Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[ebenezerarise]

I'm sorry, but how can a Bishop NOT be a public figure?

I used the links above to view the Facebook page and I was stunned to see how many people I know are friends with this guy. Not that that is a bad thing but what a small world it is.

This event was public. Anyone could go to it. Clearly attention is wanted for what happened -- that makes it public.

Let's stop piddling around with the idea that this didn't happen or shouldn't exist. It happened. Let it be talked about.

[Arenera]

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.

As you have read the FaceBook site, are they pro-practicing gay? There isn’t anything wrong with being gay, only if you practice and thereby sin.

[AI2.0]

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.

I can understand the concern by the person who thought it was 'heresay', if you only read the first post, that's what it looked like. I too, was concerned and wondered why the poster had not shared links or anything. It seemed wrong to give the Bishop's name and where he lived and not back it up with any evidence. BUT, then later on the thread, someone shared actual posts which gave evidence that the Bishop was very open about this and the information was there.

If a person is very public, as this Bishop was, and the thread was not violating forum rules, I think there's no valid reason to delete it. That's just my two cents, you guys do what you think best.

[JohnnyL]

I'm sorry, but how can a Bishop NOT be a public figure?

I used the links above to view the Facebook page and I was stunned to see how many people I know are friends with this guy. Not that that is a bad thing but what a small world it is.

This event was public. Anyone could go to it. Clearly attention is wanted for what happened -- that makes it public.

Let's stop piddling around with the idea that this didn't happen or shouldn't exist. It happened. Let it be talked about.

Reminds me of the woman being excommunicated for speaking about her divorce, then sharing the stake president's recording. IMO, THAT recording /video should have been deleted, not these. That stake president is not trying to be a public figure, while this bishop is.

[AI2.0]

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.

I agree. I feel that some may be incorrectly judging the Bishop and his motives. If there is evidence that he actually is promoting that the church should allow Same Sex marriage for it's members, then I'd agree, he's OFF the reservation and should be called out for it. But, if he's simply trying to bring families and members together who share a common struggle--that many other members cannot identify with and even don't want to talk about or can offer little or no emotional support for, then I don't have a problem with his efforts. If he wants to help get families together to be a support group for eachother--to support their loved ones and still uphold the church's stand on homosexual acts as sinful, then I support his efforts and applaud them. This is needed for many who feel isolated and confused in how to deal with this difficult problem.

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

[AI2.0]

I'm sorry, but how can a Bishop NOT be a public figure?

I used the links above to view the Facebook page and I was stunned to see how many people I know are friends with this guy. Not that that is a bad thing but what a small world it is.

This event was public. Anyone could go to it. Clearly attention is wanted for what happened -- that makes it public.

Let's stop piddling around with the idea that this didn't happen or shouldn't exist. It happened. Let it be talked about.

Reminds me of the woman being excommunicated for speaking about her divorce, then sharing the stake president's recording. IMO, THAT recording /video should have been deleted, not these. That stake president is not trying to be a public figure, while this bishop is.

That thread shouldn't be deleted either. The thread on the woman losing her recommend is based on a News story, the Stake Pres. is already news and will continue to be news, you can't protect him. The horse is already out of the barn and it's foolish to censor a thread on the LDSFreedom forum when the information has been blasted all over the news media. Also, the more important story is about recording an ecclesiastical leader without their knowledge. That's a topic we ought to be discussing because it will continue to come up. Unless you want us to go to other forums to discuss these important issues that affect the church.

[Lizzy60]

Someone asked if this Bishop and his wife are pro-practicing gay supporters, or just supporters of gay people who are not having gay sex. Yes, they are pro-practicing-gay, pro-gay-marriage. One of the speakers talks about her "wife" and the joy she has found after coming out as gay, and getting married to another woman. They have a child. That's about as pro-gay as you can get.

[inho]

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

But that is exactly why I said in my comment that I don't consider the bishop to be a public person. I cannot access his facebook page, since I'm not in fb. The deleted thread was the only place where I had heard of him. So, is he a public or private person? What are the criteria when it is okay to name people here?

[JohnnyL]

I'm sorry, but how can a Bishop NOT be a public figure?

I used the links above to view the Facebook page and I was stunned to see how many people I know are friends with this guy. Not that that is a bad thing but what a small world it is.

This event was public. Anyone could go to it. Clearly attention is wanted for what happened -- that makes it public.

Let's stop piddling around with the idea that this didn't happen or shouldn't exist. It happened. Let it be talked about.

Reminds me of the woman being excommunicated for speaking about her divorce, then sharing the stake president's recording. IMO, THAT recording /video should have been deleted, not these. That stake president is not trying to be a public figure, while this bishop is.

