Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
- David13
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7081
- Location: Utah
Re: Thread Deleted
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
I think the post should be restored.
dc
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Thread Deleted
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.Durzan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:26 amI "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.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 could've simply scrubbed the names, but that wouldn't have done any good, as his name was already publicized.
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.
- Durzan
- The Lord's Trusty Maverick
- Posts: 3745
- Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.
Re: Thread Deleted
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.
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.
- Thinker
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13101
- Location: The Universe - wherever that is.
Re: Thread Deleted
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.EmmaLee wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:23 amWhat 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
- David13
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7081
- Location: Utah
Re: Thread Deleted
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
- David13
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7081
- Location: Utah
Re: Thread Deleted
Thinker.Thinker wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:43 amGood point. It’s not here-say since he’s openly sharing his beliefs which might be considered contradicting higher church authorities policy. Tricky situation.EmmaLee wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:23 amWhat 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
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.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Thread Deleted
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.Durzan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:29 amThat is a good point. If its already being spread.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.
- Durzan
- The Lord's Trusty Maverick
- Posts: 3745
- Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.
Re: Thread Deleted
Not confusing the two words.
The actual quote from the report is:
The bishop's position could be considered heresy, though.
The actual quote from the report is:
Thus the part quoted in the quote is therefore hearsay.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.
The bishop's position could be considered heresy, though.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 770
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Thread Deleted
Thank you for discussing this with Brian - I appreciate that.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.
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?
- David13
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7081
- Location: Utah
Re: Thread Deleted
DurrzanDurzan 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.
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
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Thread Deleted
Excellent point, David. There is no hearsay going on here, but plenty of heresy.David13 wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:45 amYou 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
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.
- iWriteStuff
- blithering blabbermouth
- Posts: 5523
- Location: Sinope
- Contact:
Re: Thread Deleted
Love you too, buddy
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
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Thread Deleted
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.
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.
- Thinker
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13101
- Location: The Universe - wherever that is.
Re: Thread Deleted
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.
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1395
Re: Thread Deleted
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/87741Durzan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:26 amI "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.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 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.
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.
- Durzan
- The Lord's Trusty Maverick
- Posts: 3745
- Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.
Re: Thread Deleted
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...
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1395
Re: Thread Deleted
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.
- inho
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3286
- Location: in a galaxy far, far away
Re: Thread Deleted
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.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Thread Deleted
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.
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
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2712
Re: Thread Deleted
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.EmmaLee wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:58 amExcellent point, David. There is no hearsay going on here, but plenty of heresy.David13 wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:45 amYou 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
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.
- AI2.0
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3917
Re: Thread Deleted
Durzan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:26 amI "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.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 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.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 9912
Re: Thread Deleted
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.ebenezerarise wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:32 am 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.
- AI2.0
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3917
Re: Thread Deleted
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.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.
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.
Last edited by AI2.0 on February 17th, 2018, 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.