Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[eddie]

I, as well as several others, have posted the link to this Bishops Facebook page. If you are not on FB, or you do not want to bother reading over his countless posts, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on this thread as you do not know what the rest of us know who HAVE read his many pro-gay posts. It's very insulting to those of us who have taken the time and made the effort to read the Bishops own words to be accused of posting "fake news", or of "jumping to conclusions". Honestly, you're embarrassing yourselves with your ignorance about this man, and your name-calling ("bigots" and "extremists"). This is like someone who has never heard of Julie Rowe - never read her books - never been to any of her firesides, etc. chiming in and giving their opinion of her on the many threads about her. Or someone who has never read any of Denver Snuffer's books, blog, or listened to him speak, blathering away on threads about him. And speaking of "agendas", this Bishop most definitely has one, and the blatant evidence of it is plastered all over his PUBLIC FB page - but of course, you wouldn't know that if you haven't read it.

Those of you who have NOT read the Bishop's FB page, yet are accusing those of us who HAVE read it, of being "judgmental" or "assuming" things, should really look in the mirror - as it is you who are being judgmental toward, and assuming things about, us. How ironic. But of course, you won't see it that way. It's also interesting to see who brought the contention and name-calling to this thread. Hint - it wasn't any of us who have actually READ the Bishop's FB posts and comments.

Being "pro-gay" is not about showing love to people and being kind, etc. Being "pro-gay", like this Bishop, his wife, and apparently over 1,000 of his FB friends are, means accepting their behavior, i.e. accepting sin. Unless, of course, some of you are saying same-sex sexual activity isn't a sin anymore, which is what you are implying when you condone the Bishop inviting an actively fornicating same-sex couple to speak in an official Sunday Church meeting in a dedicated house of the Lord. Or, maybe because you haven't taken the time to read through his FB page (in which case, is it really smart of you to be posting on this thread?), you didn't realize that he did indeed invite two women who are unashamedly, knowingly, and actively living in a same-sex sexual relationship to speak during Relief Society/Priesthood meeting. Would you have a problem if a Bishop invited a man and a woman who are living together, and are having sexual relations with each other, who are happy about it, unremorseful, and who do NOT view what they're doing as a sin of any sort - if a Bishop invited such a couple to talk during Relief Society/Priesthood, promoting their lifestyle, would that be fine in your eyes? Your answer has to be 'yes', of course - if you have no problem with a same-sex couple doing that, to be consistent, you have to have no problem with an opposite-sex couple doing the same thing. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite, and you exhibit a double-standard.

I guess the days of hearing the Family Proclamation in the LDS Church are over, because it 100% contradicts the notion that in ANY circumstance is it okay for two members of the same-sex to be sexually active with each other. There is no "gay marriage" in the LDS Church, therefore, two members of the same sex who are sexually active (whether the state/gov't says they're "married" or not) are fornicating. According to the scriptures and the LDS Church, that's a serious sin. So WHY would a Bishop invite two people who are ACTIVELY fornicating - who not only do not have any remorse for it, but who DELIGHT in their sin - to teach the RS/PH in his ward during 2 hours of the Sunday meeting block? Why is this Bishop enabling sin? Why is he promoting sin? Why is he trying to make it look normal and healthy and fine to commit grievous sexual sin? The scriptures say to preach nothing but repentance to this generation. Instead, some are preaching that some sins are okay now, because society says they're okay - in fact, they're not a sin at all.

Nobody here hates people who have same-sex attraction. I certainly don't. My heart goes out to them every bit as much as it goes out to people who have all kinds of addictions and desires. This earth life is hard for ALL of us. People who have same-sex attraction (and I'm sure this will cause some here to call me names and make assumptions about me - be my guest) are not any more special than any of the rest of us. It's only because society and Satan (same thing, really) have an agenda, and that agenda is to destroy the family - that being "gay" has become "popular" and "in vogue" and is treated with kid gloves and like it's some kind of honored thing. It's not. It's just a regular sexual sin like any other regular sexual sin. People who are committing same-sex sexual sins should be counseled to repent every bit as much as people who are committing opposite-sex sexual sins. They shouldn't be coddled and enabled or have Church-sponsored websites or Sunday church meetings devoted solely to their particular flavor of sin. Christ would say to them, "Go, and sin no more." He would invite them to attend Church, but he wouldn't invite them to speak with the goal being to try and normalize their behavior/sin. Many in our Church, thanks to society promoting this view, seem to think Christ "hung out" with sinners - he didn't, not in the way Satan is promoting it. What he did was teach them and tell them to repent.

AMEN Emma Lee! We live in a society where right is wrong and wrong is right. Our children are being taught in school that wrong is right, and its also wrong to even dare express the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. Gay's have a very high percentage of suicide, its not a happy lifestyle, of course its not, the Lord calls it an abomination. That's not to say that we condemn them, it is to say that its wrong and repentance is needed, for their own good.
The family is under attack, our children are under attack, our Nation is under attack, but it seems the good people are starting to stand up. Good people don't riot and protest, turn over and burn police cars, destroy other's property, but we can have a voice if we choose to use it.

[Jack Vance 79]

I wrote the OP.

I was not aware I had to write an essay complete with footnotes, citations and hyperlinks.

My "issue" that I have with this is not so much the LGBT issue, but the fact that the Bishop (apparently with the approval of the SP, one of whom was in attendance) set aside part of the three-hour block to teach his congregation about this. This was not some optional Sunday evening fireside at the Bishop's house. The transcript is available online and the Bishop and his wife's joint publicly accessible Facebook page (Susie N Paul Augenstein) is basically one big pro-LGBT website. They are not explicitly advocating gay marriage etc. However, even though not all the words at the meeting were the Bishop's, he must have known what some people were going to say in advance, and he inadvertently endorsed such by giving them a platform, even if that was not his intention. But when you read all their Facebook posts, the LDS-LGBT parent/child cruise arrangements, and significantly, look into who they are friends with, you get the bigger picture. One of their close associates in this tolerance and love campaign is former Bishop Richard Ostler. Check out his Facebook page. He has his own website and recently (as of the past week or two) started a podcast on this very issue. This is what Brother Ostler posted on February 17 -

"If you are LGBTQ and thinking of suicide, please don’t! Your sexuality/gender orientation is a beautiful gift from God.

Your orientation makes your unique and beautiful life possible. Your are a treasured and needed soul. A full member of the human family. Yes, you are on a brutal road full of pain.

