Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[mgridle1]

Testimony meeting in Utah:
"The Pride parade route is actually in my ward boundaries. It's an inner city congregation where a lot of people are in transition and feel safe expressing their fears and mistakes. It gives us all permission to be human.

Testimonies today were full of raw feelings--I believed them when they told of being worked on by the Spirit. But then one testifier's angst came from being distracted on his way to church: "Father's children are walking naked on the street."

There was a lull and I got up. I thanked those who had spoken "without inhibition" because I believed it was part of healing. I thanked members and leaders for making the ward a safe space.

I described marching with Mormons Building Bridges the first time, how it was conceived as a message of unconditional love, the fear that we might be booed, but rounding the corner behind the grand marshall and having the crowd go wild.

I said I was grateful for the chance to be vulnerable and being able to bring the parts of myself that need healing to the altar each week. And the opportunity to build bridges.

The woman after me described watching us in the parade from her balcony and feeling a wave of joy and love, communion and healing. She told about her bisexual son, and gay niece and nephew.

Another woman described marching in the very first Utah Pride parade and her advocacy during early years of AIDS.

People were coming out!"

AI you going to roundly condemn these people at a testimony meeting for this?? Anyone?? Lol, Church has become political b/c the left made it so and it's starting to spill into Testimony meetings.

It's going to get a whole lot worse . . . just wait . . .

I'm in Utah and there was nothing mentioned in the sacrament meeting I attended about homosexuality. I've never, ever witnessed it, even after one of our Young Men arrogantly came out as a gay kid a few months ago. 2 other families in the ward, that I'm aware of, have daughters who are gay. There's no lectures about acceptance. Many times testimony meetings take on their own topic, which I believe is usually spirit driven. Yesterday's Sacrament meeting seemed to revolve around the Temple and the work therein. It was for the most part uplifting.

I personally think it is a disease, a disease of the mind that can spread like wildfire without proper training. I grew up in a decent size ward, I attended Stake Youth Conferences, knew quite a bit of youth around the stake (many friends were in completely different wards), we hung out, etc.

And not 1 single time, not once was there EVER a kid who came out as homosexual. We did know of a kid who ended up sexually abusing some family members-but that was it.

[shadow]

I personally think it is a disease, a disease of the mind that can spread like wildfire without proper training. I grew up in a decent size ward, I attended Stake Youth Conferences, knew quite a bit of youth around the stake (many friends were in completely different wards), we hung out, etc.

And not 1 single time, not once was there EVER a kid who came out as homosexual. We did know of a kid who ended up sexually abusing some family members-but that was it.

I remember in high school in the early 90's I was taking an Anatomy and Physiology class. The teacher said there were a few gay kids in school. We were like "nah, we don't know any gay kids". Those were the days!

[captainfearnot]

I remember in high school in the early 90's I was taking an Anatomy and Physiology class. The teacher said there were a few gay kids in school. We were like "nah, we don't know any gay kids". Those were the days!

Are we saying that there weren't as many gays back in the good ol' days, or that they were just better about staying in the closet where they belong?

You guys might be interested in Eric D. Snider's latest column, in which he describes being gay at BYU. He's in his mid-40s now and only came out publicly a few years ago. He says he didn't even admit to being gay in his journal during college. I was there at the same time as him and was a fan of his work, and had no idea he was gay.

[illyume]

If the Holy Ghost tells you to jump of a 100 foot cliff, it’s probably not the Holy Ghost.
If the Holy Ghost tells you that you are a monkey, not a human being, it’s probably not the Holy Ghost.
If you are a woman and the Holy Ghost tells you that you are a man, it’s probably not the Holy Ghost.
If the Holy Ghost tells you to have your child spend time with people who are sexually disturbed, it’s probably not the Holy Ghost.

I see you subscribe to the Jeff Foxworthy school of theology. But in all seriousness, if the things God tells us are so obviously true or not, then why does he need to tell us at all? Seems all of the above could be managed without divine intervention.

It makes more sense that God would intervene when our own moral compass is not enough to guide us to his will. For example, Nephi's conscience would have prevented him from slaying Laban had not God directly intervened. And Abraham did not dismiss the command to kill his own son as "probably not the Holy Ghost" as your criteria above would suggest he do.

As Lizzy is fond of reminding us, it is not our place to limit God. He can command us to do literally anything, including murder in cold blood, sacrifice our own children, or take extra wives without telling Emma. So yes, he could tell us to jump off a 100 foot cliff, etc. We cannot judge whether personal revelation is genuine based on its content, because God is not limited by what appears good and right to our mortal minds.

For many faithful members of the church, the notion that God would instruct someone not to pay a full tithe is as obviously false as the notion that he would command someone to jump off a cliff. There must be some other way to know with certainty that the message we are hearing is originating with God. Then, once the message is deemed to be of divine origin, we are compelled to obey, no matter how it may seem to contradict other commandments. Right?