That thread shouldn't be deleted either. The thread on the woman losing her recommend is based on a News story, the Stake Pres. is already news and will continue to be news, you can't protect him. The horse is already out of the barn and it's foolish to censor a thread on the LDSFreedom forum when the information has been blasted all over the news media. Also, the more important story is about recording an ecclesiastical leader without their knowledge. That's a topic we ought to be discussing because it will continue to come up. Unless you want us to go to other forums to discuss these important issues that affect the church.

IF threads were deleted based on the above-mentioned criteria of someone becoming a public person who is not trying to be a public person and hearsay (as only a few snippets were played, and then he was condemned), then yes, that recording be deleted. It doesn't matter if it's public in another place, either morally or legally.

[JohnnyL]

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

But that is exactly why I said in my comment that I don't consider the bishop to be a public person. I cannot access his facebook page, since I'm not in fb. The deleted thread was the only place where I had heard of him. So, is he a public or private person? What are the criteria when it is okay to name people here?

I think it has been clearly established he's public. And I don't believe you need a "Public figure" page on FB as necessary proof of that.

[JohnnyL]

Someone asked if this Bishop and his wife are pro-practicing gay supporters, or just supporters of gay people who are not having gay sex. Yes, they are pro-practicing-gay, pro-gay-marriage. One of the speakers talks about her "wife" and the joy she has found after coming out as gay, and getting married to another woman. They have a child. That's about as pro-gay as you can get.

I remember saying this type of thing was going to happen after the newspaper article about Elder C's brother's book coming out.

///
Why would anyone, especially a bishop, allow speakers to speak and say things that were contrary to church doctrine, in a church meeting?? And knowing that AHEAD of time?

Did this receive the SP's approval?

Was the bishop ignorant of the guidelines, the CHI, etc.?

Since when do you publicize and promote a cruise in a church meeting?? Is the ward fund going to pay for everyone who wants to go?

Etc.

[Arenera]

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

But that is exactly why I said in my comment that I don't consider the bishop to be a public person. I cannot access his facebook page, since I'm not in fb. The deleted thread was the only place where I had heard of him. So, is he a public or private person? What are the criteria when it is okay to name people here?

If a bishop is promoting practicing Gay actions, including gay marriage, on a public forum like FaceBook, he should be excommunicated, because it is public.

[EmmaLee]

There needs to be consistency. If someone here gets bent out of shape because some forum members want to discuss a Bishop who is actively and publicly pro-gay to his congregation - but that same someone doesn't get bent out of shape because some forum members want to accuse the First President and Twelve Apostles of being corrupt, stealing money from the Church, etc. etc. etc. then this forum has a serious problem with inconsistency. I absolutely marvel that that thread was deleted, but dozens of other threads accusing the Brethren of all manner of evils are allowed to go on page after page. There is no proof, that I've seen anyway, of the vast majority of the things some here accuse the Brethren of, yet their threads are not deleted. Talk about hearsay!! Whereas in this Bishop's case - it's all there in his own writing for people to decide for themselves (sorry if you're not on Facebook and can't see it). It's Brian's forum and he can do what he wants - all I'm asking for is consistency, as far as possible.

[JohnnyL]

"Hey, you poor gay members trying to live the gospel, let's go on a cruise so we can take our shirts off, tan in the hot hot sun, go swimming, and have fun!" Hmm...

Yeah, next someone will be holding AA meetings for church members in a bar prefaced by members sharing how drinking is good, and SA meetings for church members in a nightclub prefaced by members share how cheating on spouses has been great... to help struggling members feel like they are welcome, I guess?

Sure, I might be wrong. Probably am.

But I mean, really? Not the most conducive environment for the purpose, I'd think.

[EmmaLee]

Here is just one example (of many) of what is on his FB page -

"Mormons tend to treat LGBT like this: “I’m find with gay people, as long as they _____” (Live the law of chastity, don’t get married, stay single and celibate their whole lives). In other words, a slow, lonely path to suicide."

Again, this is just ONE example of dozens of comments that are on the Bishop's own FB posts. They do not view same-sex sex as a sin. I wonder if they view opposite-sex unmarried sex a sin? ALL same-sex sex is a sin, according to the Family Proclamation - which is obviously ignored by many members today. It doesn't matter if the state/gov't "says" two men or two women can be "married" to each other. GOD says they can't be - and all same-sex sexual activity is wrong - just as unmarried opposite-sex activity is wrong.