God will not cure a gay child because there is nothing to cure

With tears in my eyes, please choose to stay. I love you

So many love and need you "

I believe both the Ostlers and the Augensteins are good loving people. Better than me. But you can be both good and wrong. They are not wrong to love these people. They volunteer at a house called Encircle in Provo which provides a refuge of sorts for troubled gay youth. The owner refuses to fly the rainbow flag. Her goal was to stop young people harming themselves or committing suicide. This is admirable. I would have no issue volunteering. Maybe I should. I know gay people who are like a lot better than some straight-laced Mormons I know.

But my point was kind of different. In addition to the love and kindness, between the Ostlers and the Augensteins (and others like Erica Munson of Mormons Building Bridges etc), there does seem to be a concerted campaign to begin opening the minds of the younger generation of latter-day saints to prepare them for some anticipated future revelation. It worries me that our some of our local leaders believe this. It makes me not trust their judgment on other issues and doubt whether they actually have a testimony of the restored gospel.

So back to my main point - this may have made many members of the ward feel uncomfortable, esp. if after (like me) they look up these Facebook posts and then put it altogether. It may prove very hard for these members to sustain their Bishop. He could have avoided putting them in this predicament. Contrary to what someone asserted earlier, we are not under a duty to sustain our leaders, only our righteous ones - that is why they ask if there is anyone opposed - you are supposed to raise your hand and then meet with your leaders to discuss why you cannot sustain someone. Example (more extreme) if you knew a member of the Bishropric was cheating on his wife, then you are under a duty to not sustain him, to oppose it, and bring it to someone's attention.

We do not believe in divinely called infallible local leadership at all times and in all places. People make mistakes. Sometimes a Bishop is chosen based on a perceived skill set rather than what is in his heart. The fact there are many former bishops (Bill Reel anyone?), stake presidents, some mission presidents, and even a general authority or two, who subsequently leave the church and declare that they never really believed in the first place, proves that some local leadership is not being guided by inspiration or revelation from God. This is what the apostle Paul warned about, that in the last days wolves would creep into the flock, seeking to devour and lead away many.

St. Paul. Acts 20: 29-31

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

2 last (weird) point. I use a completely anonymous Facebook page to view these people, which is linked to an email account I created just for that purpose. There are no friends, and so far no comments by me. I like to Bible bash with born again Christians and call out ultra-progressive Mormons. In that respect, I guess I am a bit of a troll, but I like the debate. However, I end up getting blocked if I post something (no matter how nice I put it) that runs counter to the narrative. Anyway, after viewing the Augenstein's post about the LDS-LGBT cruise, guess what popped up? an ad for an actual gay cruise complete with three shirtless musclemen. I was also invited to be friends with one Tom Christofferson. And we all know who that is.

[AI2.0]

I was not comparing being black with being homosexual. I was comparing a bishop's way of dealing with an increasingly unpopular stance in the church: Just force the issue.

I agree that defending the family is an important thing to do. I just have lost all confidence that the church will continue to do that based on history. I've already been shocked at the changes that have occured since the Prop 8 efforts in CA. And as younger members who favor gay marriage increasingly take the reins in the church, the church will follow will drift with that change. I think--had Hillary won the last election--the issue (as well as the women and the priesthood issue) might have been forced upon the church sooner rather than later, but there is a short spell of reprieve here. We may get to see just how important 501(c)(3) status is.

With all due respect, you lost confidence in the church and joined Denver Snuffer's Remnant years ago, didn't you? So, if you feel the church is drifting and changing to suit the public, I'll have to take your criticisms of the LDS church with a big grain of salt.

I also think you are not right about this.

I suspect you didn't listen to the LDS church's last General Conference--you might want to read Pres. Oak's talk. He made it clear that we are not drifting away or changing our position on these things.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

[iWriteStuff]

Anyway, after viewing the Augenstein's post about the LDS-LGBT cruise, guess what popped up? an ad for an actual gay cruise complete with three shirtless musclemen.

SIDE NOTE:

Just wanted to mention one thing about the ad you say "popped up" - the same thing happened to me yesterday while viewing this thread. This is a function of GoogleAds - it scans whatever you are looking at, looks for key words, then tries to shovel you more of whatever you're looking at because apparently you like looking/reading/talking about it. Facebook does the same thing. This is why I'm not on Facebook and usually employ a PiHole (see www.pihole.net) on my home network to block ads and trackers.

Apparently yesterday my PiHole decided to take the Sabbath off and the next thing I know I'm on a cruise ship with three shirtless dudes drinking margaritas.

Ad Blockers, my friends! Couldn't recommend them enough.

Now back to the debate....

[AI2.0]

I wrote the OP.

I was not aware I had to write an essay complete with footnotes, citations and hyperlinks.

My "issue" that I have with this is not so much the LGBT issue, but the fact that the Bishop (apparently with the approval of the SP, one of whom was in attendance) set aside part of the three-hour block to teach his congregation about this. This was not some optional Sunday evening fireside at the Bishop's house. The transcript is available online and the Bishop and his wife's joint publicly accessible Facebook page (Susie N Paul Augenstein) is basically one big pro-LGBT website. They are not explicitly advocating gay marriage etc. However, even though not all the words at the meeting were the Bishop's, he must have known what some people were going to say in advance, and he inadvertently endorsed such by giving them a platform, even if that was not his intention. But when you read all their Facebook posts, the LDS-LGBT parent/child cruise arrangements, and significantly, look into who they are friends with, you get the bigger picture. One of their close associates in this tolerance and love campaign is former Bishop Richard Ostler. Check out his Facebook page. He has his own website and recently (as of the past week or two) started a podcast on this very issue. This is what Brother Ostler posted on February 17 -

"If you are LGBTQ and thinking of suicide, please don’t! Your sexuality/gender orientation is a beautiful gift from God.

Your orientation makes your unique and beautiful life possible. Your are a treasured and needed soul. A full member of the human family. Yes, you are on a brutal road full of pain.

God will not cure a gay child because there is nothing to cure

With tears in my eyes, please choose to stay. I love you

So many love and need you "

I believe both the Ostlers and the Augensteins are good loving people. Better than me. But you can be both good and wrong. They are not wrong to love these people. They volunteer at a house called Encircle in Provo which provides a refuge of sorts for troubled gay youth. The owner refuses to fly the rainbow flag. Her goal was to stop young people harming themselves or committing suicide. This is admirable. I would have no issue volunteering. Maybe I should. I know gay people who are like a lot better than some straight-laced Mormons I know.

But my point was kind of different. In addition to the love and kindness, between the Ostlers and the Augensteins (and others like Erica Munson of Mormons Building Bridges etc), there does seem to be a concerted campaign to begin opening the minds of the younger generation of latter-day saints to prepare them for some anticipated future revelation. It worries me that our some of our local leaders believe this. It makes me not trust their judgment on other issues and doubt whether they actually have a testimony of the restored gospel.