This really seems like a dangerous line of thinking, to me...

[Tbone]

I remember in high school in the early 90's I was taking an Anatomy and Physiology class. The teacher said there were a few gay kids in school. We were like "nah, we don't know any gay kids". Those were the days!

Are we saying that there weren't as many gays back in the good ol' days, or that they were just better about staying in the closet where they belong?

You guys might be interested in Eric D. Snider's latest column, in which he describes being gay at BYU. He's in his mid-40s now and only came out publicly a few years ago. He says he didn't even admit to being gay in his journal during college. I was there at the same time as him and was a fan of his work, and had no idea he was gay.

I was really good friends with some people close to Eric Snider during the 1997-98 school year. I don't think he had come out even to them, but yeah, they totally knew he was gay. I just remember him as not being super friendly the few times I met him, but he probably thought I was just another crazed Snide Remarks fan. Of course, he would have been correct.

[Thinker]

Jesus didn’t kill and told us not only to not kill, but to not hold on to anger. He healed people, even his enemy’s ear. I don’t care how scriptures have been written or warped to conflict with Christ’s greatest commandments. The Christ I know is about turning the other cheek, forgiveness and love - striving for what’s best spiritually and in other ways.

You are right, actually Jesus did not kill. And did teach all of the above and more. But, we all die as pertaining to the flesh, so do we die because somebody that we know not of, takes our life? Who controls life and death, who is it that giveth life and also taketh away? Who is it that takes the life of the infant, or of the child in his youth, or of the young adult, or of the middle aged , and the aged?
And what good parent is there that will not discipline his child when they are disobedient. And what country is there that will not charge a criminal with his crimes and make him suffer the penalties thereof. And even unto death if proven by first degree murder, a life for a life. So, Capitol punishment it practiced here in America as a means of justice. So why cannot God do as He pleases with His children when we step out of line? Why cannot He "sweep" with a besom of destruction a complete society or nation or even the whole world except for 8 as in the flood? The scriptures are full from one end to the other of God dealing with His children as a Loving Parent. And there are times when it must needs be that He removes from the earth by various means complete nations, when their cup is full. And I think that it is an act of mercy. Again, we all die by one means or another, every single last one of us. But to die with a hope in Christ is one thing, but to die in our sins is another. The sting of death is sin.
Another thing, Christ died a violent death, and , He said that the servant is not greater than the Master, and like as they despised the Master and murdered Him they would likewise do unto the servants.
I do not have a problem at all with the annihilation of complete cities, nations, peoples. Because, I believe their cup was full and that it was an actual act of mercy that God took their lives by whatever means. And I think it is going to happen here in America as our cup is getting quite full of iniquity and wickedness.

I have a feeling if YOU or your loved ones were part of the group being killed then you WOULD “have a problem at all with the annihilation of complete cities, nations, peoples.”

Who are the hands of God? We are.
Who are the hands of the adversary? We are.

Yes I agree, that I would have a problem if it was me and mine, but, where I differ is that I do believe that there is a God who is our literal Father In Heaven that controls the destiny of this world and nations and people.And that He giveth life and He taketh. But also in this testing ground He allows our agency to do good and to do evil. And also He commands some of His children to annihilate others it seems. But at other times the wicked also try and destroy the righteous. And also He it seems, does His own annihilation, when our cup gets full, through the elements, be it tornados, earthquakes, fire, flood, disease, etc. But really it mattereth not if we die or live as pertaining to the flesh, if we die unto God. All die and it is part of the eternal process.
Whether we believe in God or not does not change the facts of whether He exists. That was the main point of Josephs experience/testimony, was that he, Joseph, claimed to have seen the Father and the Son as 2 distinct separate individual Beings. And that They were Men like unto us and that They were the Father and the Son. And that set the christian world on fire. As they refused to believe it. But it is what I believe.
We have certain powers within us, but to think we have all power to the diminishing of God is incorrect principle. We are to abase ourselves in this life and take a backseat and be meek and lowly. Then if we do what is right and have charity, in the end God will raise us up to be one with Him. But first we must learn to become one in this life.

No, sorry, I still don’t buy it.
“God is LIFE.” Saying God is death is contrary to the nature of God.
I don’t believe that God commands killing except in self-defense.
All of the times that God is blamed for wars etc, were evil human projections on God, not God (GOoD), Life and Love itself.

[captainfearnot]

This really seems like a dangerous line of thinking, to me...

Absolutely it is. This kind of thinking leads to Ron Lafferty.

I'm asking the Lizzies of the world to contemplate exactly what kind of power they are playing with when they claim that God speaks to them in full sentences.

