Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[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 1984 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.

[ebenezerarise]

I think if it comes out that the Bishop himself was teaching false doctrine, from the pulpit or otherwise, he will be held accountable by Church leadership.

But using the church facilities to house a meeting of individuals who disagree with Church doctrine is nothing new. In some cases, church facilities are lent out to other faiths when circumstances dictate the need.

But clearly the Church has taught that we must, as members, have love for all our brothers and sisters regardless of the lives they lead. Indeed, wouldn't we want our chapels filled with individuals from all walks of life?

At least there the opportunity exists to have a dialogue. In such circumstances there is bound to be disagreements -- but wouldn't we rather be known as a people who will hear out others while expounding on our own truths?

I have watched with fascination as they whole gay movement has exploded in my lifetime and with it how my own feelings and emotions have been twisted with it. I have watched people I know and love, gay and otherwise, struggle with how they are accepted or not for whatever they believe.

I don't know enough yet to say whether this Bishop and others associated with him have crossed a line. Time will bear that out. But I do know we need to do all we can to not separate ourselves from "the heathen" to the point where we lose our own worthiness.

These are children of God, there's nothing wrong with treating them as such no matter what they believe.

[David13]

I think if it comes out that the Bishop himself was teaching false doctrine, from the pulpit or otherwise, he will be held accountable by Church leadership.

But using the church facilities to house a meeting of individuals who disagree with Church doctrine is nothing new. In some cases, church facilities are lent out to other faiths when circumstances dictate the need.

But clearly the Church has taught that we must, as members, have love for all our brothers and sisters regardless of the lives they lead. Indeed, wouldn't we want our chapels filled with individuals from all walks of life?

At least there the opportunity exists to have a dialogue. In such circumstances there is bound to be disagreements -- but wouldn't we rather be known as a people who will hear out others while expounding on our own truths?

I have watched with fascination as they whole gay movement has exploded in my lifetime and with it how my own feelings and emotions have been twisted with it. I have watched people I know and love, gay and otherwise, struggle with how they are accepted or not for whatever they believe.

I don't know enough yet to say whether this Bishop and others associated with him have crossed a line. Time will bear that out. But I do know we need to do all we can to not separate ourselves from "the heathen" to the point where we lose our own worthiness.

These are children of God, there's nothing wrong with treating them as such no matter what they believe.

Yes, but not promoting and encouraging and thus influencing others to promote and encourage and participate in their sin.
And also not using the church to do so, and doing so in the meeting, and also not doing so in a public forum like Facebook.

dc

[Finrock]

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.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

[EmmaLee]

Many members are confused by some statements made by Elder Christofferson over the past few years. This link (below) is a good compilation of his comments on this subject. I know in my own ward and stake, MANY members took what he said as meaning there is nothing wrong with supporting same-sex marriage, and even encouraging people to participate in them (not understanding, apparently, that in do so, you are encouraging people to sin, just as much as if you encouraged your loved one to commit adultery). After Elder Christofferson's interview with Daniel Woodruff, there were dozens of posts on Facebook from active, recommend-holding members of my ward/stake (some in leadership callings) in full-on support of same-sex marriage and sexual relationships. Even after these "clarifications" have come out from Elder Christofferson, they are still of their original mindset - and yes, it is promoted in our Sunday meetings on occasion - and no, it has never been refuted that same-sex sexual relationships are sinful as much as any sexual sins are - why? Probably because people are afraid of bullies who will call them "anti-gay".

http://www.ldssmile.com/2015/06/29/elde ... -marriage/

[gkearney]

Just to clear up any confusion here about who we are talking about as some have suggested this was all a hoax of some kind. The following is taken from the church's own website about this ward:


Parkway Ward
12110 South 1300 West
RIVERTON
Utah
84065-7427
United States

Worship Service: Su 11:00 am
Congregation Phone: 1 801-253-7098
Congregation Leadership: Bishop Paul R. Augenstein 1 801-913-1335

[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.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the words "gay/gay marriage" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

[Finrock]

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.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the word "gay" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

[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.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Try not to put words in my mouth, Finrock. Where did I say that that constitutes apostasy? Show me where I said that, or retract your statement. You are breaking forum rules when you do this. In answer to your question though, the LDS Church says same-sex marriage is against the doctrine of the Church (and therefore, God, if you believe the LDS Church is headed by Christ) - so logic would dictate that the LDS Church considers it apostasy to be pro-same sex marriage. Christ spews lukewarm people out of his mouth - fence-sitters - those who can't decide between following him or following the world. If same-sex marriage is a sin, as the LDS Church says it is, then why would anyone think it was okay to have proponents of same-sex marriage, and people who are LIVING in a same-sex marriage (as was the case in this Sunday meeting mentioned) preach at an official LDS meeting? It's up to the LDS Church though, who they deem appropriate to preach in their official Sunday meetings. Not my call.

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?
His entire Facebook page, post after post after post (and I only read for about 1/2 an hour), is dedicated to these things.

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.
Like I said, the same should apply to EVERY sin then. Adultery - no problem - preach it on Sunday in church. Theft - same. Fraud - same. Murder - same. This isn't differing "perspectives" - this is a war for the souls of mankind, but the world, and sadly, many in the Church, have made it politically incorrect to sound a warning about this particular favorite sin to the point where now, it is actively preached in church (including in my own ward), and nothing is said to the contrary lest bullies shush them. And before you spout off about "we all sin" - yes, we do - so I guess we should all just shut up and not say anything about anything. Hey, Brian, time to close down the forum for good.

-Finrock

[EmmaLee]

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

Not at all. But let's try again - I'll spell it out for you -

Here's what you said -
"So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?"

Now let's change it to -
So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-adultery to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support adultery. I believe adultery should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against adultery. I think it is OK to be a practicing adulterer." Or anything to that affect?

If you were the Bishop, and you not only allowed someone to speak in an official church meeting who believes this way, but you organized it and promoted it, and you yourself are a proponent of adultery (going by dozens and dozens of your FB posts) - and you think there's nothing wrong with doing that, then I don't know what else to say, as we obviously believe in two very different gospels and Gods.

[Finrock]

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.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Try not to put words in my mouth, Finrock. Where did I say that that constitutes apostasy? Show me where I said that, or retract your statement. You are breaking forum rules when you do this.

I asked you a question so that I could understand your position. I made no statement.

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?
His entire Facebook page, post after post after post (and I only read for about 1/2 an hour), is dedicated to these things.

As in he says these very statements I asked you about? Or is that your interpretation of his words?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.
Like I said, the same should apply to EVERY sin then. Adultery - no problem - preach it on Sunday in church. Theft - same. Fraud - same. Murder - same. This isn't differing "perspectives" - this is a war for the souls of mankind, but the world, and sadly, many in the Church, have made it politically incorrect to sound a warning about this particular favorite sin to the point where now, it is actively preached in church (including in my own ward), and nothing is said to the contrary lest bullies shush them. And before you spout off about "we all sin" - yes, we do - so I guess we should all just shut up and not say anything about anything. Hey, Brian, time to close down the forum for good.

-Finrock

What you suggest is a false equivalency. Also, I don't believe that anyone should be "shushed". I believe in open dialogue where all people are treated respectfully and given a voice. The assumption has to be, however, that neither side is superior to the other.

-Finrock