So back to my main point - this may have made many members of the ward feel uncomfortable, esp. if after (like me) they look up these Facebook posts and then put it altogether. It may prove very hard for these members to sustain their Bishop. He could have avoided putting them in this predicament. Contrary to what someone asserted earlier, we are not under a duty to sustain our leaders, only our righteous ones - that is why they ask if there is anyone opposed - you are supposed to raise your hand and then meet with your leaders to discuss why you cannot sustain someone. Example (more extreme) if you knew a member of the Bishropric was cheating on his wife, then you are under a duty to not sustain him, to oppose it, and bring it to someone's attention.

We do not believe in divinely called infallible local leadership at all times and in all places. People make mistakes. Sometimes a Bishop is chosen based on a perceived skill set rather than what is in his heart. The fact there are many former bishops (Bill Reel anyone?), stake presidents, some mission presidents, and even a general authority or two, who subsequently leave the church and declare that they never really believed in the first place, proves that some local leadership is not being guided by inspiration or revelation from God. This is what the apostle Paul warned about, that in the last days wolves would creep into the flock, seeking to devour and lead away many.

St. Paul. Acts 20: 29-31

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

2 last (weird) point. I use a completely anonymous Facebook page to view these people, which is linked to an email account I created just for that purpose. There are no friends, and so far no comments by me. I like to Bible bash with born again Christians and call out ultra-progressive Mormons. In that respect, I guess I am a bit of a troll, but I like the debate. However, I end up getting blocked if I post something (no matter how nice I put it) that runs counter to the narrative. Anyway, after viewing the Augenstein's post about the LDS-LGBT cruise, guess what popped up? an ad for an actual gay cruise complete with three shirtless musclemen. I was also invited to be friends with one Tom Christofferson. And we all know who that is.

You don't have to provide references and footnotes but a link to what you are talking about is helpful.

It's apparent you have little confidence in local church leaders, but don't you have confidence in those who oversee them? If what this Bishop set up was not in keeping with church teachings and would offend leaders above the Stake Presidents, don't you think they will handle the situation? It's not like they don't know about this.

If you are looking for others who will get all up in arms over this, question the commitment of these two Bishops and the Stake Pres. to upholding Gospel Standards, I think you've found some on this forum who'll be happy to join you, unfortunately.

[Jack Vance 79]

I'm sure they will "handle the situation." I am not trying to handle it. I am using this forum to "discuss" it. However, to the extent I or anyone else might be asked to sustain said Bishop, I would not. At that point I am sure I would be asked about it after. In which event I would let them know why. My hunch is that this Bishop will be on John Dehlin's Mormon Stories and former Bishop Bill Reel's Mormon Discussions as soon as he is out of the calling. I believe Richard Ostler has already told his "mormon story." BTW, have you ever heard of Bill Reel. He was one of these mistakenly called boy-wonder bishops. You should listen to his testimony. He doubted the whole time he was Bishop, not just the church, not just the divinity of Christ, but whether Christ was even a real historical figure and whether there was even a God. I'm not that old (42), but I know I'm too young to be a Bishop and that these calling are usually best left to those who have accumulated decades of experience and wisdom.

[AI2.0]

Welcome to the LDS church, only-slightly-future version.

It does remind me of the pre-1978 change in Priesthood for all worthy males. Previous to that time, at least one bishop just took the matter in his own hands, and ordained an African-American. I THINK he was ex-communicated at the time, but shortly thereafter, the church changed it's policy.

What will the average church member do if/when the church changes its policy on homosexuals?

I will resign my membership if that ever happens because the leaders of the church will have supplanted revelation from God to dictate their own policies for the church instead of the Plan of Salvation blueprint that was setup before this world began. Basically the Second Coming will come before this happens.

I personally believe this whole tolerance and making a website for the Gay's is going a bit too far for my liking. We need to be hardline on the issue otherwise we get bishops/SP like this one. Homosexuality is a sin.

Here's the problem with what you said. 'Homosexual' means having an attraction for someone of the same sex. THAT is not a sin. Engaging in Homosexual sexual relations IS a sin. Do you understand the difference? The church is trying to get people like you to see a difference because there is a difference. The church wants to make it clear that those who have homosexual tendencies, but choose not to act out those desires, are welcome to full fellowship within the church, just like anybody else.

Then there's the problem with having loved ones who do choose to embrace their homosexuality and act on their impulses. These people are in the same boat as heterosexuals who cohabit without marriage, engage in fornication etc. because they choose to. We have lots of these people around us, inactives in our wards and in our neighborhoods. We no longer actively seek these people out to disfellowship or excommunicate them. The standard, at least in my ward, is to love them, fellowship them, invite them to church and when they come to church, welcome and fellowship them and when they have the desire, urge them to get their lives in order, if they want to enjoy the blessings of the temple, serve in callings, etc.

Our standards have not changed, but our desire to make the church a welcoming place, for all, is. I don't think the church leaders have a problem with wards working to bring souls to Christ, and to do that, we can't be driving them away because we don't approve of their choices. If Missionaries took that attitude when searching for non-members to teach the gospel to, they'd find very few they could work with.

The standards have NOT changed. The teachings have not changed, but how we view and treat others is changing, IMO.

[EmmaLee]

You don't have to provide references and footnotes but a link to what you are talking about is helpful.

It's apparent you have little confidence in local church leaders, but don't you have confidence in those who oversee them? If what this Bishop set up was not in keeping with church teachings and would offend leaders above the Stake Presidents, don't you think they will handle the situation? It's not like they don't know about this.

If you are looking for others who will get all up in arms over this, question the commitment of these two Bishops and the Stake Pres. to upholding Gospel Standards, I think you've found some on this forum who'll be happy to join you, unfortunately.

Links have been provided - several times by several different posters.

I wonder if the Church is "handling" the Julie Rowe situation - and if so, how. None of my business (or yours), but I wonder how much confidence you have in the church leaders who oversee her? Seeing how she is a MUCH more public and prolific person, with a MUCH larger audience than this Riverton Bishop - and since we already know Church HQ is aware of her and what she's preaching - don't you think they will "handle the situation"? And if so, why do you start threads about her, and post comments about her, so frequently? Why not just let her be and let Church HQ take care of her situation? Why do you "get all up in arms" over JR? Are you "questioning" her Bishop's and stake president's commitment to upholding gospel standards? Seems like it, otherwise, you'd just ignore her and let her local Church leadership deal with her.