"God told me so" is the ultimate trump card. No one can argue against a purely subjective personal revelatory experience. (Which is precisely why it should have no place in collective discourse.) But those who are fond of playing this card need to recognize that it's a double edged sword. Other people can play it, too. And if you don't want your own claims to divine mandate to be summarily dismissed by those who disagree with your conclusions, then you probably shouldn't be so quick to dismiss others claiming the same thing. It makes your own belief in revelation appear selective and self-serving.

God has never spoken to me in an explicit or unambiguous way, so I am left to follow the Brethren and the scriptures as best I can. But in a way I'm glad. I don't envy the responsibility of determining the difference between God's voice and my own imagination.

In order to make sense of the scripture stories I mentioned, I have to convince myself that God has some way of communicating with mankind in a way that cannot be mistaken with delusion or hallucination. I can't even imagine what that would look like, but I can't abide Nephi or Abraham doing what they did because of a spiritual feeling or a dream or something similarly ambiguous.

If God does command his children to kill one another with nothing more than voices or visions, then we can't rule out that Ron Lafferty was acting on genuine revelation, and that he is even now doing exactly what God wants him to be doing.

[Thinker]

This really seems like a dangerous line of thinking, to me...

Absolutely it is.

Captainfearnot,
Good for you!
The first step in changing is acknowledging when your thinking is dangerous.

[EmmaLee]

And it continues to grow and grow:
Now we have missionaries who participate in Pride Parades:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mormonsbuildingbridges/
"Look who came to the Mormons Building Bridges booth at Pride today - a pair of Elders! They couldn't help hug (missionary rules), but they gave out handshakes and high fives with us for a little while"

I wonder what their mission president/the Church would say if LDS missionaries were proudly hanging around a bunch of polygamists?

mormons.jpg (104.02 KiB) Viewed 4141 times

[Robin Hood]

If these missionaries were serving in my ward I'd have them transferred out of town so fast they wouldn't know what day of the week it was.

[captainfearnot]

If these missionaries were serving in my ward I'd have them transferred out of town so fast they wouldn't know what day of the week it was.

I have to agree. That double hang-ten sign is pretty egregious.

[abijah]

This really seems like a dangerous line of thinking, to me...

Absolutely it is.

Captainfearnot,
Good for you!
The first step in changing is acknowledging when your thinking is dangerous.

I tend to feel on edge unless my thinking is dangerous! Maybe something's wrong with me??

[Tbone]

If these missionaries were serving in my ward I'd have them transferred out of town so fast they wouldn't know what day of the week it was.

I have to agree. That double hang-ten sign is pretty egregious.

It was created by a Mormon, so that makes it okay. http://www.ldsliving.com/Did-You-Know-a ... gn/s/82807

[braingrunt]

I hope the brethren send clear signals soon. Is what the Augenstein's are doing, OK with them?

[captainfearnot]

It was created by a Mormon, so that makes it okay. http://www.ldsliving.com/Did-You-Know-a ... gn/s/82807

I think I'm just working through my own issues with cringe-worthy mission pictures. I could totally be that kid.

[Tbone]

It was created by a Mormon, so that makes it okay. http://www.ldsliving.com/Did-You-Know-a ... gn/s/82807

I think I'm just working through my own issues with cringe-worthy mission pictures. I could totally be that kid.

I definitely hear you there!

If it's any consolation, when I was in the MTC President Monson shared a story of a missionary who did something so dumb that 11 of the 12 apostles wanted to send him home until Elder LeGrand Richards said, "If the Lord wanted to put a 60 year old head on a 19 year old body he would've done it." Young missionaries do some really dumb things sometimes.

[EmmaLee]

I hope the brethren send clear signals soon. Is what the Augenstein's are doing, OK with them?

I believe Bro. Augenstein is still the Bishop, so....

[Thinker]

This really seems like a dangerous line of thinking, to me...

Absolutely it is.

Captainfearnot,
Good for you!
The first step in changing is acknowledging when your thinking is dangerous.

I tend to feel on edge unless my thinking is dangerous! Maybe something's wrong with me??

No, Abijah, you’re pretty much as insane as the rest of us.
Speaking the truth is often dangerous.

But I think Illyume was referring to Captainfearnot’s distorted ideas like jumping to conclusions, blaming, generalizations etc.
But at least he’s acknowledged he’s got a problem so, there’s hope!

[Sirius]

And it continues to grow and grow:
Now we have missionaries who participate in Pride Parades:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mormonsbuildingbridges/
"Look who came to the Mormons Building Bridges booth at Pride today - a pair of Elders! They couldn't help hug (missionary rules), but they gave out handshakes and high fives with us for a little while"

I wonder what their mission president/the Church would say if LDS missionaries were proudly hanging around a bunch of polygamists?

mormons.jpg

Question 7 of the current temple recommend interview evolved (1976 3. Do you have any connection, in sympathy or otherwise, with any of the apostate groups or individuals who are running counter to the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?) to weed out those associating or agreeing with polygamist or apostate groups and individuals.

