "being used" by LGBT groups against his own will, then that's even MORE disturbing, IMO. Is there no discernment anymore? :(

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by David13 »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:38 am What could be considered heresay is the notion that the bishop has an agenda. Now that may very well be the case... or it could be that the LGBT group is just using the poor guy and he's doing his best with the situation.

Things get blown out of proportion and twisted on the web, and not everything you hear (even on facebook) is true. Regardless, I thought it prudent to remove the thread. As stated, we are currently discussing it. I am not against restoring it though. Kinda wanna hear Brian's take on it first.
Durrzan
I am asking for clarification here.

What word did you intend to use in your post quoted above? Was it hearsay, or heresy.
The word you used was heresay.
dc

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by ebenezerarise »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:38 am What could be considered heresay is the notion that the bishop has an agenda.
Actually, it's the mod here who has the agenda.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by EmmaLee »

David13 wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:45 am
Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:38 am What could be considered heresay is the notion that the bishop has an agenda. Now that may very well be the case... or it could be that the LGBT group is just using the poor guy.

Things get blown out of proportion and twisted on the web.
You are confusing two words.
One is hearsay. Which is not reliable because it comes from the word of someone else. I heard it said that Durzan did, or was, or had ... for example.

The other is heresy. False doctrine, doctrine contrary to official church doctrine is heresy.

When he posts pro homosexual stuff on his Facebook, it is because he is pro homosexual, and as to why is indeed left up to our discussion. And speculation.

If he is "being used" it would and could only be with his full knowledge, agreement, and consent. They didn't hypnotize him.
dc
Excellent point, David. There is no hearsay going on here, but plenty of heresy.

I'm torn between what is more disturbing about this whole thing - that there is a current LDS Bishop promoting such things - or that there are LDS people who think Bishop's have no control over what they post on Facebook.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by iWriteStuff »

thisisspartaaa wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:52 am This is why moderators are a bad thing.
Love you too, buddy ;)
moderators.jpg
moderators.jpg (132.93 KiB) Viewed 909 times
In all honesty, handling ambiguity and fielding complaints is a thankless task. My humble thanks goes out to those who are still patient with us while we figure out what the heck we're doing :idea:

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by ebenezerarise »

ISW, the job of a moderator is to keep peace, not impose personal judgment or use their powers of moderation to randomly steer discussion.

I just got pounded on another thread by suggesting we not talk about Julie Rowe anymore. Had I been a mod and just hijacked the thread away like this my head would be on a plate.

This was, in my view, one of the more meaty topics on LDSFF, one that should happen. To pull the plug under the auspice of not advancing the Bishop's agenda just smacks of disrespect for everyone visiting this site.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Thinker »

It does seem to not be hearsay (or heresay, for David ;) and heresy for anyone with an agenda). And normally, the post that broke a rule would be edited or deleted, rather than deleting an entire thread. Everyone makes mistakes, but hopefully live and learn.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by cyclOps »

Durzan wrote: February 17th, 2018, 9:26 am
EmmaLee wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:56 am Why was the thread about the pro-gay Riverton Bishop deleted?? There was zero contention on the thread - no forum rule had been broken - and it was an important topic to be discussed.

What an odd place LDSFF is turning out to be - endless threads by people promoting many things AGAINST the LDS Church, and the apostles (such as all the MANY Amonhi, Robert Sinclair, et al, threads) are left up and are allowed to continue for page after page after page. Yet a thread bringing to light something that we all need to be made aware of (because it's coming to all our wards and stakes eventually, you can count on it) gets deleted. Utterly bizarre. Nothing "free" about a "freedom" forum that censors indiscriminately like that.
I "deleted" it, because someone reported it. Brian and iwritestuff are currently reviewing it, as there is still a record that can be used to restore the topic if needed. Basically, the person who reported it thought it was here-say about a bishop (who is not a public figure like Julie Rowe), we don't have all the information, and he could just be doing his best. Thus, the person argued that it was against forum policy and was not kind to discuss him like that, even if he had an agenda.

I could've just locked the thread, but then others would be able to view it, spreading the potential rumors even further. I could've simply scrubbed the names, but that wouldn't have done any good, as his name was already publicized via the twitter account.

I will put it back if we come to a consensus on the thing. I promise.
You’re right, we don’t have all the information. That’s why most of us were being level-headed about it and trying to work with what was known. Such as screenshots or links to their Facebook page where they are making themselves public, and this article written by an attendee: http://www.ldsliving.com/Inactive-Gay-M ... rs/s/87741

There is also a post where the bishop and/or his wife mention national and worldwide response and attention to their meeting. They also wanted to post a recording but church headquarters told them no. So they posted written copies of their speakers’ messages. So to say it’s not public or that they don’t want it to be is not true.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by Durzan »

Fair enough. Still gonna let Brian have the final say on restoring the topic. Although, he has been fairly quiet in the moderator forum recently...

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by cyclOps »

It sounds like the bishop was basing the meeting off one held by a bishop in Grantsville if I remember right. Also it was supposed to discuss or maybe implement a talk given by Elder Ballard. But, the bishop did also acknowledge that some things the participants would share is not in harmony with church doctrine.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Thread Deleted

Post by inho »

I am not sure if I ever saw all the posts in the deleted thread. When I read it, there were only a couple of comments. The OP was written by a brand new member who hadn't posted anything else in this forum. It named the bishop and made accusations without any sources. Later, someone (I think it was cyclOps) posted some screenshots from the bishop's facebook. The content in those screenshots was pro-LBQT, but in my opinion it was not that damning. The bishop may be vocal in facebook, but his profile is not public. I don't consider him to be a public figure. Thus, I understand the decision to review the thread. I hope Brian will give us some guidelines about when it is appropriate to accuse and name people.

Post Reply