This situation with the Bishop, is far graver, as he is in a priesthood leadership position with direct influence over people - he signs people's temple recommends, etc. But yes, we should all just ignore the FACT that he invited people who have been excommunicated from the LDS Church to preach during the formal Sunday block of meetings in a dedicated LDS Church building. No biggie. Oh wait, that goes against the Church - seeing how ANYONE (except people living in same-sex relationships, I guess??) who is currently involved in a disciplinary council, or ANYONE who has been disfellowshipped or excommunicated (such as the women "married" to other women who the Bishop invited and asked to preach to the LDS people in his ward) is not allowed to speak or pray in any Sunday meetings in any LDS congregation. But they're gay, so it's okay.

I'm glad people call out (no pun intended) Julie Rowe and Denver Snuffer, et al, on their crap. No one should be exempt from being called out on their crap - including Bishops - otherwise, it's a double-standard and hypocritical.

[AI2.0]

I'm sure they will "handle the situation." I am not trying to handle it. I am using this forum to "discuss" it. However, to the extent I or anyone else might be asked to sustain said Bishop, I would not. At that point I am sure I would be asked about it after. In which event I would let them know why. My hunch is that this Bishop will be on John Dehlin's Mormon Stories and former Bishop Bill Reel's Mormon Discussions as soon as he is out of the calling. I believe Richard Ostler has already told his "mormon story." BTW, have you ever heard of Bill Reel. He was one of these mistakenly called boy-wonder bishops. You should listen to his testimony. He doubted the whole time he was Bishop, not just the church, not just the divinity of Christ, but whether Christ was even a real historical figure and whether there was even a God. I'm not that old (42), but I know I'm too young to be a Bishop and that these calling are usually best left to those who have accumulated decades of experience and wisdom.

Sorry, but I'm usually suspicious of people who come to this forum and drop a bombshell topic on us that gets everyone attacking eachother. From past experience posters will do this and then disappear. To your credit, you came back.

To be honest, I think your efforts are not helpful, but that's just me. As I said, there seem to be a number of posters on the forum who are likeminded to your way of thinking.

I don't think Bishops are perfect, but I think that most of them are pretty good men and striving to do their best to serve the members of the congregations. I don't know much about the two Bishops you are critical of, but I'd rather withhold judgment since I haven't really seen their defense. I've seen people make a lot of assumptions and accusations, but really haven't seen any concrete evidence that they are 'pro-gay' or 'wanting to make Same sex marriage acceptable in the church', as some have accused. All I've seen is that they are trying to fellowship some members who identify themselves as 'gay' and their families.

[EmmaLee]

I'm sure they will "handle the situation." I am not trying to handle it. I am using this forum to "discuss" it. However, to the extent I or anyone else might be asked to sustain said Bishop, I would not. At that point I am sure I would be asked about it after. In which event I would let them know why. My hunch is that this Bishop will be on John Dehlin's Mormon Stories and former Bishop Bill Reel's Mormon Discussions as soon as he is out of the calling. I believe Richard Ostler has already told his "mormon story." BTW, have you ever heard of Bill Reel. He was one of these mistakenly called boy-wonder bishops. You should listen to his testimony. He doubted the whole time he was Bishop, not just the church, not just the divinity of Christ, but whether Christ was even a real historical figure and whether there was even a God. I'm not that old (42), but I know I'm too young to be a Bishop and that these calling are usually best left to those who have accumulated decades of experience and wisdom.

I'm glad you brought up Bishop Reel and Bishop Ostler (both of whom are Facebook friends with Bishop Augenstein, BTW, not to mention some other names many here would recognize). Unlike some others who choose to live in a little all-is-well bubble, I prefer knowing what is going on in the Church I belong to. It's actually a comfort to me to know what some other members are having to deal with - helps me to feel not quite so alone with all the social justice/liberal/there is no sin! twaddle we hear in our ward on an almost weekly basis. So I, for one, thank you for bringing this to the forum's attention. I've now been reading about it on several other LDS forums and sites - and the most frightening thing of all - even beyond the Bishop having excommunicated members preach during the Sunday block - is the number of LDS people who think that's just fine and have no problem with it at all. If anything is a sign of the times, and will divide the Church - it is this issue, IMO.

As for you being too young, at age 42, to be a Bishop - that is not the case at all. The past three Bishops we've had, including our current Bishop, were ALL barely 40 years old when they were called. All three members of our current stake presidency are under age 45. In fact, now that I stop and think about it, the last time we had a Bishop who was over 50 was 30 years ago when we moved here - it was a branch then, so he was the Branch President. Since then, after our branch was made a ward (then two wards, now three), all the Bishops of our ward have been under 50 when called - every single one of them - with the latest three Bishops being very early 40's when called. Interesting.

[EmmaLee]

The only people "attacking" others on this thread are the people who haven't actually read the Bishop's multitudinous Facebook posts and comments. No one else has called anyone names or attacked each other. There was no contention whatsoever on this thread AT ALL until the forum contrarian came and started putting words in people's mouths (as he often does on many threads) and misconstruing what they said, etc. Then a couple more people jumped on his bandwagon, seemingly, with no other purpose or goal than to just argue and belittle those here who are perplexed by some things that are happening. (And they ARE happening, believe it or not) None of these people who are doing the attacking have admitted to actually READING the Bishop's own Facebook page (and if you don't belong to FB, maybe you shouldn't be posting on a thread you know little to nothing about - also, why would someone continually post comments on a thread they don't like?? Reminds me of people who complain about Julie Rowe threads - if you don't like them, don't read and comment on them - easy peasy) - but yet they feel justified in condemning those of us who actually HAVE read the Bishop's many posts and comments. If you just read what he said in that one Sunday meeting, you have no idea the whole picture. That's like trying to describe an elephant after only having seen his tail. The "topic" isn't what started the attacking - anyone with eyes and an ounce of integrity/honesty knows that.

[yjacket]

Here's the problem with what you said. 'Homosexual' means having an attraction for someone of the same sex. THAT is not a sin. Engaging in Homosexual sexual relations IS a sin.

The standards are changing, if you don't see it you are whistling past the graveyard.

The above is 100% incorrect, it is false teaching and has gotten into the Church and has been preached from the pulpit and unfortunately is leading to and has caused this current problem.

Everyone gets all uptight about the word "homosexual" but all it takes is just to change the word to see the absolute hypocritical message.

Lust means having an attraction for someone who I'm not married to. THAT is not sin. Engaging in lustful relations IS sin.