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Yet we see more and more "affiliating" or "agreeing" by members and even leaders (looking at you bishop Augenstein), with groups or individuals that would be hard pressed to align with the remaining 14 questions asked in the recommend interview. Ironically, many polygamists would have a much easier time aligning with the remaining 14 questions.

Much like the patterns of the past, the current members seem to be in need of being commanded in all things, as shown in the evolution of the temple recommend interview questions, ranging from 1856 to present.

Interestingly enough in the history of the temple recommend interview questions, the belief in the plurality of wives, was required to enter the temple. http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2013/ ... rview.html

1856, Mar 2: "The persons who can get their endowments must be those who pray, who pay their tithing from year to year; who live the lives of saints from day to day; setting good examples before their neighbors. Men and women, boys and girls over 16 years of age who are living the lives of saints, believe in the plurality [of wives], do not speak evil of the authorities of the Church, and possess true integrity towards their friends, can come up after their spring crops are sown, and their case shall be attended to." (First presidency letter to Stake Presidents and Bishops in Iron and Washington Counties, Mar 2 1856, in Parowan Historical Record, Mar. 16 1856, 13.)

My how times have changed.

[illyume]

Question 7 of the current temple recommend interview evolved (1976 3. Do you have any connection, in sympathy or otherwise, with any of the apostate groups or individuals who are running counter to the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?) to weed out those associating or agreeing with polygamist or apostate groups and individuals.

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Difficult when a member of one's family is part of the following category of apostasy, isn't it?

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

Are in a same-gender marriage.

Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

What exactly counts as "support" or "affiliation" with/for a family member, to the degree where one no longer qualifies for a temple recommend?

[EmmaLee]

Difficult when a member of one's family is part of the following category of apostasy, isn't it?

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

Are in a same-gender marriage.

Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

What exactly counts as "support" or "affiliation" with/for a family member, to the degree where one no longer qualifies for a temple recommend?

I asked my bishop and stake president that very question during my interviews last year, mainly because four of my seven siblings believe in/have "teachings or practices [that] are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". They both kind of chuckled (odd) and said basically, "That applies to all of us - we all have apostates in our families." And so we do. Not to mention friends, neighbors, and even other ward members who fit under one or more of the "apostate" categories as they are listed. So, I dunno, maybe eliminate that pointless question?

[Sirius]

Question 7 of the current temple recommend interview evolved (1976 3. Do you have any connection, in sympathy or otherwise, with any of the apostate groups or individuals who are running counter to the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?) to weed out those associating or agreeing with polygamist or apostate groups and individuals.

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Difficult when a member of one's family is part of the following category of apostasy, isn't it?

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

Are in a same-gender marriage.

Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

What exactly counts as "support" or "affiliation" with/for a family member, to the degree where one no longer qualifies for a temple recommend?

Exactly what Emma said. Are we getting too far away from the spirit of the law? And if so, it's because we the members have chosen that.

[mgridle1]

I remember in high school in the early 90's I was taking an Anatomy and Physiology class. The teacher said there were a few gay kids in school. We were like "nah, we don't know any gay kids". Those were the days!

Are we saying that there weren't as many gays back in the good ol' days, or that they were just better about staying in the closet where they belong?

You guys might be interested in Eric D. Snider's latest column, in which he describes being gay at BYU. He's in his mid-40s now and only came out publicly a few years ago. He says he didn't even admit to being gay in his journal during college. I was there at the same time as him and was a fan of his work, and had no idea he was gay.

From his column. . . let's reword things just a bit shall we?
----------------
I did not choose to be attracted to little children. (I already knew this one.)

If God had wanted me to stop being attracted to little children in this lifetime, He’d have provided a way for me to do so.

Since He didn’t, that must mean that being attracted to little children is what God wants for me.

Ergo, I don’t need to hide my orientation from God or anyone else, or compartmentalize it away from the rest of me. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
--------------------
See. Presto Bingo, Pedophilia is now ordained by God!

Oh the devil he is a willy one.

[Sirius]

The moment any individual resorts to the, "I didn't have a choice" mantra, it's a witness they are choosing to follow the will of the flesh in that moment, not the will of God. Even the devil, through his own choice, became such.
Lehi, in chapter 2 of 2 Nephi speaks with great clarity on this topic. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2?lang=eng

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

[Lizzy60]

Those of us who KNOW that gay sex is a sin wonder how any LDS person could attend gay pride parades, etc. DO NOT forget that the leaders of the support groups for gay LDS kids and adults have come to believe that the gay sex acts are NOT sinful, and that God approves of gay marriage. Yes, it boggles my mind, but I've read their blogs, and they are very clear on this. They are telling the gay youth that they are pioneers, reserved to come to earth in these days, in order to correct the homophobic beliefs that are nothing but false traditions of the churches.