Here's another comment - "the message [of the Church] is 'we love you and God loves you...but to be acceptable to him you must deny yourself of intimate human relations. We don’t know why you are this way.'" So, in essence, they are saying, 'gay' people shouldn't have to deny themselves sex, and shame on the Church for telling them they can't have sex - so I guess to be fair and consistent (there's that word again), it should be a free-for-all. EVERYBODY should be able to have as much sex with anyone they want, and it shouldn't be a sin. Man, did God ever get all this chastity stuff wrong. (that's sarcasm, before someone reports me)

When a Bishop, and his wife, and his close friends (who they agree with on a public forum such as FB) have diametrically opposed views from the Church on topics of chastity (or any other topic of high concern to the Lord) - and those views are being promoted and taught to Church members - and the Bishop is allowed to remain a Bishop - methinks something is amiss. But then, I live in a ward full of legit socialists, so nothing surprises me anymore.

[cyclOps]

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

But that is exactly why I said in my comment that I don't consider the bishop to be a public person. I cannot access his facebook page, since I'm not in fb. The deleted thread was the only place where I had heard of him. So, is he a public or private person? What are the criteria when it is okay to name people here?

Facebook is considered a public domain. You not being part of it doesn’t make it private. I’m inside my house right now and therefore not able to view what’s going on outside in public. However, I could choose to at any time just like you could choose to access Facebook if you want.

[EmmaLee]

The Bishop shared this message from another man on his FB page -

"I stopped attending LDS church services regularly after coming out as gay ten years ago, the same year The First Presidency wrote a letter to be read aloud in LDS congregations asking church members to devote their time and resources in support of Proposition 8, and similar referendums around the world, defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and denying same sex couples that right."

Rights come from God. Rights do not come from the Church or the Brethren. God has stated, in the Bible, and in the Family Proclamation, among other places, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples do not have the right to be married. Why would this Bishop promote the message that the LDS Church is "denying rights" to same-sex couples? The answer is obvious, but thought I would present the question, as some might still have a hard time believing that there really are current, serving LDS Bishops with these attitudes. Time to wake up to that fact.

[cyclOps]

THIS is the standard:

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-procl ... g&old=true

1C38EC50-707E-40C5-B8E9-A3913F59A8EC.jpeg (1010.57 KiB) Viewed 1987 times

[thisisspartaaa]

This is why moderators are a bad thing.

Love you too, buddy

moderators.jpg

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

It’s really not needed.

[Durzan]

Alright, Brian has weighed in on the situation, and says "No problem discussing it."

Kinda thought he would say that. Will move it back to the proper forum.

Since this thread basically continued the discussion, I will go ahead and merge it with the original.

...have at it boys.

[Elizabeth]

...have at it boys.

... and girls

[EmmaLee]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

[Finrock]

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

But that is exactly why I said in my comment that I don't consider the bishop to be a public person. I cannot access his facebook page, since I'm not in fb. The deleted thread was the only place where I had heard of him. So, is he a public or private person? What are the criteria when it is okay to name people here?

If a bishop is promoting practicing Gay actions, including gay marriage, on a public forum like FaceBook, he should be excommunicated, because it is public.

So, what actually happened at this meeting? I see a lot of people making assumptions, but do we know as a actual fact that this bishop was having a meeting in order to change the doctrine of the Church and he made statements or taught ideas to the effect that homosexual marriage is OK and the Church shouldn't ban it.

Honestly, I see people who are so anti-gay that just showing compassion, understanding, or giving gay people any type of voice at all, is viewed as apostate/heresy etc.

So, if someone has posted the actual content of the meeting (minutes from a clerk, video, transcript, etc.), can you please point me to it. If it hasn't been posted yet, can someone please post actual, factual data regarding this meeting. I am not interested in interpretations/analysis/assumptions or antyhing of the sort.

-Finrock

[EmmaLee]

I think this belongs in this thread -

"Elder Christofferson: We regard same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline. It means the discipline is mandatory — doesn’t dictate outcomes but it dictates that discipline is needed in those cases. It’s a statement to remove any question or doubt that may exist. We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification."

Full video and interview here - https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... stofferson

[cyclOps]

I read about a church meeting in Riverton on the ex-Mormon channel on Reddit a few weeks ago. Apparently they had a combined RS/priesthood meeting, although I got the impression it was more than just the last hour of church. The writer claimed to have attended this meeting in a Riverton ward that he could not remember the name of. No explanation of how he happened to be there. He described presentations by LGBTQ members talking about their various experiences, including at least one by an actual couple. Those listening to the presentation reportedly were paying attention and impressed.

Lots of red flags there that made me question whether this was true. Where were the outraged members reporting this meeting to their leaders?

The writer claimed videos were made of the meeting. I said I'd wait for those videos to come out before believing that the meeting took place.

This thread actually names a name so I looked it up. I found nothing on a Paul Augenstein in Riverton. I did find a reference to Paul in Augenstein from the Bible though.

I'm calling crap.

It happened.