Lust in my heart, i.e. sexual attraction for someone who I'm not married to is absolutely a sin. Christ said so Himself. Only one who twists the words of scriptures can say otherwise. Our prophets understand this principle, unfortunately they no longer teach it.

When it comes down to it, the whole world has been lead astray in the modern pyscological crap of "they were born that way", therefore they "can't help how they feel". Utter BS. It really is amazing at how much people have been led astray. No heterosexual in their right mind would get up in Church and say "I lust in my heart for other women" and you can't say anything bad about it. No one would say, "I'm attracted to women who are not my wife and that's okay" No they would be rightly looked upon as a creep. But change it to homosexual and the whole world goes mad.

Having said that, I agree there is a difference between having homosexual thoughts/feelings/etc. and acting on it. The former should absolutely be allowed in Church and Temples . . .if we set the standard that you can't lust in your heart after other women to be Temple worthy I'm sure the Temples would be quite bare. The latter should never be allowed.

The great sin that is upon the leaders heads is the teaching that homosexual thoughts/feelings cannot be controlled b/c they were born that way. Some may struggle with it all their life, but it is possible to get out of it. There are plenty of ex-homosexuals who are now straight and are married with children.

But no, our modern god - the god of psychology (a religion founded by atheistic, drugged up men) says they can't change. Lies of the devil.

Please tell me why lust (i.e. sexual attraction for someone who is not my wife) is a sin for heterosexuals, but not for homosexuals?

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

You don't have to provide references and footnotes but a link to what you are talking about is helpful.

It's apparent you have little confidence in local church leaders, but don't you have confidence in those who oversee them? If what this Bishop set up was not in keeping with church teachings and would offend leaders above the Stake Presidents, don't you think they will handle the situation? It's not like they don't know about this.

If you are looking for others who will get all up in arms over this, question the commitment of these two Bishops and the Stake Pres. to upholding Gospel Standards, I think you've found some on this forum who'll be happy to join you, unfortunately.

Links have been provided - several times by several different posters.Yes, thank you. I've read them, but so far, I haven't seen proof that the Bishop in question is lobbying for the acceptance of Same sex marriage in the church or trying to get the church to stop calling homosexual sexual relations a sin. IF you can show me that, then absolutely, I will join the crowd saying he's out of harmony with church teachings and should be called on the carpet, just as Kate Kelly was. No question about it. But, that's not the same thing as trying to fellowship those who self identify as 'gay' and their families and help them not feel so isolated and rejected within the church by planning activities and get togethers. So far, that's what I see of his attempts. And, he had the approval of his Stake Pres., so he followed the rules in doing this. The fifth sunday meeting, third block was not abused--it is the Bishop's right to use this time for discussing things that he feels inspired should be covered. From what I perceive, the Bishop was not trying to normalize Homosexuality, he's just trying to follow the Savior's example and fellowship people who need the Savior and the atonement in their lives.

I wonder if the Church is "handling" the Julie Rowe situation - and if so, how. None of my business (or yours), but I wonder how much confidence you have in the church leaders who oversee her?I have a great deal of confidence in them. Seeing how she is a MUCH more public and prolific person, with a MUCH larger audience than this Riverton Bishop - and since we already know Church HQ is aware of her and what she's preaching - don't you think they will "handle the situation"? I've already said that, but I've also admitted that I don't know the whole case, I've said I think she's gotten worse in her delusions because she's not taking medications, which she needs. If they don't do anything about her, I'm not going to call for their heads on a pike, I'll trust that they know more than me and hold stewardship over her. And if so, why do you start threads about her, and post comments about her, so frequently? Why not just let her be and let Church HQ take care of her situation? Why do you "get all up in arms" over JR? Are you "questioning" her Bishop's and stake president's commitment to upholding gospel standards? Seems like it, otherwise, you'd just ignore her and let her local Church leadership deal with her.Emmalee, I doubt you can find a posting where I've ever questioned her Bishop or Stake presidents commitment to upholding Gospel standards, ever.
I did not post about her for a long time, as she's not been in the spotlight, doing radio interviews for a while. I started some threads when I was apprised of some things in her podcasts and started listening to them. I feel that bringing attention to the mistakes, problems and glaring falsehoods and false teachings is a way to warn posters on the forum to not get sucked into her delusions. I'm not starting threads on her to get her in 'trouble' with church leaders. If I wanted to do that, I'd sent a letter to church headquarters. And I'd sign my name, give my ward and stake information and provide my reasons. But, I'm not going to do that because I don't feel it is my place to. Her Bishop and the members of her ward know what's going on and they have a lot more knowledge on her and her situation and I'm confident that if the Lord wants something done about Julie Rowe, they will be impressed to do something.

This situation with the Bishop, is far graver, as he is in a priesthood leadership position with direct influence over people - he signs people's temple recommends, etc. But yes, we should all just ignore the FACT that he invited people who have been excommunicated from the LDS Church to preach during the formal Sunday block of meetings in a dedicated LDS Church building. You do know that he received approval from the Stake Pres. to do this....do you think the SP would have given approval for an exed person to preach and undermine church standards? I don't, so I don't believe you are describing what happened accurately. No biggie. Oh wait, that goes against the Church - seeing how ANYONE (except people living in same-sex relationships, I guess??) who is currently involved in a disciplinary council, or ANYONE who has been disfellowshipped or excommunicated (such as the women "married" to other women who the Bishop invited and asked to preach to the LDS people in his ward) is not allowed to speak or pray in any Sunday meetings in any LDS congregation. But they're gay, so it's okay.I don't believe the Bishop or the Stake Pres. would attempt to undermine gospel standards. I don't think that was the intention and I seriously doubt that's what happened. But, if we really want to know what happened, we'd have to have been there and so far, no one on this thread was actually in attendance at that meeting. Therefore, I think I'll give the Bishop and the Stake Pres. the benefit of the doubt that this meeting was not set up to promote or encourage Homosexual behavior or to undermine the church's clear stance on homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.

I'm glad people call out (no pun intended) Julie Rowe and Denver Snuffer, et al, on their crap. No one should be exempt from being called out on their crap - including Bishops - otherwise, it's a double-standard and hypocritical.

[yjacket]

All three members of our current stake presidency are under age 45. In fact, now that I stop and think about it, the last time we had a Bishop who was over 50 was 30 years ago when we moved here - it was a branch then, so he was the Branch President. Since then, after our branch was made a ward (then two wards, now three), all the Bishops of our ward have been under 50 when called - every single one of them - with the latest three Bishops being very early 40's when called. Interesting.

It's a pipeline process. It happens in all organizations and bureaucracies- you pick out a few people who look to have promise for leadership and they are given opportunities that lead to more opportunities, etc.

Some Bishops become Stake Presidents, some SPs become Mission Presidents, some MP become Temple Presidents or 70s, some 70s become GAs, some GAs become Apostles, etc. As much as we like to think of David, in the modern Church there would never be a David. Each of those positions require 5+ years of service. Just natural human lifespan and for there to be SPs that aren't in their 70s you need to call younger men. It is rare to have an older Bishop, most are 40s-50s.

[yjacket]

Sigh, It's sad most people do not see the homosexual Agenda for what it really is. Just read After the Ball; there is a calculated movement to gain widespread acceptance of homosexuality and it's behavior. So, so many good people are completely and utterly duped by it's language.

You have to understand code words. "Love and support" really means accept my behavior. If you read the 3rd party, it is very clear that is what she advocated .. . .on Sunday . . .in an LDS chapel . . .from the pulpit . . .and people think this is acceptable . . we're doomed (sigh).

[yjacket]

My responses in blue;
You do know that he received approval from the Stake Pres. to do this....do you think the SP would have given approval for an exed person to preach and undermine church standards?

And the SP is an idiot. Do you really think he read the talks beforehand? Any leader that allows an ex-comm member to speak from the pulpit without pre-approval of what they would say is a moron and just asking for trouble. And even if they do approve of it, they are still asking for trouble.

This isn't hard. We excommunicate people for a reason and then to give them a voice on Sunday . . .let them be baptized 1st.

Sometimes we have really, really dumb leaders . . .and in general the world is sorely lacking in actual leaders. And sadly, the way it is looking, in my lifetime I might find myself on the outside looking in and I'm about as TBM as they get . . .I just haven't shifted as the world has shifted, if anything I've become more conservative in my morals.

Being a leader isn't about being "nice and kind". Being a parent is all about being a leader, but if all you are to your child is nice and kind, you will end up with a spoiled brat.

[EmmaLee]

My responses in blue;

You don't have to provide references and footnotes but a link to what you are talking about is helpful.

It's apparent you have little confidence in local church leaders, but don't you have confidence in those who oversee them? If what this Bishop set up was not in keeping with church teachings and would offend leaders above the Stake Presidents, don't you think they will handle the situation? It's not like they don't know about this.

If you are looking for others who will get all up in arms over this, question the commitment of these two Bishops and the Stake Pres. to upholding Gospel Standards, I think you've found some on this forum who'll be happy to join you, unfortunately.

Links have been provided - several times by several different posters.Yes, thank you. I've read them, but so far, I haven't seen proof that the Bishop in question is lobbying for the acceptance of Same sex marriage in the church or trying to get the church to stop calling homosexual sexual relations a sin. IF you can show me that, then absolutely, I will join the crowd saying he's out of harmony with church teachings and should be called on the carpet, just as Kate Kelly was. No question about it.
I'm rapidly running out of time, but I'll try to reply as best I can. Have you read at least a few weeks worth of this Bishop's Facebook posts from his own account? Yes or no? If the answer is no, then I can't help you. I'm not going to go to his FB account and cut and paste a bunch of quotes. Maybe you can borrow a friend's FB account or something and go read for yourself. If you actually have read the Bishop's FB posts and comments over a span of several weeks or so, and you still believe he is not doing anything against LDS Church standards and gospel doctrine, then I just really don't know what to say. We'll have to go our separate ways on this matter, because it's plain as day to me and many others. And yes, it is very painful to realize this.

But, that's not the same thing as trying to fellowship those who self identify as 'gay' and their families and help them not feel so isolated and rejected within the church by planning activities and get togethers. So far, that's what I see of his attempts.
I have zero problem being friends with people who live in ways that separate them from the Church. I have several close family members who have broken pretty much every commandment, except murder - including four of my seven siblings. I love them all - I associate with them all - I do what I can to encourage them, etc. We actually have good relationships. I wish people would stop conflating fellowshipping people with condoning their behavior. They are two very different things, and one does not preclude the other. NO ONE here is saying to ignore or be mean to those with same-sex attraction or to anyone else (that I've seen anyway).

And, he had the approval of his Stake Pres., so he followed the rules in doing this.
How do you know this? I've read from many different sources about this meeting - including the Bishop's own words on the matter - and nowhere have I read or seen that he had the approval of his stake president. Please give me a link to where you found that information. I do know a member of the stake presidency gave the opening prayer at this meeting, but beyond that, I can't find any information stating anything about approval from higher-ups. This Bishop also, according to his own words on his own FB page, video recorded the entire meeting - then sent the video to Church HQ in SLC to get approval to distribute it - he did NOT get permission to do that, and was told he was WRONG to video the meeting as NO Sunday meetings are to be video'd inside the Church building without PRIOR approval. So that tells me, again, in the Bishop's own words - that he did NOT have the stake president's approval, and he DEFINITELY did not have the Church's approval. Also, the Bishop invited two excommunicated women to preach during this 2nd & 3rd hour meeting held in the dedicated LDS Church building. I don't have time right now to look it up in the CHI, but unless something has changed very recently, that is a HUGE no-no. Excommunicated people are not to be asked to, or allowed to, speak or pray in LDS Sunday meetings. He had two formerly LDS women who were both "married" to two other women, speak at this combined RS/PH meeting. If Church HQ OR his stake president condoned that, then I really, really want to know that for a fact. Give me a link that I can verify, or I will not believe that the Church has changed position on this.

The fifth sunday meeting, third block was not abused--it is the Bishop's right to use this time for discussing things that he feels inspired should be covered. From what I perceive, the Bishop was not trying to normalize Homosexuality, he's just trying to follow the Savior's example and fellowship people who need the Savior and the atonement in their lives. The meeting actually took place during both 2nd and 3rd hours of the Sunday block. The Bishop also invited, according to his own words, 150 pro-LGBTQetc. to the meeting, which according to the Bishop, had about 300 people total in attendance (it was held in the Cultural Hall - which still forbids filming during the Sunday block). I understand that you really do not want to believe this Bishop did anything wrong - I can sympathize with that desire. But the facts show differently.

I wonder if the Church is "handling" the Julie Rowe situation - and if so, how. None of my business (or yours), but I wonder how much confidence you have in the church leaders who oversee her?I have a great deal of confidence in them. Seeing how she is a MUCH more public and prolific person, with a MUCH larger audience than this Riverton Bishop - and since we already know Church HQ is aware of her and what she's preaching - don't you think they will "handle the situation"? I've already said that, but I've also admitted that I don't know the whole case, I've said I think she's gotten worse in her delusions because she's not taking medications, which she needs. If they don't do anything about her, I'm not going to call for their heads on a pike, I'll trust that they know more than me and hold stewardship over her. And if so, why do you start threads about her, and post comments about her, so frequently? Why not just let her be and let Church HQ take care of her situation? Why do you "get all up in arms" over JR? Are you "questioning" her Bishop's and stake president's commitment to upholding gospel standards? Seems like it, otherwise, you'd just ignore her and let her local Church leadership deal with her.Emmalee, I doubt you can find a posting where I've ever questioned her Bishop or Stake presidents commitment to upholding Gospel standards, ever.
I think you missed my point in bringing up JR, and I honestly do not have time to delve into it again right now.


I did not post about her for a long time, as she's not been in the spotlight, doing radio interviews for a while. I started some threads when I was apprised of some things in her podcasts and started listening to them. I feel that bringing attention to the mistakes, problems and glaring falsehoods and false teachings is a way to warn posters on the forum to not get sucked into her delusions.
And some people on this thread are trying to do the same with what this Bishop has done and is doing - which is FAR worse than anything JR has done or is doing. She's not signing anyone's temple recommends - nor does she hold any type of priesthood authority over anyone, that I'm aware of. Whether people want to admit it or not, this is a massively divisive issue, and not just with the lay members of the Church. Trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist is a terrible thing to do. One of my sisters, her husband, two of their adult children, their spouses, and all of their children (teenagers) have all left the Church over this very issue. They believe the Church should allow gay marriages. They started out sounding exactly like you - "we need to be loving and kind and fellowship these people", etc. Then they started attending the types of things/events this Bishop and his wife promote and organize - cruises for gay people, gay game night at their house once a month, sponsoring gay businesses (this is all blatantly spelled out in the Bishop's own words on his FB pages) - and it was only a matter of months before they had gone from being fully active, temple recommend holding, in leadership positions (what?? you mean they can be deceived, too??) salt of the earth LDS people - to discarding their garments, throwing away their recommends, and spending all their free time advocating for "gay rights" IN THE CHURCH. And they are just a drop in the bucket. In fact, my sister's husband is a FB friend of Bishop Augenstein - imagine my surprise (or not) when I was scrolling through his FB friend list and saw my brother-in-laws name. So anyway, like I said before - this is NOT about not loving and caring about people. This is about an AGENDA, and that agenda IS alive and well right here inside the LDS Church - and those who refuse to see or admit that will fall the hardest when it finally becomes too obvious to deny any longer. But, to each their own.

I'm not starting threads on her to get her in 'trouble' with church leaders. If I wanted to do that, I'd sent a letter to church headquarters. And I'd sign my name, give my ward and stake information and provide my reasons. But, I'm not going to do that because I don't feel it is my place to. Her Bishop and the members of her ward know what's going on and they have a lot more knowledge on her and her situation and I'm confident that if the Lord wants something done about Julie Rowe, they will be impressed to do something.

This situation with the Bishop, is far graver, as he is in a priesthood leadership position with direct influence over people - he signs people's temple recommends, etc. But yes, we should all just ignore the FACT that he invited people who have been excommunicated from the LDS Church to preach during the formal Sunday block of meetings in a dedicated LDS Church building. You do know that he received approval from the Stake Pres. to do this....do you think the SP would have given approval for an exed person to preach and undermine church standards?
Again, please show me where the stake president gave his approval for two excommunicated, sexually active with other women, women to speak at an official Sunday meeting in a dedicated LDS building. Please, I beg of you. There are only two possibilities - 1) the stake president did NOT give his approval for this, and very likely, did not even know what was happening until it was in process or over with, or 2) the stake president has fallen for the same agenda as the Bishop has. There are no other possibilities. Because the FACTS are that it DID happen.

I don't, so I don't believe you are describing what happened accurately.
Well, that comes back to where are you getting your information from exactly? Because I'm getting my information from Bishop Augenstein.

No biggie. Oh wait, that goes against the Church - seeing how ANYONE (except people living in same-sex relationships, I guess??) who is currently involved in a disciplinary council, or ANYONE who has been disfellowshipped or excommunicated (such as the women "married" to other women who the Bishop invited and asked to preach to the LDS people in his ward) is not allowed to speak or pray in any Sunday meetings in any LDS congregation. But they're gay, so it's okay.I don't believe the Bishop or the Stake Pres. would attempt to undermine gospel standards. I don't think that was the intention and I seriously doubt that's what happened.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are wrong. That is exactly what happened - at least according to the Bishop. I'm sorry if you don't want to believe it, but you just repeating that it didn't happen, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I realize people will believe what they want, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary (which is all available on his FB pages).

But, if we really want to know what happened, we'd have to have been there and so far, no one on this thread was actually in attendance at that meeting. Therefore, I think I'll give the Bishop and the Stake Pres. the benefit of the doubt that this meeting was not set up to promote or encourage Homosexual behavior or to undermine the church's clear stance on homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.
You are welcome to believe what you want. You are sorely mistaken about this though. I, and others, aren't making any of this up - it's all there in black and white for anyone/everyone to read - which you obviously have not done - or you would know the truth of it.

I'm glad people call out (no pun intended) Julie Rowe and Denver Snuffer, et al, on their crap. No one should be exempt from being called out on their crap - including Bishops - otherwise, it's a double-standard and hypocritical.

[Sunain]

Here's the problem with what you said. 'Homosexual' means having an attraction for someone of the same sex. THAT is not a sin. Engaging in Homosexual sexual relations IS a sin. Do you understand the difference? The church is trying to get people like you to see a difference because there is a difference. The church wants to make it clear that those who have homosexual tendencies, but choose not to act out those desires, are welcome to full fellowship within the church, just like anybody else.

What the church says on their gay website is current church policy not church doctrine. The site was created for 'tolerance' with the issue. Just 6 months ago the church fired a professor for literally saying the same thing you just did.

Mormon University Professor Fired for Saying that Homosexuality Isn't Sinful
Date: 7/19/17 at 5:20 PM
A Mormon professor at an Idaho university affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was fired after writing a private Facebook post in which she said that, contrary to the views of the church, homosexuality is not a sin.
http://www.newsweek.com/mormon-universi ... sin-639358

The inconstant message from the top all the way to bishops like in this topic is the main problem plaguing the church currently. The church taught for years the homosexuality is a mental choice, something I still believe to be the root cause; one needs to choose to go against man's natural tenancies.

[cyclOps]

Wait, wait, wait.... let me get this straight.

[yjacket]

The inconstant message from the top all the way to bishops like in this topic is the main problem plaguing the church currently. The church taught for years the homosexuality is a mental choice, something I still believe to be the root cause; one needs to choose to go against man's natural tenancies.

Recently the Church has tried to take a very nuanced view/position on homosexual issues. They issue things like LoveLoud, support legislation and then say homosexual behavior is bad . . .in general people don't do very well with nuanced positions.

[Thinker]

What will the average church member do if/when the church changes its policy on homosexuals?

I don't think the church is likely to make such a change until the majority of members want it. Therefore, when the change is made, the average member of the church will rejoice.

Yeah, we do everything by vote, and we all know how much homosexual fanatics honor the democratic process so I’m sure you’re right.
^Sarcasm^

[Thinker]

Just a note, I actually do believe in being kind to people who are attracted to the same sex. However, I have noticed that a lot of talk has been focused on gay teen suicide. Yes, that is tragic. However, how much focus do we give to all the heterosexual men out there who commit suicide after a divorce? Bet a lot of people on this forum know of at least one instance of this.

Good point. That is one example of the neurosis common among homosexual fanatics. It’s ALL about them. And the “love” that some like this bishop seems to show is very conditional because it’s got blinders on to the many people who are suffering much more but they go ignored because they don’t have propaganda pressuring everyone to focus on them. And his love is misguided because he’s caring more about putting on a politically biased show using church fascilities & members time, than researching beyond homosexual lies to consider the facts like how statistically, homosexuality proves to be unhealthy and seriously hurting those engaged in it. If he really cared, he would have explained the STDs, AIDS/HIV, mental illness, drug abuse and anal sex risks associated with living a homosexual lifestyle, but not one word about important facts like that. Why would he hide such important facts? Maybe because he’d rather have praises of men.

[Thinker]

Sigh, It's sad most people do not see the homosexual Agenda for what it really is. Just read After the Ball; there is a calculated movement to gain widespread acceptance of homosexuality and it's behavior. So, so many good people are completely and utterly duped by it's language.

You have to understand code words. "Love and support" really means accept my behavior. If you read the 3rd party, it is very clear that is what she advocated .. . .on Sunday . . .in an LDS chapel . . .from the pulpit . . .and people think this is acceptable . . we're doomed (sigh).

I’m glad you’ve learned about what’s going on behind the scenes. As mentioned, homosexual fanatics have been practicing systematic mind control that was written in books like “After the Ball” in the 1980’s and can be seen played out. It’s deceptive and evil - but effective, as seen by getting people to do their bidding as this bishop did, despite breaking church rules and despite disrespecting members. They’re trained to refer to anyone who questions negative facts about homosexuality as “BIGOT, hater, homophobe” or other put downs and their manipulation plays on the common desire for people to LOOK kind/loving. Ironically- or hypocritically- they are engaged in bigotry with their intollerance to opinions different from their own.

Homosexual strategies to force people to approve of homosexuality as written in “After The Ball”...

”The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and as--- people who say not only '@#$%@!' but 'nigger,' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.

When our ads show a bigot--just like the members of the target audience--being criticized, hated, and shunned, we make use of Direct Emotional Modeling as well. Remember, a bigot seeks approval and liking from 'his crowd.' When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel --and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt, Jamming any pleasure he might normally feel. In a very real sense, every time a bigot sees such a thing, he is un- learning a little bit of the lesson of prejudice taught him by his parents and peers.”
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html

[captainfearnot]

Yeah, we do everything by vote, and we all know how much homosexual fanatics honor the democratic process so I’m sure you’re right.
^Sarcasm^

Voting has nothing to do with it. The leadership has ways of gauging the interests and positions of the membership, whenever they deem it relevant. Inspiration, of course, but I'm sure they are also required to "study it out in their minds" using all the means available to them. I recall a survey about temple attendance that went out shortly before some significant changes in the initiatory, for instance.

And don't forget that a sizable portion of the membership takes their marching orders on such issues from the church. They favor the church's position today, and as soon as it changes, they will immediately favor the new position.

[simpleton]

Vice ( LGBT) is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, ( saturated across all media) familiar with her face,
We first endure, (past that stage) then pity, ( past that stage) then embrace. ( well...mostly there also)

Very plainly, just by the tolerating of sin, embracing the sinner in their sins, and for that matter like one of the apostles brother in his own words saying that it is not a sin, but " just another way of life " should show us where we are at today. We are fully enveloped in Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah. And you all can dream all you want to in fairytale land, but face it, the LGBT agenda is here to stay in the church and we are witnessing it happening now. It is just simply a matter of time before it becomes the norm in church. As it is now we are scrapping about "the thought" and "the act" , ok to think and lust, but just don't act. Really???,,,,,, can the Spirit of God truly abide when you are lusting be you "straight" or "LGBT"??? ,,, not according to the scriptures. Commiting " adultery" in your heart absolutely drives the Spirit of God far away from you. It is just the same with SSA.... the whole purpose in life is to learn to overcome our lusts of the flesh, to deny ourselves. But when we seek to excuse ourselves in sin we give power to the enemy of all righteousness. As stated above what is going on is truly an agenda and has been from day one. But we should also ask ourselves why is sodomy becoming so rampant in our church, what are we doing wrong, I have never run across any problems in early day church history with sodomy in the LDS youth. Unless they kept it completely under wraps, which I do not believe. Then to cap it off, according to some survey, suicide among " mormon" youth is at the top of most religions in America. So why is that? What is going on with us? It's our children for heavens sake.
Personally I agree with what apostle Paul had to say that directly addresses this problem, and, I think that what he said fits us perfect. After all it is only those that have had the truth according to him, and do not love it, (The truth) that the curse seems to fall upon...

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; We most assuredly claim to hold the truth.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. Yes we claim God has shown us the truth.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Ahhh, we are left without excuse.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Interesting but we even verbally fight with each other with our claims of "
The spirit"

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Christus statues, supposed "Paintings of Christ" just to name a few.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: This is interesting in that because of the above listed reasons, mainly of "having the truth" having it revealed to us, but, not loving the truth, and then we change the truth into a " corruptable image ", we glorify not God, in spite of the fact that He is revealed to us, then we have the audacity to blame God why we are that way, " its not our fault we were "born that way". Well I suppose if you want to blame God for having those "SSA attractions" , it is true, except that there is one problem, IT IS OUR FAULT not His, as below He cursed us with a " reprobate mind/spirit...

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Now that is an understatement.

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Oh but full of unnatural affection.

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. And there you have it, such awful politically incorrect terrible statement " worthy of death"..